inci sözlük yeni admin alımı

liberal movement (australia)
from wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

steele hall featured in the 1975 campaign poster.
the liberal movement (lm) was a minor south australian political party in the 1970s. stemming from discontent within the ranks of the liberal and country league, it was organised in 1972 by former premier steele hall as an internal group in response to a perceived resistance to sought reform within its parent. a year later, when tensions heightened between the lcl's conservative wing and the lm, it was established in its own right as a progressive liberal party. when still part of the league, it had eleven parliamentarians; on its own, it was reduced to three.
in the federal election of 1974, it succeeded in having hall elected to the australian senate with a primary vote of 10 per cent in south australia. it built upon this in the 1975 state election, gaining almost a fifth of the total vote and an additional member. however, the non-labor parties narrowly failed to dislodge the incumbent dunstan labor government. 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 non-labor forces again failed in 1977 but succeeded in winning government at the 1979 election.
a segment of the lm, led by former state attorney-general robin millhouse, did not rejoin the liberals, instead forming a new party, the new lm, which, 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.
contents [hide]
1 party system
2 liberal representation
3 electoral reform
4 formation
5 split
6 elections and support
6.1 federal election 1974
6.2 state election 1975
6.3 federal election 1975
7 decline
8 notes
9 references
[edit]party system

prior to parties becoming 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.[1] with the advent of labor, these groups combined to form anti-labor parties.[2] '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.[3] as a train of thought, australian liberalism has been less rooted in any defined ideology and more in pragmatism and opposition to labor. liberalism in australia represents the centre-right of the political spectrum, while labor represents the centre-left.[4]
the first labor party in south australia was the united labor party (ulp) in 1890, born out of a trade union association that recommended and supported trade unionist candidates.[5] in response, the national defence league (ndl) was born three years later.[6] in 1909, the ndl combined with other anti-labor parties to form the liberal union (later known as the liberal federation).[7] the ulp morphed into the australian labor party in 1910, and has been known by this name ever since. later a country party emerged, representing rural interests,[8] but this was assimilated back into the conservative side of politics with the formation of the liberal and country league (lcl) in 1932.[9] the south australian party system has not deviated from this two-party divide, and all other parties gained negligible representation or influence,[10] until the emergence of smaller parties such as the australian democrats in the late 20th century, and the australian greens and family first party in the 21st century.[11][12][13]
[edit]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".[14] of these groups, the middle class was the most electorally depressed, both in parliament and within the party itself, due 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.[15] 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.[15]
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,[16] as it was biased against voters resident in the capital city, adelaide, whether they be progressive or conservative, liberal or labor.[16][17] many younger urban middle class voters, who would have normally been attracted to the lcl, were abandoning the party for labor due to their dissatisfaction with the malapportioned electoral system known as the 'playmander'.[18] 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.[16]
the lcl had governed, primarily under the stead of sir thomas playford, for 32 years, and finally lost to labor in 1965.[19] 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,[16] having spoken out in support of the playmander and the restrictive legislative council before.[20] 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 due 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.[16]
the lcl had routinely ignored such protests before, but hall's course differed from what was expected.[16] he appointed millhouse his attorney-general, and continued a raft of social reform that had begun under the previous labor government.[21] this was opposed by some conservatives within the party; lines began to be drawn, and factions began to appear.[17] 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'."[17]
[edit]electoral reform

the level of malapportionment had grown to a level in excess of 3:1 in favour of rural areas,[17] and hall, having won the previous election on 46 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote, committed himself to a fairer electoral system.[22] 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 receiving scorn from both labor and the rural councillors, seen as not going far enough by the former and going too far by the latter.[23] 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 in the coming 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.[23] hall saw the political situation as untenable and felt the lcl needed reform to cope with the removal of an artificial situation.[17]

the rural conservatives, whose power was grounded in the legislative council (pictured), sought to retain their influence in both the party and the state through malapportionment in electoral districts and the lcl party organisation.
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.[17] 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.[17][24][25]
behind the votes in parliament was a personal antagonism between hall and ren degaris,[26] 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 representing the urban-based progressives, and degaris the rural-based conservatives.[27] the conflict between the two extended beyond politics and on to a personal level,[26] 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.[28]
after the lcl lost government in 1970, primarily due 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.[29] internally, there was much opposition to any electoral reform when the matter was debated at party conferences.[30]
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.[29] as this would include the legislative council, dominated by its rural membership,[17] hall's support among moderate liberals would be overwhelmed by the councillors' inclusion.[29] hall privately told legislative council chairman david brookman that he could not work with de garis and that he would resign if he was not allowed to choose his cabinet.[29]
after the parliamentary party agreed on this issue 12–8, hall resigned the leadership on 16 march 1972, stating that "i cannot continue to lead a party that will not follow; i cannot lead a party which has lost its idealism and which has forgotten that its purpose for existence is to govern successfully for the welfare of all south australians. our party is still deeply cleft by the persuasive influence of a number of its members in the legislative council."[29][31] later in the speech, he said "over the last three years i have been subject to a great deal of disloyalty on a continuing basis ... i had hoped this afternoon to move a motion of no confidence in the government; instead, i found out party had moved a vote of no confidence in itself."[31] premier dunstan, with whom hall had never had amiable relations, crossed the floor of the house and shook hall's hand in a gesture of solidarity.[32][33] hall said he "was knifed" and said the conservatives' actions were "a clear example of how deeply the wooden horses of the legislative council have entrenched themselves in the ranks of the assembly membership".[34] the lcl president ian mclachlan put on a brave face, saying "mr hall had some personal problems with the party, but these differences do not make a divided party"[35] but he was quoted the next day as saying that the proposal was mooted to gauge hall's power.[35] the obscure and low-ket conservative bruce eastick was installed as the new leader, as some more prominent figures such as millhouse were seen as too sympathetic to hall. in the meantime, there was a strong reaction to hall's departure among the public, and segments of the lcl, notably the youth wings, demonstrated against the events and made motions of objection. hall had expected to become a normal backbencher, but the groundswell of support prompted a change of heart.[36]
[edit]formation

hall initially sought to appeal to the state council of the lcl. although the body had no binding authority over the parliamentary caucus, who chose the leader, hall and his followers saw it as an opportunity for a media victory. the motion went narrowly against hall, but it generated much attention and potential embarrassment for the conservatives.[37]
after this, he thought of establishing his own separate party, citing small opinion polls that supported this action,[38] but ian wilson, the former member for the federal division of sturt, convinced him to stay within the lcl and bring about internal change.[39][40] strong support emerged from within the party for hall's stand, particularly from its youth wing, the young liberals.[41] on 21 march 1972, a faction, but closer to a "party within a party" was formed: the new liberals.[38] on 28 march it was renamed the liberal movement.[38] the conservatives strongly criticised hall and his new movement, accusing them of undermining eastick, disrupting the party and being disloyal.[42]