Australia

Australia Will Not See Its Second Libertarian Senator

Buckley loses out to a populist, protectionist uprising.

|

Gabriel Buckley
Patrick Earl

There's some good news in Australia's final election results: Libertarian Senator David Leyonhjelm will be serving a second term. The bad news is that, now that the numbers are finally all tallied, he will not be joined by party mate Gabriel Buckley. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Australia's libertarian party, will not make further inroads in this election.

As we explained in July, Australia has just wrapped up a massive national election after dissolving and re-electing its Parliament. The country's election process is such a complicated affair (partly a preference-based system where they have several parties to choose from) that it took a month to tally all the votes. During the counting process, it appeared as though Buckley could possibly land the final Senate seat to represent Queensland.

But alas, it was not meant to be. Buckley announced last night he did not get elected. Instead another minor party, One Nation, claimed the seat. The One Nation Party, founded in 1997, stands for … well, let's just quote directly from its Wikipedia page and you can decide if its platform sounds at all familiar:

Arguing other parties to be out of touch with mainstream Australia, One Nation ran on a broadly populist and protectionist platform. It promised to drastically reduce immigration and to abolish "divisive and discriminatory policies … attached to Aboriginal and multicultural affairs." Condemning multiculturalism as a "threat to the very basis of the Australian culture, identity and shared values", One Nation rallied against government immigration and multicultural policies which, it argued, were leading to "the Asianisation of Australia." The party also denounced economic rationalism and globalisation, reflecting working-class dissatisfaction with the neo-liberal economic policies embraced by the major parties. Adopting strong protectionist policies, One Nation advocated the restoration of import tariffs, a revival of Australia's manufacturing industry, and an increase in support for small business and the rural sector

One Nation will end up seating four senators in the new Parliament. They had none in the previous Senate. They will be joining Leyonhjelm as "crossbenchers," the term for the country's legislators who do not belong to either the ruling majority (a coalition of moderates and conservatives) nor the primary opposition (labor and greens). There will be 11 members of the crossbench, which is a record. This is a bit of an irony, because Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull arranged for election reforms intended to try to reduce the number of crossbenchers. He ended up with the exact opposite.

That 11 out of the 76 senators are not members of either the ruling or opposition parties is a big deal because none of the larger parties actually has enough votes to force through legislation. The ruling Coalition group was left with just 30 seats. They're not getting anything done unless the other parties or crossbenchers support them. That means Leyonhjelm cannot simply be ignored just because he's the sole representative for the LDP. It also means the One Nation senators cannot be ignored either.

Buckley posted his thanks to his supporters on Facebook: "As always, it has been an absolute honour and a privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the highest level and we now turn our attentions to the NSW count. Hopefully David Leyonhjelm can build on his hard work from last term."

NEXT: William Weld's Troubling Praise for Supreme Court 'Idol' Hugo Black

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT, but check out this new horrifying development:
    http://wpo.st/mTSq1
    It’s shit like this that make me still think Trump could somehow win.

    1. Who didn’t see that coming?

    2. So every time I post, I commit a race crime? Good to know.

    3. EEOC cases should be determined by algorithm, not blowhards.

      Were you paid less than someone else based on something other than merit?
      If yes; remuneration, punitive damages.
      If no; fuck you, grow up.

      1. Oh really? My salary is between me and my employer (and the IRS). I don’t give a shit what other people are making.

      2. EEOC cases *are* determined by algorithm.

        Were you paid less than someone else?

        If yes; Remuneration, punitive damages.
        If no; Punitive damages.

      3. Were you paid less than someone else based on something other than merit?
        If yes; remuneration, punitive damages. fuck you, grow up.
        If no; fuck you, grow up.

    4. Eddie mentioned it last night.

      it is horrifying, and i wish there were as much pushback against this currently-institutionalized insanity as their is to the specter of an uncouth, boorish potential-presidential candidate.

  2. No one wants limited government. That’s too frightening to even contemplate. Left to their own devices, people could do things I wouldn’t like once I find out about them.

    1. ^This, freedom is frightening and confusing. Just when did liberty and freedom become outside the box extremist thinking. Yes I know before ink on the Articles of Confederation was dry. The crazy part is that liberty works on a utilitarian basis alone. /Rant.

