Australia has a new prime minister. It may have escaped the attention of some of my American readers, but this past weekend marked a federal election for Australia. Given the focus on Obama's calls to respond to outrages in Syria, and the lack of Australian news coverage in the U.S. media in general, I wonder how much screen time in America was allocated to coverage of the election. It was certainly big news where we live. I have spent the past few days undergoing a crash course in Australian politics and government. After a self-imposed three-year hiatus from politics, I have found myself drawn in by the drama even as I struggled to understand Australia's complicated voting system.
Perhaps the easiest way for me to share what I have learned is through comparing Australia to America. Before we moved here, I was vaguely aware that Australia had a prime minister, but I could not have produced a name (in fact, the prime minister changed overnight from Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard in June 2010--about four weeks before we moved here). I suspect I would not have been alone in this problem had I conducted a poll among my friends and family members. When you consider that Australia has been one of the most faithful allies of the United States, our lack of knowledge is a shame. We like Australia. We know a few things about her--- the Outback, for example, Bondi Beach, marsupials, surfing, the Great Barrier Reef--but very little about her government or her role in world affairs.
1. Voting for a party, not a president
The fact that the leader of Australia could change overnight was our first lesson in Australian politics. This is possible because unlike presidential elections in the U.S., Australians vote a party into power as opposed to a person. The leader of the party that wins a majority of seats in the House of Representatives becomes the prime minister. If the party decides to change leaders, then the prime minister can change without an election taking place.
It seemed to us back in 2010 that most Australians we talked to were somewhat embarrassed over what had happened. Fighting and strife within the Labor party led to the overthrow of prime minister Kevin Rudd when key party members switched their support overnight from Rudd to Gillard. Although the Labor party prevailed, just barely, in a subsequent election in August 2010, it never really recovered from the damage caused to its reputation by all of the in-house strife. If a party cannot govern itself, how can it govern a nation? That seemed to be the attitude going into this most recent election, an election in which Labor was soundly beaten by the Liberals, also known as the Coalition.
2. Liberal vs. Labor
Our second lesson was that the term 'Liberal' means something different in Australia than it does in America. The Liberal party is the Center-Right party in what is largely a two party government. Labor is Left-wing, with the Greens falling even further left of center. Thus when it became clear that the Liberals had won a majority of seats (i.e. when they reached 76 out of 150 in the House of Representatives), tweets started pouring in that compared Liberal leader Tony Abbot to George Bush. Congratulations alternated with dismay. Some called Abbot a compassionate conservative, while others labelled him a bigot. Reaction from world leaders and countries was equally mixed.
Sidenote: What I found fascinating while watching the coverage of the election this past weekend were the number of people who vowed to move away from Australia until the Labor party could be restored to power. Most of these devastated voters tweeted that they planned to move to either New Zealand or to Canada. Sound familiar?
3. Compulsory Voting (and Sausage Sizzles and Cake Stalls)
Another massive difference in Australian politics is that citizens are required to register, and then to vote in each election. Failure to do so results in a fine of approximately $20, and a possible day in court. This fine is enough to make most people comply (turnout rates are cited at about 90%). Voting became compulsory in 1925 after a particularly poor turnout at the polls. There is much debate as to whether being forced to vote makes Australians more involved, or less involved, in the political scene. Some of my Aussie friends feel that Americans show more enthusiasm and involvement in politics, and that Aussies are apathetic in comparison. In what little we have personally witnessed, I would say that the level of cynicism, and possibly apathy, is greater down here.
Incidentally, Australia is one of only ten countries worldwide to enforce mandatory voting.
Sidenote: Elections in Australia usually are accompanied by sausage sizzles and cake stalls. Schools frequently are polling places, and they take advantage of the opportunity to raise a little money by selling sausages and baked goods to voters.
Here are a few photos of a cake stall held at James's primary school. Cake stalls sell cakes, of course, but also flowers, produce, cookies, biscuits, and the ever-popular jelly cups (flavored gelatin in a plastic cup with chocolates or candies mixed in before it completely sets up).
