South Australia

Feb 19, 2014

‘The day democracy died’: how SA killed micro-party dissent

South Australia's new legislation significantly raises the barrier for entry for minor parties. Liam Mannix reports at InDaily that this year's election will have a lot fewer candidates as a result.

Party registration changes approved by the major parties in South Australian Parliament have run a scythe through the ranks of the micro-parties, with many groups that contested the last election unable to stand this time. The Australian Democrats, who had representatives in South Australia’s Parliament from 1977 to 2009, won’t field a single candidate. And they aren't the only ones; micro-party political figures have estimated between 25% and 50% of previously represented parties aren’t going to field a candidate. Neil Armstrong, an olive-oil salesman standing for the Fishing and Lifestyle Party, has put up $6000 of his savings -- all of which he expects to lose -- just "for the principle to stand up and fight". The Independent Climate Sceptics won’t field a candidate either. InDaily has been told One Nation is also out. Electoral reforms passed with the support of the Liberal and Labor parties late last year dramatically increased the cost of registering as a candidate for the upcoming election. The parties say the reforms were needed to stop micro parties "gaming" the system and winning seats based on few votes. Candidates for the upper house are required to put up a bond of $3000 each, up from $450, and get 250 signatures in support of their nomination. "When [SA Deputy Premier] John Rau introduced that legislation that was the day democracy died in South Australia," Armstrong told InDaily. "To put it in fishing terms, they are a protected species, mate." Armstrong, 63, is standing against the state government’s changes to marine parks legislation. "I’m here to stick my finger up at the government, shake my fist and say you’re doing this wrong. And I’m not going to take it anymore. We have been done over by minority groups. The Greens have way too much influence over the Labor Party -- that’s how this legislation came into being," he said. Armstrong reckons that with 10% of the vote the Greens are a minority of "latte-sipping tree huggers", and he represents the "silent majority" who are too often unwilling to stand up and fight for their rights. Armstrong and his running mate, Port Lincoln tackle shop owner Damien Smart, have stumped up the money needed to nominate out of their own pockets. But Leon Ashby, a candidate in the last state and federal elections for the Climate Sceptics, hasn’t been able to find the cash or signatures. "It’s pretty ridiculous," he said. "It’s making politics elite. It’s too expensive. We didn’t have enough time to get the 500 signatures. This has stuffed us all up, so to speak." Ashby believes some 50% of minor parties have been forced out. Armstrong, who has been participating in minor party conferences, put that figure at closer to 25%. The Democrats won’t field a candidate either, national secretary Stuart Horrex has confirmed. The Katter Party, however, is expecting to field two candidates -- although head office won't reveal the names, with Bob Katter expected to be in town Thursday to announce them himself. Even the "latte-sipping tree huggers" themselves have been affected. SA Greens leader Mark Parnell -- who voted against the changes in Parliament -- says he has had to find $150,000 to get the names of 50 candidates on ballot papers across the state. “We have to stump up $150,000 cash -- or bank cheque. I think it’ll be a bank cheque," he said. Rau says he doesn't like the reforms much, but they are better than the old system -- and he hadn't been able to pass his preferred option, optional preferential voting, through Parliament. "[We] put the barrier to entry at a level which was sufficiently high to stop people who were just having a lucky dip and attempting to game the system. I make no apologies for it," he said. "If we had a first-past-the-post system I would agree with you entirely, you could embrace the old Maoist adage of let 1000 flowers bloom. Because those people who get negligible support could not possibly be elected under any circumstances. "The present system we’ve got is capable of being gamed and manipulated. Why is it democratic that one large single bloc of common thought is defeated by 100 slivers of disconnected thought?" Shadow attorney-general Stephen Wade said yesterday electoral reform originally proposed by Labor and not supported by his party would have made things far worse for minor parties. "The Liberal Party supported modest electoral reform after the last Senate election to try to reduce the risk of undemocratic harvesting of preferences," he said. "We strongly and successfully opposed Labor’s proposals that would have wiped out minor parties and effectively made it impossible for independents to be elected. We would be concerned if genuine candidates were deterred as a result of the reforms. We have committed to a review of the laws after the election." Meanwhile, the minor parties still in the game have been busily working out the complicated preference flows needed to have a shot at getting elected. Headed by Glenn Druery, the Minor Party Alliance has been meeting over the last few months in South Australia to iron out preference flows -- the idea being that if all the minors pass preferences to each other before the major parties at least one micro candidate should get up. InDaily has been told the large majority of micro-parties are involved in Druery’s meetings -- except Armstrong from the Fishers. "I play the game straight, I’m just a normal person," Armstrong said. "This gamesmanship, hell, we’ve sort of decided we want to get in on first preferences, not on everyone else’s." *This article was originally published at InDaily