  3. I hope for Tonio’s sake that he posted his concession announcement on YouTube while shirtless.

    1. I normally hide images at work so I unhide and YIKES. A beard-o.

      1. I know right? What do you think an Australian beard smells like? Better or worse than an American beard?

        1. I wouldn’t know because beards like that are repellent.

        2. I got this Australian beard oil with tea tree and eucalyptus in it, and it smells pretty great, so.

          1. So your beard smells like a koala fart is what you’re saying.

            1. *rises to begin thunderous applause*

    2. Thanks, Hugh. I’d certainly console him…

  4. Bad on ya mate.

  5. So One Nation is the strong, masculine, anti-cuck party, and the LDP is the party for limp-wristed globalist fags?

    1. Its Queensland, mate. everyone wears leather pants

      1. They call them, “Chaps,” there, Gilmour.) Where do you think Wez got his?

  6. Libertarians would do better if they noticed that mass immigration and multiculturalism are the main drivers of populism now, not a belief in trade barriers (though that goes along).

    Frankly, I’ve lost faith that undiluted libertarian idealism, which includes “freedom of movement,” can ever be a stable state in the real world. What happens is that the more libertarian state becomes more prosperous, which attracts immigrants from less libertarian states, who bring with them the cultural beliefs and attitudes that made their original countries less libertarian. So libertarianism is not just blocked but diluted.

    There seems to be only one way to prevent that: stop mass immigration. Why not a “libertarianism in one country” position? Yes, it’s imperfect in the dogmatic HazelMeade/Cytotoxic view, but it’s better than nothing. It’s better than the social turmoil and increased statism caused by mass immigration, which then leads to calls for trade barriers.

    1. There is a second way.

      Have a constitution that is difficult to amend (check) and actually followed (not so much).

      Libertopia would have freedom of movement and a strong, strictly constructed, clearly written, clearly defined constitution.

      1. Perhaps true, but I think that boat sailed long ago, for the US. It also ignores the social trust and cohesiveness issues that come with multiculturalism.

        1. Multiculturalism is not going to go away even if immigration does.

          1. Yet it won’t be a government program at that point. Let the best culture win.

            1. Yet it won’t be a government program at that point

              I have a bridge to sell you…

            2. Let the best culture win.

              This is, at heart, the core of an honest pro-immigration argument. People should come here not to change the culture or to become pawns in some grand vote-buying scheme, but to be a part of the culture and enrich it.

              The fact that this process has been subverted so thoroughly is a reflection of a cultural problem, represented by multiculturalism, that is not going to change just because the immigrants are removed. Leftists are more than happy to turn their guns inward.

              1. I never said “removing the immigrants” would solve the problems with multiculturalism. Just the litany of welfare laws that subsidize the worst kind of immigrant, literally at the expense of the productive segment of society and immigrantsw would go a long way. A first world economy should be attracting larger proportions of skilled workers and lower proportions of unskilled, illiterate, third worlders with no cultural connections to the place and being able to miraculously support their large families on minimum wage work, than we presently do.

                There’s a reason that the demographics of immigration have changed so drastically in the last fifty years.

    2. What happens is that the more libertarian state becomes more prosperous, which attracts immigrants from less libertarian states, who bring with them the cultural beliefs and attitudes that made their original countries less libertarian. So libertarianism is not just blocked but diluted.

      Attracting economic migrants isn’t necessarily a problem unless welfare makes it artificially cheaper for them to migrate and stay. Back before the was a welfare state, something like 1/3rd of migrants couldn’t make the cut and went back home. Nowadays, Akmed, who is illiterate in his own language, has no skills that would help to survive in an advanced economy to make enough in wages to pay for the higher standards of living, is able to migrate and stay irrespective of whether or not he offers anything to the economy. That is government directed migration, that is immigration as a government policy, apparently designed to create problems for politics to solve by creating more problems.

      1. *all while supporting his wife and 6 children and sponsoring the migration of his own 9 siblings and their families, on minimum wage.

    3. The only way I could be brought around to seeing substantial restrictions on immigration in the name of “libertarianism in one country” would be if the entire DHS was forcibly de-unionized and its employees were brought to heel on inside-the-border abuses of the rights of Americans. I’d also say that another essential condition is that CBP gets not a single penny of extra budget. You will do the job, you will do it right, and you will do it cheaply or else you will not be employed any more. The idea of the civil service as cushy jobs for bureaucrats and thugs is not compatible with libertarianism, either.

