There are lessons from the pre-selection defeat, now under challenge, of ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney-General, that are of wider interest.
Some, such as the ability of local pre-selectors to displace a sitting member supported by the federal party leader (in this case Tony Abbott) and the shadow front bench, seem admirably democratic. Others, such as the small pool of party members determining future parliamentary representation in a safe seat, are problematic.
Humphries is a political veteran who has held elected office since 1989, first in the ACT Legislative Assembly where he rose to be Chief Minister and then since 2003 as Senator for the ACT. He was defeated by Zed Seselja, Leader of the Opposition in the ACT Assembly since 2007, who had the support of all seven of his Assembly colleagues. Seselja twice led his party to electoral defeat, but only narrowly lost in the October 2012 elections.
The result was in part about generational change: Seselja is about 20 years younger, though Humphries is only in his mid-50s. The Young Liberals rallied strongly around Seselja. It was also partly ideological as Seselja is probably more socially conservative, though both are best classified as middle of the road Liberals. But it was largely about conflicting aspirations and organisational power.
What stands out most is that less than 200 pre-selectors voted. Seselja won 114 to 84 amid allegations of unfairness in the process that are still being ruled upon within the party. The power of this small pre-selectorate points to a broader problem in Australian politics.
In short, while the major political parties are in decline as membership based organisations, they retain disproportionate power in determining the composition of Australian legislatures.
Political party membership has now fallen to quite low levels and the major parties are not as organisationally vital or active as they ought to be. This applies to Labor as much as to the Liberals. Not only are membership levels low, but the number of active members is far smaller than the merely nominal ones whose membership commitment generally ends with their financial support.
Yet these parties effectively select most MPs, because their candidates in safe seats are almost always elected and they share the marginal seats between them. The number of Independent and minor party MPs in lower houses is miniscule other than in proportional representation systems like Tasmania and the ACT.
The Liberals rank behind Labor in