Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make some remarks in response to the speeches by the three Democrats today and also some about Senator Nettle on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and the Rudd Labor government but more of a personal nature. This is a time for reflection on careers and contributions rather than a political analysis. It is fair to say that this is a momentous occasion in the life of the parliament and the Senate. The end, at least for the time being, of Democrat representation in this parliament after 27 years is something worth commenting on.

The history of the Democrats’ involvement and contribution to Australian politics will be written by others. I notice a great deal of media commentary around these issues in recent weeks and I am sure there will be lots more. It is worth noting that the Democrats contribution to the Senate and Australian politics was inextricably linked to the development of the role of the Senate; they went hand in hand. It was when the Democrats emerged as a third force in Australian politics and held the balance of power in the Senate that the role of the Senate and the role of the parliament changed.

Whatever one’s personal views about the Democrats or their positions on particular issues or the characters that have made up the party, there is no doubt that they changed the nature of Australian politics particularly in regard to the way the Senate operates. The Senate would not have developed the way it has and would not have developed a number of the features and strengths that now characterise the Senate if it were not for the emergence of the Democrats as a third force. Their capacity to operate in this place, to hold the balance of power on a number of occasions or hold it jointly with others saw the Senate find its feet, find its role and find a raison d’etre for it in Australian politics. It also took us away from the bitter debate of the 1975 constitutional crisis and allowed the Senate to find a positive role in Australian politics. I think the Democrats need to be congratulated for their role in that development and the significance of that role.

If you look at the development of the Senate committee system and the powerful role that plays in accountability and the examination of legislation, that is a very strong measure of how the system has changed. Of course, this also meant that the Democrats learned very strong skills not only as legislators but also as negotiators. For all their reputation as ‘pixies at the bottom of the garden’ after one unfortunate campaign, they were generally very hard-headed negotiators, very good at trying to find middle ground and very good at trying to progress their agenda while allowing governments of both persuasions to govern. It is worth noting that governments of both persuasions managed to govern effectively while the Democrats held the balance of power. There was no sense of instability in the governance of this country. That is not to say we did not have our moments and it is not to say that there were not the occasional fits of pique, hyperbole and condemnation from both major parties in all of that. But it is true to say that we had a period where the Senate was not in the hands of the government but we had stable government nonetheless.

It is true to say that the Australian public have come to like governments of both persuasions being held to account and checked by forces in the Senate other than those of the government. That balance of power politics—that check on government power—has become something that the Australian public generally support. All the surveys show that and, of course, the voting record in elections since 1980 indicate that the Australian public have supported, on most occasions, third parties—be they the Democrats, the Greens, Independents or minors—to play that role.

It is ironic that the Democrats losing representation at the 2004 election coincided with the then Howard government gaining control of the Senate. The demise of the Democrats saw the Liberal-National Party government gain control of the Senate and it is ironic that that control brought an end, in my view, to that government. Their inability to check themselves in the industrial relations arena in particular saw them lose government. You could mount an argument, if you were not the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that that might be a good thing and that maybe the coalition might still be in government if they had the benefit of someone holding their mad ideological crusade in check.