  7. What is important is to maintain the freedoms and the rights of minorities
    Greetings
    decor man

  8. I just want to thank reason for limiting themselves to 1 trump piece (so far) today.

    if we can finish the day with no more than 2, i’ll consider it a milestone achievement.

    I am sad that the Australian cowboy is not running Gaytown. Queensland? same diff.

    We may complain about out shitty 2 party system, but at least it is understandable. these parliamentary systems confuse/bore me.

    That 11 out of the 76 senators are not members of either the ruling or opposition parties is a big deal because none of the larger parties actually has enough votes to force through legislation. The ruling Coalition group was left with just 30 seats. They’re not getting anything done unless the other parties or crossbenchers support them. That means Leyonhjelm cannot simply be ignored just because he’s the sole representative for the LDP. It also means the One Nation senators cannot be ignored either.

    Well that sounds like fun. I do think (whats his name) that Nick & Matt interviewed @ the DNC… the ABC(?) political analyst? pointed out that a 3rd party in congress would only need a dozen or so seats in congress & 2-3 senators in order to be equally formidable. maybe the #s are off but his point was that rather than fuss about the presidency, the US would probably more benefit from truly independent ‘sub-factions’ in congress….

    1. Which is why voting for the Prez is actually important.

      As I mentioned in thread yesterday, for my state, 2% vote in the presidential race makes ballot access for a party trivial for the next 4 years.

      The LP has never had that, so every candidate has had to collect some large number of signatures. That large number is reduced to two.

      KY-LP could legitimately start running someone for every single seat if Johnson/Weld can break 2%.

      1. Except against Paul and Massie. No need to go there.

      2. Which is why voting for the Prez is actually important.

        As I mentioned in thread yesterday, for my state, 2% vote in the presidential race makes ballot access for a party trivial for the next 4 years.

        ?

        really? is that a common state-by-state thing, or just…wherever you are?

        I didn’t think there was such a barrier to run as “Independent” anywhere. I wasn’t talking about a 3rd party so much, mind you – just an agglomeration of independent congressfolk

        1. It varies from state to state, KY is in the middle of difficulty wise.

          To run independent or as an unrecognized party, KY requires some number of signatures to get on ballot. I think it ranges from something like 25 or 50 for small races to 5000 for president.

          If your presidential candidate got 2%+ in last election, you become a “political organization”, which then only requires 2 signatures for any race.

          At 20%+, you become a “political party” and can get state campaign funding and a state-funded primary.

          1. well that’s a thing.

            Surprised Reason hasn’t (or have they?) written an article saying,

            “Forget the Dumb Shit GJ/WW say – Its about the Bigger Picture”

            or maybe they have. and i expect there will be something in the works like that.

            1. Looking thru the rules, lots of states have similar rules, usually based on “top of ticket” instead of specifically President race. So governor or President, usually for a 2 year period.

              The threshold varies, for many states it is only 1%. Alabama it is 20%.

  9. abolish “divisive and discriminatory policies … attached to Aboriginal and multicultural affairs.”

    To be fair, their fixation on multiculti would make an American SJW blush. Their sports leagues have multiculti rounds, for example.

    1. This is that racism of lower expectations ingrained in the system; Australia simply calls it “multiculturalism.”

      Analogous: “It’s time for the 15 minutes of retard soccer everybody! Clap along with the bouncing ball.”

    2. Their sports leagues have multiculti rounds

      they pit the wogs versus the abbos?

      1. No, but the abos are given little featurettes and lots of camera time, and the all-white announcers high-five each other if the ratio of them has increased since last time… It’s really quite a thing to see.

        1. Gee, well i’m glad no one’s ever translated the word “Patronizing” into Australian English.

          don’t the abbos have some game they’re better at than everyone else? Boomeranging? competitive hacky sack? Blowgun biathalon?

          forcing them to compete in the white-man’s silly sports makes it seem like a glorified circus act.

          1. African handball perhaps?

            1. they’re Australian Aborigines, brainiac

              1. Well it’s not exactly a white-man’s sport these days. So that’s something.

                1. Being brown isn’t some magical gift that makes you good at “african sports”

                  that said… looking at clips, that looks like a fun game.

                  and – neither here nor there – i think western whites are genetically closer to African blacks than Australian Aborigines

                  there was something in that “Journey of Man” doco which talked about their peculiar strand of the human-genetic-migration

                  1. and – neither here nor there – i think western whites are genetically closer to African blacks than Australian Aborigines

                    I think everyone is closer to everyone else than Australian aborignes are to anyone. Maybe there’s some pygmy peoples in Africa or Indonesia that are similarly genetically distant, but I don’t think more so than the Aussie abbos.

