Liberal Party of Australia

Origins

Early Party Politics 1901-45

Early part of 20th Century Australian party politics was dominated by Labor and Non-Labor parties. Apart from the Country Party (which represented small rural farmers) – Australian parties were organised along “Labor” and those “opposing Labor”

Origins

The non-Labor side suffered at the hands of the ALP’s early success and realised it needed to organise to oppose Labor’s socialist ambitions.

Employer groups became organised and supported parliamentary opposition to “organised labour”. They supported various parliamentary groups (often former enemies) to group together to oppose Labor.

Origins

The first non-Labor party was the Fusion Party (as the name suggests – a grouping of former opponents) to oppose the ALP in parliament; it became the original Liberal Party (not the current one) from 1910-17

“Liberal” was chosen as the name because the party stood for the individual (the philosophies of economic and social liberalism – 2 strands of liberalism that still cause tension in the modern party) and was opposed to “state power” (something the ALP wanted to use to reform society)

Non-Labor parties formed from these parliamentary groupings – thus they were cadre parties

Early Organisation

The non-Labor parties were characterised by loose organisation and a weak link between the parliamentary wing and the extra-parliamentary electoral organisation

Policy was set entirely by the parliamentary members within parliament. There was no pledge to support the party in parliamentary votes supporting the belief that individuals should make own judgements (a feature of modern the Liberal Party that allows for “backbench revolts”)

Early liberals believed that parliament had just won power from monarchs outside parliament – they weren’t going to surrender power to parties outside parliament

Summary of Early Years

Differed from Labor in attitude to the role of the state in society

Differed in origin – cadre v mass parties. Formed in response to threat from organised labour

Differed in organisation – parliamentary membership very powerful and independent

Tended to be supported by wealthy members of society who benefited from the status quo

Interwar Years – Two ReformationsReformation 1

Wartime ALP Prime Minister Billy Hughes left Labor (crossed the floor) with some of his senior minister, joined the non-Labor opposition, formed a new non-Labor government and a new party – the National Party.

The issue that caused this was conscription in World War One, which the ALP opposed but Hughes and the non-Labor side supported.

Interwar Years – Two ReformationsReformation 1

ALP identified as the party of Australian independence

Non-Labor parties identified as the imperial loyalists

Nationalist Party identified with protestants – supportive of Britain

ALP identified with Catholics – less sympathetic to Britain

The Russian Revolution spread fear across the Western World about socialism and made it easy to associate communism with Labor. This sharpened the distinction of the Nationalist Party and other non-Labor parties

Interwar Years – Two ReformationsReformation 2

1931 defection of Joseph Lyons (ALP Senior Minister in the Scullin Government) from the Labor Government over financial policies (Great Depression was at its height)

Lyons was convinced by non-Labor side to form a new non-Labor party– United Australia Party (UAP)

UAP won 1932 election and governed until 1941

Lyons died in 1939, his deputy, Robert Menzies became UAP leader & Prime Minister – as WW2 began

Interwar Years – Two ReformationsReformation 2

UAP under Menzies had bad relations with coalition partners and lost the confidence of the House. Labor, under Curtin, formed the wartime government.

1940’s became a “Labor Decade” and the non-Labor parties were in the political wilderness.

1943 election was won by ALP but the non-Labor vote was split between many parties and independents (there was no unity on the non-Labor side of politics)

Interwar Years – Two ReformationsReformation 2

This lack of unity lead non-Labor politicians – lead by Robert Menzies, to form the Liberal Party of Australia (LPA)

All non-Labor parties (except the Country Party) voluntarily disbanded and amalgamated into the new LPA

It has lasted 50 years +. No other non-Labor party lasted more than 15 years

Why has it been so successful?

LPA Organisation

The new party modelled the organisational strength of the ALP to overcome the problems of the weak organisation of all the early parties

The new LPA structure closely mirrors that of the ALP.

• The LPA has branches (like the ALP)

• The LPA has State Divisions lead by State Councils (like the State Conferences of the ALP).

