Daily Kos

 For Expats and the Curious... Australia, The ‘Lucky Country&Isquo

Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 03:32:23 AM PDT

No, I do not intend to expound as in a full civics course the make-up and operation of Australian government, but as it is a staunch ally of the US, you might find some interest in it.  After all, GWB (and other presidents) rely on it; it should not, though, be taken for granted as a given that its interests are always identical with those of the US.  In that light, perhaps you should know something about it, both the nation and its government, yes?

I won’t bore you with statistics of the nation beyond a few.  And I will save those, even for below the fold, so to speak (for the sake of brevity and formatting).  Likewise, I will save any discussion of government, though in this case, I will limit such discussion to the electoral process.

Interested in the ‘Lucky Country’?  Want to know why it is lucky, how the electoral process works, some other interesting facts?  Well, the price is right, for sure ... nothing.  Just follow me for the facts (and some interpretation).’

First, Australia is a Constitutional government – the Constitution was adopted on 9 July, 1900, effective on 1 January, 1901.  Until that time, it had been a British colony, a colony of the Crown.  With its Constitution, it ceased to be a colony, per se, yet it remained a member of the British Commonwealth, which it is to this day.  The political effects of this are miniscule in this day and age, yet they were huge in years gone by; that is all beyond the purpose of this diary.

What is, IMO, important about the Constitution is that its writers had the benefit of both the British tradition and the US tradition.  It seems to me that they picked and chose what they considered the best of both, melding them into a singularly unique Constitution that has served the nation unfailingly well since the time of its adoption.

As some similarities (that can also be correlated to British roots), there are three branches of government, each of which serve in some sense as a balance to others.  As in the US, the most visible (if not dominant) is the executive, headed by a Prime Minister.  The legislative branch, consisting of a House and a Senate, the two comprising Parliament, functions with some similarity to the Congress in the US, but it has some powers and abilities that are not found in the US Constitution.

Like the British system of government, there are few impediments to the formation of political parties.  For that reason, Australia has been governed by some sort of coalition of parties (though not necessarily always).  Such is the case with the present government, headed by John Howard, in which a coalition has been effected between the Liberal Party, the National Party, and the Green Party (though the Greens are almost, for now, of negligible importance).  The Liberal Party and the Labor Party, the dominant two, neither have the electoral power at this point to  capture enough seats in the Parliament to form a government, though that could change.  If this is unclear, perhaps the next paragraph may help to explain.

A government is formed, and a PM designated, when one party or a coalition of parties achieves a majority of seats in the House and the Senate combined.  With no other intervening factors, law decrees that the PM will serve for four years, at the end of which time another election must occur.  BUT, there are two exceptions to that, i.e., the four-year term.  The two exceptions can supersede the normal four-year term, and they have occurred in the past.  Of course, these exceptions can be used to political advantage, as they have in the past and may well be again.

  1. The sitting government (essentially the PM) may call an election at any time before the expiration of the PM’s term.  The PM essentially dissolves government and secures the blessing of the Governor General (an honorific representative of the Queen) and the date for an election is set.  Now, one benefit is, once the election is called, the government is placed in caretaker mode – no new policies, no new legislation, only capable of acting independently in the case of national emergency.  That, of course, means no lame duck PM’s, no lame-duck Parliaments, no one capable of carrying out mischief between the time of calling for an election and the election plus installation of the new government itself.  Frankly, this is a sensible idea, one that was adapted out of the experience of other constitutional governments, and one that makes infinite sense IMO.
  1. The sitting government may experience a ‘double dissolution’.  This means that  government-sponsoredlegislation failed to pass in Parliament.  Yet for whatever reason, the sitting government proposed the same program or legislation, and it yet again fails Parliament.  In that case, the government is effectively dissolved and goes into the caretaker mode as described above.  The double dissolution is declared by the Governor General, and an election is scheduled.

In any event, once the sitting government enters caretaker mode and an election scheduled (which generally occurs in a short period, less than three months... though I need to look up the Constitutional take on that, I admit, the government continues to run the nation on a routine basis, just no new programs, no new legislation.

Ok, so much for the electoral process as it relates to the PM (the executive) and to government, in general.  The election process for MPs, Members of Parliament, whether members of the House or the Senate also follows a regular pattern, though not nearly so sexy:)  The key point is that there can be no executive, no PM, no formation of government at all unless one party or coalition holds the majority of the combined seats in the House and the Senate.

Now for a few asides, yes?

