Minor party success is a major tick for democracy

On the ABC’s Q&A on the Monday following the federal election, George Brandis, now Attorney-General said: “Major parties don’t have a complete monopoly on access to the Parliament [and] that can be a refreshing thing.”

Since the election, as a result of the way the preferential system works in the Senate, the rise of the so-called micro parties has focused a fair bit of the commentariat. Some are puzzled, others express disdain.

When the final results are declared, we can, however, give another tick for Australian democracy.

Sure, some of the senators-to-be were elected with small numbers of primary votes or were advantaged by their position on the ballot paper, but that does not matter. That is how the system works as it now stands and these senators will hold their positions as legitimately as any other in the chamber.

Of course, there have been calls to reform the system – and there is scope for improvements, but to lose the possibility of injecting new DNA into the Senate would be a retrograde move and chalk up yet another victory for the political classes.

From what I have seen so far, for instance, the senators-elect from Family First and the Liberal Democrats will make fine representatives and contribute much. They are successful in business and their party platforms are well formed. It may also be true of some of the others.

What is interesting about these two and some of the other potential senators is that in broad terms, they are sceptical of big government and government action generally. That signals something important and reverses recent trends seen in minor political groupings.

Nevertheless, the growing size and scope of government does have the feel of a treadmill that’s hard to dismount. Maybe for the established political interests, the annoyance of some mavericks in the chamber will in fact remind them of something they have lost – their connection with the people they are meant to serve.

Membership of organisations has been declining for some time and is well-documented. It has become acute in the case of political parties that are battling public disengagement in the political process. It could be argued that declining party membership means our political leaders can focus on governing unbothered by sectoral interests or the demands of the members, but I think the reverse is the case.

The interlocking of the professional political machine, the lobbyists, the pollsters and others has turned the minds of the public elsewhere.

One factor in particular that has ensured the continuation of this process is the public funding of election campaigns. Aimed principally at restricting the influence of party donors, this high-minded “reform” has broken the relationship between the professionals, party membership, and the public more generally by removing the often tiresome work of fundraising by party officials and volunteers in the lead-up to election campaigns.

One regrettable side effect is that it has also made campaigns more expensive, with costly advertising underwritten by the taxpayer.

Bruce Hawker said a few months back: “When political parties try to take shortcuts and rely too heavily on compulsory payments by taxpayers, they are being relieved of their obligation to constantly prove their relevance to those Australians whose votes they need on election day. This is a fast lane to stagnation.”

Following his role in the recent campaign as an adviser to Kevin Rudd, I wonder whether he still endorses that view. I imagine he does, and he’d be right.

The recent success of the micro parties may signal all is not lost, but regrettably some of these parties will now be eligible for taxpayer funding – and so the cycle continues.

I expect we’ll see some changes to the way voting for the Senate is organised. Adjusting thresholds and adopting different forms of preferential voting will most certainly be considered.

The members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will no doubt be sharpening their pencils. But they should scribble carefully. Reducing the opportunities for any Australian to participate in the democratic process by standing for Parliament could lead to more inbreeding in politics nationally. And that is certainly not refreshing.

Greg Lindsay is Executive Director of The Centre for Independent Studies.