I wasn't going to respond to the article by Greens ex-leaders opposing members having a say on party leadership, but feel I must correct the comments on the Australian Democrats. Many factors that led to the Democrats demise. Members deciding the leadership wasn't one of them /1

The article explicitly links the Democrats demise to the party leadership being elected by its members, & says the Democrats membership & MPs “were often in conflict over who should lead the party.” This is just not the case. It happened once in 1999, relating to the GST /2

when a majority of Democrat MPs decided to support the Howard govt to introduce the GST. Refusal to accept deep upset of many members led to the membership deciding to back Natasha Stott Despoja over Meg Lees for the leadership in 2001- in part a proxy vote on the GST decision /3

I think it’s obvious they were right to do so. Few observers would dispute that this saved the party some seats at the subsequent federal election. I’d also be surprised if many Greens voters, then or now, thought that enabling John Howard to implement the GST was a good idea. /4

Instability in Democrats' leadership over their 30 year life arose not from members being able to vote for their Leader, but from people refusing to accept an outcome. As Abbott, Rudd & others have shown, that can cause havoc in any party, no matter the decision making process /5

The Democrats also had a (crazy!) provision where just 100 members could spill the leadership. This not part of the proposal Greens members are being asked to support & not used by any of the many Greens parties worldwide that give their members a say in their leadership /6

Greens in Australia often state with pride that they are part of a global network of Green parties, some of which play major roles in national & regional governments in countries as diverse as New Zealand, Germany, Finland and Sweden. /7