The Opposition Party is the predominant party that is currently not holding the sitting government.  For now it is the Labor Party.  Within the Opposition Party, there will be members designated as shadow ministers.  Their function is to remain abreast of the policies and operations of the actual government ministry that corresponds to their designation, i.e., the shadow minister for Defense, to develop opposition policy and positions relative to that ministry, and most often (though not assured) upon a change of government, to actually assume the duties of Minister of that particular portfolio.  Prior to any change of government, and assuming that the shadow minister, say of Defense, was not a member of a prior sitting government, the shadow minister is not blessed with any special expertise or experience at all, outside of the political realm.  There are other mechanisms that take care of that.

Australia is the considers itself [http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/luckycountry/ for a host of reasons].  Not the least of these is that as a continent, it is the driest of all, with less precipitation that even Antarctica or Africa.

IMO, Australia more than pulls its weight in the world community. The population (citizens) is a bit more than 20 million.  Counting legal permanent residents who are not citizens, guest workers, international students, visitors, etc., the population at any given time is about 24 million.

Australia and the US are not that different in total land area, though Australia is a bit smaller.  If only the mainlands are counted, Australia is about equal to or a small amount larger than the US.  (There is a single station -- ranch -- that is a bit larger than Texas!)

The currency is on the decimal system, though there is no Australian penny:)  Everything is rounded up or down for cents.  Coins are 5, 10, 20, and 50 cents, 1 dollar and 2 dollar.  ‘Paper currency’ (which is actually not paper) is in 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 dollar denominations. (There may, in fact, be higher denominations, but my economic status makes that a moot point:)

If you want to know other factoids, feel free to ask... I will answer, if I can.

This is dedicated to USXat... in the best of meaning and intent.  

Cheers to you all.  (Please ask any questions early and quickly, before my digeree doo dries completely!)

Tags: Australia, The Lucky Country (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 34 comments

  •  Australia also has Vegemite and Tooheys Old (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    irate, wgard, illusionmajik

    what more do you need to know?

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 03:39:03 AM PDT

  •  I forgot one other point... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    exNYinTX

    When a government is formed (as a result of election), the new government, even if a different party or coalition, legally assumes power immediately.  In practical terms, it is in place and effective within a matter or two or three weeks.  How is that for efficiency in the handover of power?  (Aussies, correct me if I am wrong on this point, please.)

    Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

    by wgard on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 03:39:13 AM PDT

  •  There is also a Governor (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    boofdah

     who is appointed by the UK -- as a representative of the Queen.

     Didn't one of the Governors have a hand in getting rid of the elected Prime Minister or whatever a few years ago.

     In other words -- how much power does the Governor have?

     Or is the position mostly ceremonial? Like when he wears that white outfit with the hat and silly feathers??

     I'm in a UK Overseas territory -- ah . . Colony -- and we have an appointed Governor plus the elected representatives (ministers) who then choose a Chief Ministers.

      Which explains my user name - Carib is a beer and Ting is a wonderful grapefruit soda.

    BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to go back and do? Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

    by Carib and Ting on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 05:10:43 AM PDT

    •  Governer General (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ppluto, wgard

      wgard mentioned the Governer General, and I think that's the person you're referring to.

      Australia's "head of state" is still the Queen of England.  Technically legislation requires royal assent (the Federal Government still calls itself "The Crown" in court cases and parliamentary bills).

      In practice, the Queen hasn't mattered since somewhere around the end of the second world war, when Australians began questioning in earnest why they'd keep putting on military uniforms and running off to Europe to fight England's wars.  Since then the Governer General has been a ceremonial position, appointed by the Prime Minister to an 8-year term.  The G-G still signs whatever Acts come out of the parliament, but the notion of royal assent is of quaint historical interest.

      Nevertheless, the Governer General is the person with the constitutional power to dissolve the Parliament and call a new election.  We often talk as if our Prime Ministers call early elections when it happens, but what actually happens is that the Prime Minister sends a request to the Governer General to ask him to do it, which he does without question because his position is largely a figurehead.  He could technically refuse, and force the Government to serve out its full four years, but what'd be the point?

      Labor Prime Minister Whitlam was dismissed by the Governer General in the 1970's.  Whitlam didn't have a parliamentary majority large enough to get his spending bills through, and after several failed attempts the Governer General used his constitutional powers to dissolve parliament and call a new election before the Federal Government ran out of money.  It was amazingly controversial at the time, and still incurs much rancour in the Labor Party to this day.

      •  I left Australia late 70s when I was 11 (0+ / 0-)

        Sir John Kerr sacking Gough Whitlam was one of the only political events I was ever really aware of while I was a kid there.  It was a big deal.