• It has a Federal Division headed by a Federal Council composed of delegates from the State Councils and the Federal Parliamentary leadership (like the ALP National Conference)

• A Federal Secretariat coordinates, researches, publicises and assists the Federal Parliamentarians (analogous to the ALP National Executive)

LPA Organisation

It is different from the ALP in 4 key ways…

1. It is strongly federalist – the Federal Division could not (until 1994) interfere with the State Divisions decisions. Thus State Divisions are far more autonomous than ALP State Conferences

2. The Parliamentary Wing is the engine of policy, not the Federal Conference. ALP policy is set outside parliament by National Conference. This is especially so when the LPA is in government. When in Opposition, the extra-parliamentary party asserts itself more strongly

LPA Organisation3. Liberal Prime Ministers are more powerful than Labor Prime

Ministers

Liberal PM’s are not bound by the Party Room (Liberal equivalent of Caucus) and they may select their own ministers. The Party Room cannot veto Cabinet

ALP PM’s are tied to Caucus, which can veto Cabinet decisions and select the members of the Ministry (the PM can choose which portfolios each minister gets but can’t choose who will be a minister)

4. It is more tolerant of internal dissent. This has roots in the cadre nature of early parties and the belief in individual choice (which applies to a limited extent to backbenchers)

Backbenchers have a Greater Role

This has become increasingly important with the Parliamentary dominance of the Party at present. Some argue that Coalition backbenchers have replaced the Opposition as a check on executive excess.

“Ginger Groups”, groups of backbenchers who pressure the Gov’t on issues, are becoming more common. Tax and Immigration are 2 recent examples

LPA Organisation

Dependency on strong leadership…

Because of the dominant role of the PM in the LPA its success depends on having an electorally successful leader. Robert Menzies and John Howard are examples

When it has poor leadership, the LPA fails. John Hewson and Andrew Peacock are examples

The ALP is less dependent on the character of its leader

Whose the Next Electorally Successful Leader?

LPA 1945-1972

LPA philosophy was “social liberalism” – an idea that accepted a role for the government in minimising the negative impacts of unconstrained capitalism

Thus the LPA agreed with the ALP to some degree on the role of the state. It disagreed as to the extent of the government’s role

The LPA saw a greater role for private enterprise

“Social liberalism” is today associated with the “Wets”

LPA 1945-1972

LPA governed for 23 years due to…

1. A prolonged post War economic boom. Most voters saw no reason to change

2. Cold War fear of communism – with which the ALP was tainted

It lost office in 1972 due to economic downturns, social change (a move away from conservatism in society), leadership instability and the rise of a resurgent ALP under Whitlam

LPA 1972-1983

LPA didn’t adapt to Opposition well – seeing itself as the “natural party of government”.

In government again from 1975 to 1983 the LPA, under Malcolm Fraser, was very static – not undoing Whitlam’s reforms nor pressing ahead with any ideas of its own – it achieved little

It was a period dominated politically by “social liberalism” and economically by stagflation (high inflation and high unemployment

Wets v Dries

The economic problems were blamed on “social liberalist” economic policies.

This led to a revival of “economic liberalism” - the belief that the economic problems facing Western countries were due to the large size of government.

Economic liberalism argues for a small role for the government. It is also known as “economic rationalism”

“Economic liberalism” is today associated with the “Dries”

RESULT = tension in the LPA between the “social liberals” (Wets) and the “economic liberals” (Dries)

Wets v Dries

The argument within the party over social versus economic liberalism was destructive

Because the leader is so important in the LPA he determines policy and it is hard to disagree with him without being “disloyal”. The result was bitter in-fighting in the LPA The ALP can resolve policy conflict via a Caucus debate and vote

In the 1980’s the social liberals (Ian McPhee etc) were defeated and driven out of the party. When John Hewson went to the 1993 election with the “Fightback” package of economic policies it was the high point of the Dries in the LPA

Wets v Dries

“Fightback” caused the LPA to lose the unlosable 1993 election (Labor’s victory of the “True Believers”)

There were recriminations and accusations in the LPA, more leadership instability and a decision to abandon hard economic liberalism in favour of a more moderate philosophy

8 months after the election loss John Howard was selected (for a 2nd time) to lead the LPA

The Modern LPA

Howard came to government on the unpopularity of Paul Keating and “reform fatigue” (the people were tired of constant economic reform and change under Labor). The LPA slogan for the 1996 election was “For All of Us”

Howard promised a return to mainstream values not based ideology (such as economic rationalism). This was a return to the ideals of Menzies and appealed to reform fatigued voters

Howard’s LPA is opposed to trade unions, the feminist lobby, the multicultural lobby and the Aboriginal lobby. In this he appealed to traditional ALP voters who felt they’d been abandoned by Labor (Howard’s Battlers)

The LPA Today

After11 years in office the “return to comfortable mainstream values” has ended and the Howard government is keen to restart reforms – especially economic reforms.

Workplace reforms (WorkChoices) & the sale of Telstra are examples of these reforms

Yet there is still talk of family values and other socially conservative ideas.

Thus there is a tension at the centre of the government that is unresolved