                  2. The main problem with Australian Aboriginal culture is that it was essentially a stone age culture when the first whites arrived.

                    Hence, it has no real contribution to make. The only way Aborigines can fit in is by “becoming white”. There is no real way to live “Aboriginal culture” and survive without not just massive cash payments but compromises with the original culture* such that it becomes unrecognizable.

                    The Australian government first tried “teaching the black out” in the same way that northern progressive teachers (black and white) tried teaching the “geechee out” and teaching the “indian out” in the USA. the result was largely the same, broken families, social dysfunction and general resentment directed against the “do-gooders” and busybodies that wer in charge of these efforts.

                    *if a documentary on Aboriginal youth is anything to go by, Aboriginal culture today consists of youths greeting each other with fist bumps and high fives and otherwise generally dressing and acting like Black Americans that they have seen on the TV.

          2. Australian Aborigines don’t need to be helped to compete in sports anymore than African-Americans do. They are already heavily represented in “white peoples sports”, especially Rugby League*.

            *possibly because Rugby League became the “football” that was played at aboriginal schools. I have heard that someone way back decided this because it would give aboriginal youth who seemed long on physical ability and short on the intellectual kind an employment opportunity since Rugby League was the one professional sport at the time that paid players enough to live on.

  10. Ruling coalition 30
    Crossbenchers 11
    out of 76 seats, leaving the opposition with: 76-30-11=35?

    Someone has some splainin’ to do.

    1. There are two opposition parties — labor and greens. They are not a coalition, though. So the 35 votes are between the two parties (most going to labor).

      1. But couldnt they form a coalition to become the ruling party? 35 > 30 after all.

        1. It doesn’t matter, it’s the Senate.

          The government is formed in the House of Representatives.

          The Senate can block bills, it can’t change them.

          The only threat is on supply (budget) bills which must originate in the House (the OZ constitution relies heavily in the COTUS in this and most other things).

          1. As long as the Liberal/National coalition has a majority in the House of Representatives it gets to form the government. The PM must be a member of the House of Representatives, though he can appoint Ministers from the the Senate.

            The divided Parliament (Liberal/National control the House, Labor/Green, the Senate) is a problem but it doesn’t change the overall case. The leader of the majority party/coalition in the House, is the PM.

            1. IOW, in answer to your question;

              But couldnt they form a coalition to become the ruling party? 35 > 30 after all.

              the answer is: No.

              The ruling party in the Westminster system is the party that is able to maintain the confidence of the Parliament* (through actual majority, through coalition or simply because they can keep the majority vote). Canada has had all kinds of minority governments over the years simply because one party was able to get enough votes to stay in power.

              *whether bicameral or unicameral. Most of Canada’s provinces are unicameral while most of Australia’s states are bicameral.

              Both are bicameral at the federal level. Australia is unique in the “Dominions” in that it has an elected Upper House.

  11. At least he can go back to singing “Are You Ready For Some Football?”

  12. a coalition of moderates and conservatives

    A coalition of the rural-oriented National/Country Party and the larger, more urban Liberal Party. I’m not sure that “moderates” and “conservatives” are the right way to describe them.

    1. You’re absolutely right. The National/Country Party traditionally represented large landowning agricultural interests and are thus closest (in OZ terms) to a traditional British Tory party. The Liberals take their name from the 19th century British party with their free trade/free enterprise ideas. No party in Australia wanted to be the “Conservative” party with all the baggage of class privilege and royal entitlement that the term conveys.

      However in the late “40s/early ’50s”, in the face of Labor pluralities, Liberal/ Country found common groud over one issue: viz the sanctity of private property. They may have disagreed over the “White Australia Policy” and agricultural subsidies but they were united on one issue: “an Englishman’s home is his castle”, even if that Englishman lived in the antipodes.

      1. “an Englishman’s home is his castle”, even if that Englishman lived in the antipodes.

        That is one of the finest inheritances bequeathed to English speaking peoples to come out of the common law.

  13. Wikipedia page? Was it too hard to put “http://www.onenation.com.au/” on the page?

    smh

  14. i get Paid Over ?80 per hour working from home with 2 kids at house. I never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing,……… http://www.CareerPlus90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.