        Kerr wrote his memoirs a few years later, presumably justifying his decision.  My parents owned the book, but I never read it.

      •  Thanks for the response -- Whitlam was the name (0+ / 0-)

         Yes there is still anger about this -- some claims that the US didn't much like Whitlam.

          Where I am we have a plain old Governor -- and yes the Queen is the head of state and the Governor represents the Queen.

          A "emergency" was declared about 1996 which gave the Governor and all who followed him almost unlimited power. We mostly get the end of career types of civil serpents. (spelling intended)

        BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to go back and do? Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

        by Carib and Ting on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 05:58:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I love Australia (0+ / 0-)

    My husband is Australian, and we lived there for several years - in fact we are going back in a week for a lovely month-long visit.

    One thing you forgot that I found weird when I moved over there - voting is mandatory.  You get fined if you don't vote.

    At first I was all fired up about people having the freedom NOT to vote, but I eventually realized how this makes Australians a lot more politically aware than their American counterpart.

    Another thing is ranked voting.  Never having voted there myself, I don't quite understand how it works, but apparently if your first choice loses, you get to designate who your vote goes to instead.  So you could say you vote for Gore, but if he doesn't garner enough votes to win, then your vote goes to Edwards.  Sounds like it must be a nightmare in tabulation, but pretty cool nonetheless.  It would certainly fix the Nader phenomenon here.

    •  Voting isn't mandatory (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      HollywoodOz, ppluto, wgard

      Turning up at a polling place to have your name ticked off on the electoral roll is mandatory.

      Voting isn't.

      There's no reason why you can't turn up, get your name ticked off, then leave.  But hardly anyone does this.

      Think for a moment about the difference it'd make to the US political system if there was no need for GOTV campaigns, and if 100% of minorities routinely voted...

    •  Preferential voting (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wgard

      This one deserves a whole comment to itself:

      Another thing is ranked voting.  Never having voted there myself, I don't quite understand how it works, but apparently if your first choice loses, you get to designate who your vote goes to instead.

      Preferential voting, it's called.

      There are two seperate federal elections carried out on polling day:  One for the House, and one for the Senate.

      The House vote is preferential.  You get a small piece of paper with each of your local candidate's name and party affiliation printed on it, and you put a number in a box next to each candidate's name to rank their preferences.  The one you want most gets a "1", the second preference gets a "2", and so on.

      When the votes are counted, all the "1"'s are added up.  If that means a candidate gets a simple majority, the election is over, and that candidate has won.

      If, however, nobody has a clear majority, then the election "goes to preferences".  2nd-preference votes for each candidate are added to their totals by recounting all the ballots, only this time paying attention to the "2"'s.  If, at the completion of that count, someone has a clear majority, the election is over.

      This process is repeated until all the preferences are used up.  If the election is so amazingly close that there's still no winner, the election result is voided and a new election ("by-election") is called for some later date for that district.

      The other election on polling day is for the Senate.  That uses a completely different polling technique, called Proportional Representation.  It's too complicated to describe in a comment (it probably deserves its own diary), but it basically means that if a Senate candidate/party inside a given state gets n% of the vote, they'll end up with approximately n% of the Senate seats in their State.

      All votes in Australia are on pieces of paper marked with a pencil.  The marks are numbers in boxes.  They're all counted by hand by electoral workers at each polling place, with the results transmitted to a tally centre in each state, which in turn reports to a national tally centre in Canberra.  Because each polling place counts its own votes, each team usually has less than 10,000 votes to count, which makes recounts a relatively small task, and means that results are reasonably quick to obtain.  Unless an election is amazingly close, we end up knowing the result of the House election (which determines the Prime Minister) by 10pm on the night of the election.  The Senate election usually takes a few days to get a definitive result, but reasonably reliable indicative results are known by the time the House result is called.

  •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

    A nice summary about a country I knew little about.

  •  great country (0+ / 0-)

    I took two long solo vacations to Australia in the late 1990s, traveling to all the major cities except for Canberra.  I remember the first time especially vividly, because it was my first solo vacation, to a place where I knew no one, and ended up being the best trip I have ever taken in my life.  (I highly recommend going to the Melbourne Cup horse race, on the first Tuesday in November.)  The people had an honest friendliness, not like here where amiability is just evangelizing, networking or warming you up for a sales pitch.  Of course, this was pre-Bush, when being an American meant you were a fun curiosity rather than a presumptive arrogant idiot.