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

12 thoughts on “‘The day democracy died’: how SA killed micro-party dissent

  1. J Hitman

    When I read “the day democracy died ” I expected a main headline story regarding Christopher Boyce and last night’s Dateline re that Rhodes Scholar.

  2. klewso

    The price of democracy keeps going up – soon we won’t be able to afford it at all?

  3. Hamis Hill

    Ironic that all this “killing of Democracy” with moves to restrict the number of Greens parties around Australia.
    Doesn’t seem to be stopping the likes of Xenophon, who is the de facto Democrat in SA?

  4. Hamis Hill

    Began with moves to restrict the number of Greens parties around Australia. Unable to be registered without a minimum of five hundred members.
    Certainly put a dampener on grass roots democracy, havaing to assemble five hundred like minded members in a single electorate, for example, before you could claim party member ship.
    To an extent The Greens have managed to retain single electorate groups with autonomy, while still dealing with the anti-democracy actions of the major party duopoly.
    No reason why the other micro’s cannot do the same, organise at the electorate level as single groups, and come together to deal with the imposed restrictions of the “head office” major parties.
    Ask the latte hugging tree sippers how it is done.

  5. Jimmyhaz

    A financial barrier to entry is wrong, it stands against the fundamental tenants of democracy.

    If they cared at all about democracy then they would raise the amount of signatures required, and scrap the monetary requirements. That’s not going to happen, unfortunately, this has nothing to do with pushing forward democracy, and everything to do with further entrenching the major parties.

  6. CML

    As I see it, the problems escalate when one or more of these ‘minor’ parties or individuals hold the balance of power. Witness what is going on in Victoria, where Geoff Shaw, the member for Frankston, is actually holding democracy to ransom. The situation in the lower house of the Victorian parliament is simply making the state ungovernable – unless he gets everything HE wants. Like an overhaul of the abortion laws to remove choice.
    Is that what you all think is a good thing? Well I don’t!
    The best possible solution to the ‘upper house gaming’, which is going on in all jurisdictions, is to restrict preferences to the number of seats available for election. In the federal Senate, that would be one primary vote and five preferences. How on earth does that ‘kill’ democracy?
    I say it strengthens it!!

  7. Jimmyhaz

    What’s preventing Labor and the LNP governing together in Victoria? Surely they can look beyond their own ideologies and govern together for the benefit of their constituents?

  8. Chris Hartwell

    Provided you get the moderates of the respective parties holding court Jimmyhaz, perfectly reasonable expectation. Politics seems dictated by extremes however.

  9. CML

    Well said, CH! And who started the ‘extremes’?
    He is currently the head honcho in Canberra. No prizes for guessing you-know-who!
    Jimmyhaz, I don’t see why the Labor Party should do the Cons any favours, in Victoria or anywhere else. The problem needs to be fixed properly, not just have a bandaid stuck over it.

  10. Jimmyhaz

    I’d prefer the problem to become the solution in all honesty. A parliamentary system that is more suited to a grand coalition of minor parties rather than one run by complete domination by a single ideology seems far less prone to the abuse we see in both QLD and VIC.

    I can’t see it happening though, apparently rule by anything other than a crushing majority results in mayhem and disorder. A great example of this mayhem and disorder is the Nordic countries, which, from my time spent their, did seem quite like Somalia v2.0.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details