Replying to
@n_dimension@infosec.exchange
There is certainly a lineage, although the passage of time and in-house contentions have brought some hard lessons.
(NB the following is based on my hazy memory of events 25+ years ago. Errors are my own and not Dems policies.)
If your real question is rephrased as: Could such a travesty as a minor party allowing the passage of legislation, brought on by an elected Gov't, ever happen again? then the answer is yes. The interesting aspect is "why?"
What should a minor party do when the elected Gov't brings on legislation that the newly elected Govt promoted as a platform in the most recent election?
The answer from my perspective is that balance-of-power minors do not always have the right to assert veto over Gov't in such situations. The Howard Gov't had taken it to election, and ("sorta kinda") won. (They were still the Gov't)
This is obviously not a universal case. If a recently elected Gov't wanted to randomly go to war with New Zealand or sell Tasmania to China, clearly something has gone terribly wrong, and the way around that is a veto-vote, followed by a no-confidence type motion. But veto just to spite the Gov't? Nuh-uh.
The Dems negotiated an number of changes to the introduction of the GST, many of which are still in place today.
So my answer to your question about Aus Dems is yes,it has a great deal of shared DNA with Don Chipp's party of the 80's and 90's, but it isn't the same beast, by a long shot.
As an ordinary voter (I was not an member of the Dems back then) I voted against Howard's LNP. Still would today.
Would I vote revert back to the pre-GST system? No.
(PS: appreciate the boost, but that post was from back in January. I didn't run, because [reasons])