    Some of my more enlightening conversations were with cabbies.  When I asked one what he thought about the then-pending proposal to turn Australia into a republic, he yelled "well I don't give a f__k!!!"  I asked another what he thought about the Lewinsky scandal, and he asked why that should matter to Americans.  A third, talking about his affection for Alice Springs, said that he had visited the city on holiday sixteen years previously, and "knew within two hours of arriving that I WOULD NOT BE RETURNING TO MELBOURNE."  He had had friends pack up his Melbourne apartment, and ship everything to the outback.

    My vote for the beer is Carlton Cold-Filtered.  After I mentioned to one Australian that Foster's was popular in the U.S., he wrinkled his face and remarked "that's the piss we export."

  •  Thanks for the Info ... (0+ / 0-)

    I'm packing tonight to spend a month in New York. I'll get to see my daughter, and my partner will be working on her oceanography research at Columbia. She'll be joining me in a couple of weeks as she's in Sydney taking a class and from there will be going to Perth and Hobart. I'm looking forward to the next 48 hours in airplanes, etc.

    I can't wait to get back! I'll miss James Squire. That beer is great. I'll also miss the money. It has plastic in it so you can't pass through a color copier and print your own.

    And what happened when the Governor, I think, who disolved the government. I saw a reference to it in the National Museum butdon't know the details.

  •  I'd love to visit there (0+ / 0-)

    I remember a Masterpiece Theater show: A Town Called Alice.  I've always wanted to go there.  

    War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

    by Margot on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 08:59:47 PM PDT

  •  A few fact checks.... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Roger Lamb, ppluto, wgard

    OK, this is my first ever comment on any diary on DK, but given the factual errors on here I feel obliged to say something.

    Firstly, in terms of the party structure, the Liberal Party and the National Party are part of a coalition, and have been for at least 20 years.  Both are centre/right.  In a lot of ways they are essentially the same party, with the Nationals mainly concentrating on rural areas.  The Greens are not part of this coalition, and any suggestion that they are would be about as offensive to a genuine Greens supporter as suggesting that Al Gore (the new Al Gore, not necessarily the one that ran in 2000) is actually a Republican.

    Secondly, there is no requirement for a party to have a majority in the senate in order to form a government.  For the first three terms of the Liberal/National coalition government (starting 1996) they did not have control of the senate, and were able to pass legislation only through the support of minor parties (generally the Australian Democrats, a small centre-left party).  The fact that they currently do has allowed the government to pass some legislation that they would otherwise have been unable to do.

    Thirdly, government terms are for 3 years, not 4.

    As an aside, it is worth noting that one of the fundamental differences in voting between Australia and the USA is that Australian voting is compulsory, and preferential.  The main affect of this is that it encourages the two major parties to jostle for the middle ground, there is no need to appeal to the 'base' or have major GOTV programs.  Votes from the 'base' will come home in any case (even if someone originally votes for a minor party), while those of the centre are where an election is lost or won.

    Apart from that, nice to see one of the key members of the Coalition of the Willing (what, you didn't realise?  We have over 100 troops in Iraq...) getting some airtime on here.

  •  Election attitudes (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ppluto, wgard

    Another thing an American would find strange about Australian elections is the attitude of the candidates.

    American candidates hold these big conventions where they're standing on stages with balloons dripping from the eaves, smiling, cheering, and carrying on about how great they are, how messed-up their opponent is, and how much they're going to kick the other party's ass.

    Australia has a different psyche:  We have this thing we call the Tall Poppy Syndrome, where people who appear to be trouncing the opposition are likely to attract derision and cynicism (more than usual).  An Australian politician will tend to be a lot more publically subtle than an American one, and will tend to portray himself or herself as an underdog.

    When an Australian candidate is interviewed and the presenter mentions favourable poll results, the candidate is likely to give the kind of answer Cheney gives when someone brings up his awful poll results:  That you can't trust the polls, and the only poll that matters is the one on election day, and it's currently too close to call, and the opponent is running on some strong issues which are proving very difficult to counter, and...

    The contrast between American campaigns and Australian campaigns needs to be seen to be believed...

    •  I have seen it... (0+ / 0-)

      And I DO believe it.  Australian candidates will, when questioned directly, address issues squarely.  On the other hand, when not under pressure, they (with the possible exception of Latham) do not seem driven by hubris and self-aggrandizement, but generally behave in a more understated manner.  At least that is my impression.

      I am enjoying your insights, for sure.  Ta:)

      Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

      by wgard on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 10:22:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  talking about differences in candidates (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wgard

      Our Prime Minister in the 80's, Robert "Bob" Hawke, is a great example of the differences in the Australian psyche.

