Liberal Movement (Australia)

The Liberal Movement (LM) was a South Australian political party which existed from 1973 to 1976, and was a forerunner to the Australian Democrats.

The LM was initially organised in 1972 by former premier Steele Hall, as a progressive liberal group in the Liberal and Country League (LCL), in response to a perceived resistance to reform within the LCL. When tensions heightened between the LCL's conservative wing and the LM after the March 1973 state election, some of the members split from the LCL, forming a new party on 2 April 1973.

While still part of the LCL, the LM had eleven state parliamentarians. On its own, it was reduced to three parliamentarians − Hall and Robin Millhouse in the lower house and Martin Cameron in the upper house. At the 1974 federal election Hall won a Senate seat and David Boundy retained his South Australia seat for the LM. At the 1975 state election, Millhouse and Boundy retained their seats, while John Carnie won a second seat and Cameron retained his seat in the upper house, bringing the party to a peak of five parliamentarians.

However, the LCL and LM parties narrowly failed to dislodge the incumbent Dunstan Labor government at the 1975 state election. That result, together with internal weaknesses, led in 1976 to the LM's being re-absorbed into the LCL, which by then had become the South Australian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia. The Liberal Party also lost the 1977 state election, but succeeded in winning government at the 1979 state election.

A segment of the LM, led by former state attorney-general Robin Millhouse, did not rejoin the Liberals, but instead formed a new party—the New LM. This party, combined with the Australia Party—under the invited leadership of Don Chipp—formed the nucleus of the Australian Democrats which aspired to a balance of power in the federal Senate and up to four state upper houses for three decades. The LM and its successor parties gave voice to what is termed "small-l liberalism" in Australia.

Party system Before parties became established in the Australian colonies in the later 19th century, all members of the colonial parliaments were independents, occasionally labelled as "liberal" or "conservative", amongst other terms.Jaensch (1986), p. 179 With the advent of Labor, these groups combined to form anti-Labor parties.Jaensch (1986), pp. 180–190 "Liberal", in the Australian context, refers to what could be described as classical liberalism, and is distant from the modern meaning that the word has acquired in the United States and some other countries.Parkin, Summers and Woodward (2006), pp. 1–15, 207–209 Liberalism in Australia represents the centre-right of the political spectrum, while Labor represents the centre-left.Parkin, Summers and Woodward (2006), pp. 207–226

The first Labor party in South Australia was the United Labor Party in 1891, born out of a trade union association that recommended and supported trade unionist candidates.Jaensch (1986), pp. 180–181 In response, the National Defence League (NDL) was born two years later.Jaensch (1986), pp. 181–182 In 1909, the NDL combined with the Liberal and Democratic Union and the Farmers and Producers Political Union to form the Liberal Union, later known as the Liberal Federation.Jaensch (1986), pp. 226–228 The ULP transformed into the Labor Party in 1910, and has been known by this name ever since. A separate Country Party subsequently emerged, representing rural interests,Jaensch (1986), pp. 384–386 but this was assimilated back into the conservative side of politics with the formation of the Liberal and Country League (LCL) in 1932.Jaensch (1986), p. 382 The South Australian party system has not deviated from this two-party divide, and all other parties gained negligible representation or influence,Jaensch (1986), pp. 497–498 until the emergence of smaller parties such as the Australian Democrats in the late 20th century, and the Greens and Family First Party in the 21st century.Tilby Stock (1997), pp. 194–202

Liberal representation Political scientists Neal Blewett and Dean Jaensch characterised the LCL as a strange amalgamation of differing groups: "the Adelaide 'establishment', the yeoman proprietary (farmers and regional workers), and the Adelaide middle class".Blewett and Jaensch (1971), pp. 8–9 Of these groups, the middle class was the most electorally depressed, both in parliament and within the party itself, owing to a 2:1 ratio favouring regional areas both in electoral legislation and the party organisation. The establishment influenced the party with its financial backing, while the yeoman proprietary was the most numerous. Only in 1956 did the urban middle class achieve parliamentary representation through Robin Millhouse, who was elected to the urban middle class seat of Mitcham.Jaensch (1997), p. 37

Millhouse was a vocal advocate of his broader constituency, championing their case in a party dominated by rural conservatives. He wrote a paper on the 'Liberal Case for Electoral Reform', arguing for a fairer electoral system, as it was biased against voters resident in the capital city, Adelaide, whether they be progressive or conservative, Liberal or Labor.Jaensch (1997), p. 38 Many younger urban middle class voters, who would have normally been attracted to the LCL, were abandoning the party for Labor owing to their dissatisfaction with the malapportioned electoral system known as the 'Playmander'.Jaensch (1986), pp. 253–259 But this concerned the rural conservatives little, who hoped to retain their hold on power through the present system, which included a Legislative Council where suffrage was based on land ownership, resulting in a body dominated by the ruling class and the rural landholders, and a 16–4 LCL majority. Millhouse's paper was quickly ignored.