4. Preferential Voting
Compulsory voting is easy enough to understand, even if I don't care all that much for the concept. I don't think it would go over well at all the United States. We value our individual freedom too much to be told that we are required by the government to exercise our right to vote. It seems contradictory to the notion of democracy. What's harder to comprehend is the idea of preferential voting. The reason for it is to allow citizens to vote for minority parties without inadvertantly helping one of the two major parties into power. With preferential voting, the voter can put a number 1 beside the preferred candidate, but then also number the rest of the candidates. In this way, if no party secures a majority, the bottom candidate gets kicked out, and his preferences to go another candidate. The end result of this system is that sometimes a candidate with a tiny amount of votes in the first round can be the overall winner through getting lots of preferences thrown his way.
As you might guess by this point, voting can be rather complicated in Australia. The senate ballot alone can be a metre long. This is because of something called proportional voting (see comment below). The list of candidates for a particular state can reach nearly 100. Very few voters go to the trouble of individually numbering each candidate, but rather vote for just one. There is also something called voting 'above the line,' meaning that the voter goes with the recommendations of the preferred party. A small percentage vote 'below the line' by carefully filling out the form in its entirety. Disqualified ballots are a common result of the complicated procedure.
5. Elections are not held on a fixed timetable
I have asked several times about when federal elections occur in Australia, but so far I haven't received an answer that I can fully grasp. (See comment below for an explanation from a reader). This may say more about my own ability to comprehend government and politics in general, but when I checked out the official Australian government's explanation of elections, it began with an apology of sorts for a system so complicated that those few who manage to understand it have long since forgotten it by the time the next election comes around. Somewhat ominously, the page is titled 'Elections: constitutional complexities and consequences.' I have linked to it in case you would like to read it for yourself. Basically elections happen roughly every three years, and elections for the House of Representatives may or may not coincide with the those for the Senate.
6. The Queen and the Australian Parliament
A final difference, at least for the purposes of this post, is that the Australian Parliament consists of two houses and the Queen, represented in Australia by the Governor General. Aside from the Queen, who is referred to as the Queen of Australia, the structure of Parliament is very similar to that of the U.S. Congress. Laws are debated and formed in the House of Representatives, which is also responsible for forming the government. The Senate, consisting of 76 members, shares the power of law making with the House. In function, the Australian Parliament is more like the British system of government.
As for my final thoughts, I must say that I prefer the total absence of political signs in front yards prior to elections--I never saw a single one. Also, the shorter lead-up time to the actual election was a relief compared to the two-year long circus now common for American presidential elections. It seems the level of backbiting, fighting, broken promises and disillusionment is similar in the two countries, but long may democracy live in both.
I have no doubt made some errors in this post--I'm hoping my Aussie readers will feel free to chime in with corrections and/or additions.
Hello! I am from Sydney and I came across your blog by accident a week ago. It's been really interesting reading all about you and your family's adventures here in Australia! I was wondering whether you would make a post about the election and I'm glad you did!
Many Alerican friends of mine were similarly thrown by the same kinds of things that you have been. As for the idea of 'liberals' vs 'conservatives' I think the US distinction is generally not replicated in other countries. I think in Austrlia, as in some other countries, the philosophical ideal of conservatism is of 'conserving' something, of gradual and incremental change rather than radical change. I suppose there is nothing inherently non-liberal about that goal.
I recall about a year ago an article in the New York Times made the point that basically the whole of Australia's political spectrum would fit roughly within the spectrum of the US Democratic Party. All our major parties support relatively high income taxes, a nation-wide consumption tax (the GST), universal public healthcare, large public spending programmes - most interesting!
There are so many complexities of the Australian system. I studied comparative law (I'm a solicitor) and when I was doing comparative constitutional law, comparing the US and Australia I found the superficial similarities to be a little misleading because so many fundamental elements are so different. I think the most fundamental difference is, as you've mentioned, Australia is a constitutional monarchy. So much that is quirky flows from this. Although, I should note here that you (like my American friends!) mistakenly have called Elizabeth II the 'Queen of England'. Actually, in the context of Austrlia, Elizabeth II is 'Queen of Austrlia' - we are a separate and distinct monarchy. In the same way, Elizabeth II is 'Queen of Canada', 'Queen of New Zealand' and 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (etc etc). One person; many crowns.
As for the other complexities, I think the big one you omitted is proportional representation. Our Senate voting is so complex because not only of we vote preferentially but we also vote proportionately, in order to elect six senators from each state (during normal elections).
