In 1981 Senator Colin Mason outlined the governing philosophy of the Australian Democrats as a minority party holding the balance of power in the Senate. This is the early Democrats philosophy which was guided by Chipp's belief of keeping the bastards honest. Later Democrat balances of power saw voting down money bills as being within their scope of power.
From Mason's speech on the budget;
I understand that the Australian Labor Party has suggested such a tax. It is an interesting proposition. To continue the story of the legal complexities, yesterday afternoon we received sales tax measures which impose a tax of 2 1/2 per cent, to apply from 1 January, on items hitherto exempt. This time the package contained no Bills which amended the exemption and classification schedules. We are now advised that that legislation falls in the area of legislation that the Senate cannot amend but may be subject only to the making of a request to the House of Representatives. At that stage, we re-examined the pledges made by the Australian Democrats senators in connection with Supply when they went before the people of this country and sought election to this place-as indeed the people did elect them. I should clarify, for the sake of those who may not know, that these pledges by Australian Democrats candidates were statutory declarations. We naturally regard them as being of the utmost importance and significance. The significant sections of the text reads: That I personally subscribe to and endorse without reservation of any kind, the publicly announced policy of the Australian Democrats, as stated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, the Honourable Senator D. L. Chipp, that the Australian Democrats, if gaining a position of 'balance power' in the Senate, would not use their voting numbers in such a way as to cause the blocking of supply or money Bills in a manner which would prevent the majority party in the House of Representatives from governing. That for all purposes and without reservation of any kind, I hereby declare that if elected to the Senate, I shall not cast my vote as a Senator in a manner which would be contrary to the policy of the Australian Democrats as stated in paragraph 3 hereof and thus shall never during my tenure as a Senator, contribute to or cause a situation which, through blocking of supply or money Bills might bring down the Government. Our conclusion has been that to reject and amend the Bills does not legally and directly affect the pledge that we took never to block Supply. That is a fact, and we concede it to the Labor Party, but-it is an important but-a strong case may be made that it offends the spirit of that pledge and, with honourable senators' permission, we will be the judges of that. We are the only people who will be the judges of it. We need no assistance from outside to make up our minds.There is no direct link for the speech, but it is from 26 August, 1981 Senate Hansard' "Speech: BUDGET 1981-82 > Mason Sen C.V.J.; Senator Robert Ray; Senator Sibraa; Senator Walsh; Senator Tate; Senator Harradine; Senator Ryan; The DEPUTY PRESIDENT" One of the differences between the Greens and Democrats is over the blocking of supply. The Democrats will not block it where the Greens will under extreme circumstances. Andrew Bartlett replied to an incorrect comment of mine on larvatus prodeo:
and just to correct Cam when he said "The Democrats initially had a policy of not blocking supply. They realised soon that it was their main bargaining power however when holding the balance of power." The Democrats have always maintained a policy of not blocking supply - this has not changed. I reiterated it as a key pledge just a couple of months ago. The Democrats have never been in a position to bargain with supply anyway, as no Opposition has ever threatened to oppose supply since 1975. I should note that "supply" is not what it used to be - the majority of Commonwealth spending is now via standing appropriations, which is not touched by supply Bills (usually defined as the Appropriation Bills). It would still make life very difficult for a government were supply to be blocked, but not to the same scale as 1975 - at least administratively, the effect on the markets may be a rather different matter in today's deregulated world.Interesting to hear that supply isn't what it used to be. This suggests that what happened in 1975 doesn't have the same constitutional weight as some would give it in modern political practice.