The LCL had governed, primarily under the stead of Sir Thomas Playford, for 32 years, and finally lost to Labor in 1965.Jaensch (1986), p. 488 A year and a half later, when Playford retired, Steele Hall was elected to replace him. A young farmer from a rural constituency, Hall had never conflicted with the party line, and was expected to uphold the existing LCL principles, having spoken out in support of the Playmander and the restrictive Legislative Council before.Jaensch and Bullock (1978), p. 11 However, when the LCL was returned to office in 1968 under his leadership, with the help of malapportionment, Hall was under pressure. Labor had led the LCL 52.0 to 43.8% on primary votes, but owing to the Playmander, both ended with 19 seats and an independent supported the LCL and returned them to power. Large protests against the Playmander broke out, and there were strong calls for reform.

The LCL had routinely ignored such protests before, but Hall's course differed from what was expected. He appointed Millhouse his Attorney-General, and continued a raft of social reform that had begun under the previous Labor government.Jaensch (1986), pp. 299–300 This was opposed by some conservatives within the party; lines began to be drawn, and factions began to appear. Hall commented in the party's newsletter that "too many people see the LCL as a party tied to conservative traditions. We must show voters that we can move with the times, that we are 'with it'."Jaensch (1997), p. 39

Electoral reform The level of malapportionment had grown to a level in excess of 3:1 in favour of rural areas, and Hall, having won the 1968 state election on 46 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote, committed himself to a fairer electoral system.Jaensch (1986), pp. 297–298 Previously 39 members were elected: 13 from metropolitan Adelaide and 26 from the country. Hall's first attempt for reform was a system with 45 seats and 20 from the country; this proposal received scorn from both Labor and the rural councillors, and was seen as not going far enough by the former and going too far by the latter. A second proposal, for 47 seats with 19 in the country, was adopted with bipartisan support in the House of Assembly, but encountered opposition in the Legislative Council. The new system would make an LCL win near-impossible at the coming 1970 state election, and Hall and the LCL were aware of it. For his weakening of rural constituencies, Hall became an enemy to those councillors who stood in defence of the previous system.Blewett and Jaensch (1971), pp. 184–187 Hall saw the political situation as untenable and felt the LCL needed reform to cope with the removal of an artificial situation.

Labor's leader, Don Dunstan, also introduced a bill for reform of the Legislative Council, which sought to remove its wage and property based qualifications and instil adult suffrage. Hall himself stated he would approve the bill if it included a clause guaranteeing that the Legislative Council could only be abolished through a referendum. Dunstan agreed, but Hall's own party split on the issue. The bill passed the House of Assembly with Labor support, but failed in the Legislative Council where the LCL's rural conservatives dominated its restricted electoral base.Dunstan (1981), pp. 161–162Jaensch and Bullock (1978), pp. 18–21

Behind the votes in parliament was a personal antagonism between Hall and Ren DeGaris, the leader of the LCL in the Legislative Council. DeGaris, who was elected to the council in 1962, was a staunch defender of its franchise and electoral boundaries. The two were the de facto leaders of the party's two factions; Hall represented the urban-based progressives, and DeGaris the rural-based conservatives.Jaensch and Bullock (1978), pp. 15–16 The conflict between the two extended beyond politics and on to a personal level,Jaensch and Bullock (1978), p. 21 contributing to the polarisation of views within the LCL and making it difficult for an internal compromise to be reached on the issue of electoral reform.Jaensch and Bullock (1978), pp. 18–23

After the LCL lost government in 1970, primarily owing to the electoral reform, Hall managed to be re-elected as leader. He convinced a majority of the party's membership that reform was needed, and sought to remove the influence that the party's representatives in the Legislative Council held. When the Dunstan government again introduced a bill to introduce universal suffrage to the council, Hall gained the support of 7 out of 20 members in the Assembly, but only 2 of 16 LCL members in the Legislative Council supported the bill.Jaensch (1997), p. 40 Internally, there was much opposition to any electoral reform when the matter was debated at party conferences.Jaensch and Bullock (1978), pp. 28–34

The conservatives then moved against Hall, putting forward party proposals to lessen the influence of its parliamentary leader. Liberal parties in Australia had long held to a tradition of the separation of houses, independence of members, and the ability of the parliamentary leader to choose his own cabinet. The rural councillors sought to preserve their power, and demanded that cabinet positions not be decided by the leader, but elected by the parliamentary party as a whole. As this would include the Legislative Council, dominated by its rural membership, Hall's support among moderate Liberals would be overwhelmed by the councillors' inclusion. Hall privately told Legislative Council Chairman David Brookman that he could not work with DeGaris and that he would resign if he was not allowed to choose his cabinet.