As for the frequency of elections, the power to dissolve parliament lies with the Queen and her representative the Governor-General. This power is exercised when the PM advises the Governor-General to dissolve parliament and issue writs for an election. The PM might give this advice any time within a period of time that is defined in the constitution. The constitution also makes provision for special extraordinary 'double disollution' elections, which the PM can advise if certain constitutional conditions are met. This means that elections occur roughly every three years at a Federal level but the precise timing depends on when the PM decides to visit the Governor-General to advise her to dissolve parliament. The states are roughly in the same situation: the Queen is at the top, represented by a Governor and she is advised by her premier in each state. NSW, like America, has set four-year terms of the parliament but in recent years that arrangement has been criticised because when we get a dud government it means we are stuck with them for years!
It's so sad that so many Australians have little idea about how we are governed - it's so quirky and fun.
Anyway, this comment has rambled on for long enough. In short: awesome blog, great election post, hope you enjoy Australia and our quirky politico-legal system!
Posted by: Sikeli | 09/10/2013 at 10:01 PM
Sikeli,
Thanks so much for your insightful comment packed with so much information about the Australian government. It is a fascinating, and as you say, quirky, system.
Cheers, Christie
Posted by: Christie | 09/11/2013 at 11:18 AM
Here are some further points and clarifications from one of my primary sources of knowledge of all things Australian (and of many other topics as well!), David Brown:
"1. The lower house (Reps or Commons), the house of the people, is the most powerful and initiates legislation - for this reason, whomever can carry the most votes in the most powerful house is boss. The PM is not mentioned in the constitution - its simply a convention carried over from the British system - the PM is the person who carries the confidence of the house. Julia didn't any longer, so couldn't legitimately be called the leader/PM.
2. The Senate is a "house of review" and is the "States' " house.
3. Cabinet ministers are all members of either house of reps or senate - but the PM is ALWAYS a member of the house of reps.
Contrast this with US where the President initiates legislation and he and most of his cabinet are not members of congress.
4. Our system places all emphasis on the supremacy of parliament and the need for ministers and PM to be under the scrutiny of their peers in the house.
5. Our equivalent of the President is the Queen. The queen never initiates legislation - technically she can but dares never to do so for fear of upsetting parliament. In fact it is parliament who says who is queen. Ever since the revolution (of 1688) where the house of commons chose the king, our system has been an hereditary republic with a monarch appointed by parliament.
While queen Elizabeth II is ALSO the Queen of England, The Queen of England is a separate legal entity from the Queen of Australia. She signs all Bills that have been passed through both houses of parliament to make them law. (the Gov Gen signs on her behalf) While the Australian constitution gives a right of veto to the Queen, similarly to The UK it is never (and probably could never) be used. No monarch has dared use their veto since Queen Anne in 1708."
Thanks David!
Posted by: Christie | 09/11/2013 at 11:28 AM
Australians use the word "Liberal" here to mean the 19th century idea of free markets, free trade and laissez-faire, small-government policies - hence the "Liberal" party. We also use the small "l" liberal word in just the same way Americans do to mean socially progressive, libertarian, anti-traditional. The two uses of the word don't seem to get mixed up because the context of the conversation usually seems to imply if we are speaking of the political party or the "liberal" social worker who lives with her journalist life partner in an inner city urban renewal community - as opposed to the "Liberal" party's policy of cutting taxes and social security benefits. Now - can someone explain to me why the Republicans are called the GOP - I thought the Democrats were older?? hope this helps
Posted by: David | 09/11/2013 at 12:29 PM
Yes, very helpful explanation of Liberal vs. liberal. I think you have explained that to me before--possibly more than once, which shows how terrible my memory is.
As for the GOP, it was originally "Gallant Old Party" and was meant in an ironic sense. The Republicans were formed from a split in the Democratic Party sometime prior to the Civil War---but then, you probably know more about it than I do!
Here's a link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1481/why-is-the-republican-party-called-the-gop
And one more: http://www.gop.com/our-party/our-history/
Posted by: Christie | 09/11/2013 at 01:30 PM
Hi
Since, you are an expat/foreigner, I wanted you to check out http://www.linkexpats.com (networking for expatriates). I thought it might be interesting for you and your readers, maybe you can add it to your links list as well.
The website is a networking website for expatriates and foreigners. LinkExpats has already been mentioned in Mashable, Washington Post, InTheCapital and other large technology news websites.
Posted by: gb | 09/23/2013 at 12:10 PM