Political:

The man responsible for the formation of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, spoke forcefully in today's Courier Mail about his feelings for Cheryl Kernot... the leader who pulled a Kernot on the party and joined the Australian Labor Party. Here is what Chipp said under the heading,

"I never liked her"

I have never liked Cheryl Kernot. I have always suspected that the feeling is mutual. Looking back I have good reason to believe that she resented me for reasons that escape me. For example, why would she have agreed to deny me, a founder of the Australian Democrats, an invitation to its 20th birthday celebrations?

 Once I had left the party in 1987 I never interfered in leadership decisions, something which some former party leaders are prone to do.

But my personal feeling towards her do not diminish my admiration for the way in which she led the party.

She had an extremely high intellectual capacity, a mind which is quicker than most to grasp the political significance of any issue and a personality which contains the lethal mixture of charm, humour and coquettishness which many male opponents find almost irresistible. One of her main driving forces is a keen sense of, and a robust demand for, social justice.

Accopmpanying all these facets of her personality is a highly developed sense of her own importance. If the thickness of her skin is the measure of her toughness, she can score highly in this area also.

Although she can envisage a noble horizon for humankind in general - and for Australians in particular - she can quickly descend into a basically nasty feline mode which dismays even her closest supporters.

When I heard the announcement of her resignation  I gave her credit for an act of altruism, even though I could not agree with her stated reasons for doing it. She will lose a parliamentary pension, a well-paid leadership position and the prestige of being a big fish in a small sea with much scaring power, for the uncertainty of being a very little fish in a very big ocean.

Her stated logic and the switch escapes me. She said her decision was based on "growing sense of outrage of the damage being done to Australia by the Howard government and my concern that, from my position in the Senate, I had a limited capacity to minimise the damage".

To me, that is breathtakingly confusing.

She had a position of power where, with her colleagues, she could veto, amend or initiate legislation which could change the entire agenda of the Howard Government.

To overcome this frustration she has elected to take the extraordinary  step of removing any influence she might have over any government for at least 18 months, after which she may regain her seat in parliament and she may gain a voice in a Labor Government.

The major philosophical difference between us with the future role of the Democrats.

She wanted the party to have the numbers to govern; that is, in the Lower House. I always maintained, and still do with as much passion as ever, that no person can win and retain a seat in an Australian parliamentary lower house without compromising integrity.

There is an obsession within parties which have seats in the Lower Houses to decide matters on the sole basis of either winning votes or not losing them. When major parties make decisions on controversial issues affecting Australians, the only criterion put before the partyroom or the cabinet, as the case may be, is: what will be the political effect of this decision.

Mt dream in forming the Democrats was that the only yardstick a politician should use should be: is it good for Australians?

  It will be a different life for Kernot under Labor. I am bemused as to how - after assuming 17 years of this Democrat moral imperative of voting according to conscience and reason - she will sign a Labor pledge to vote for all majority decisions of caucus, whether she agrees with them or not, or face immediate expulsion. No party, no person can succeed in Canberra without constantly practising loyalty to colleagues.

I still have difficulty comprehending the fact that although Kernot had been in deep, intimate and meaningful conversations about defecting for the last three months, she did not tell her colleagues until the deed was done and announced.

What a bastard of a thing to do.