      Elected for at least 3-4 terms (over 10 years) the Silver Budgy, as he was affectionately known, was:

      • the leading Union official in Australia before becoming Prime Minister
      • a Rhodes Scholar
      • holder of a Guinness Book of records' world record for his speed in drinking a yard of beer
      • a reformed alcoholic
      • an adulterer who confessed, whilst in office, to having affairs
      • father of a heroin addicted daughter who was caught shoplifting whilst he was Prime Minister

      And a very respected Prime Minister who didn't lose an election - lost his place as Prime Minister mid-term (yes our Prime Minister's can be replaced without an election if they lose the support of their party in house).

      Or the person who replaced him (my personal fave) Paul Keating.

      • left school at 16 and worked in the unions
      • a lover of Zegna suits and ancient clocks
      • married to a foreigner (the horror)
      • incredibly erudite, arrogant and acerbic
      • was quoted as calling Australia "The Arse end of the world" amongst some of his more favourite aphorisms. (another fave is is dismissing John Howard "Lazarus with a bypass")

      These people would never get elected in the US - and unfortunately have been replaced by provincial suburban lawyers like John Howard.

      •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

        I, too, am grateful that Australians accept a more colorful life and past in politics... as opposed to everyone having to be a devout evangilical convert:)  (Not that the professed faith has very much to do with the actions, once one is elected, yes?:)

        People with 'feet of clay' tell me one thing foremost... that they are, in fact, people... REAL people.  OMPOV, mind you.

        Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

        by wgard on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 02:18:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No separation of powers (0+ / 0-)

    One thing that Australia and other parliamentary systems lack for the most part that is one of the foundations of the US Constitution is separation of powers and checks and balances.  Our framers deemed them necessary to prevent tyranny, and yet so far as I can tell, parliamentary democracies don't seem that much more prone to tyranny than the US.  Do they?

    •  I am interested in why... (0+ / 0-)

      You say there is no separation of powers?  In the case of Australia, no checks and balanceds? They may not be spelled out in the same way in the Australian Constitution as in the US Constitution, but as a practical matter, there IS a separation of powers and there are checks and balances, perhaps more effective and more responsive than even in the US.

      Remember, to remove a president in the US, impeachment is required.  In Australia, only a double dissolution is necessary to trigger an election.  And that take little time at all, relatively.  There are other dimensions, of course, but that is one of the remedies.  And certainly the High Court can nullify laws or portions of them... which is binding on the government.

      I have other thoughts on that, as well, but perhaps they are best left unsaid, for present:)

      Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

      by wgard on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 01:18:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •   Prime Minister's can also be replaced... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        wgard

        Without elections.  Since they hold office based on the support of the members of the House, if they lose the majority of these votes they can be replaced with another member of the House - no election required.

        Happened with Bob Hawke and will probably happen with John Howard - though we can never be sure since he's a smart bugger (like a cockroach really)

        •  Yes, I realize that... (0+ / 0-)

          But it is a rare occurence, not the norm.  I did not try and enumerate all of the possible permutations, only the ones that are most likely.

          As to whether it will happen to Howard, well, who knows?  You compare him to a cockroach, but then, cockroaches are the ultimate survivors, maybe?:)

          My own personal opinion is an aside here, so I will leave it at that.  But, at least Australia has never had to suffer (nor ever will, I think) a George Bush!  

          Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

          by wgard on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 02:23:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Official Secrets Act? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ppluto

      I'm not all that informed, but I have the impression the UK is arguably a bit more prone to tyranny than the US.  It is the most surveilled society in the West with cameras on city streets everywhere.   http://digital-lifestyles.info/... I saw something on TV about face recognition technology and they showed how at least some of these cameras are hooked up to computers which match faces against files of wanted people and tip off police whenever a wanted individual uses the Underground or walks down a major street, which kind of creeps me out.  May be  going on everywhere but the British seem to have bought into it whole hog.  And didn't Margaret Thatcher abolish the local government of London when it displeased her?  I don't know the details but can you imagine if Bush could do away with the government of NYC?  (Of course the local gov't of Washington DC is treated like a colony...)

      Britain has a long tradition of noblesse oblige and a professional Civil Service with a certain ethos and these probably work to restrain abuses of power at the lower levels.  And the ability to bring down a government and force elections, or to force the leader out (as happened to Thatcher) is probably one of the strongest limits to abuse at the top, although both these things leave plenty of room for the petty tyranny that actually affects most people in a poorly governed country (bad policing at the street level, etc.).

      Unfortunately the last 6 years in the US show how little laws and constitutions matter if you have a disciplined cadre of people who want to subvert them.  The Bush admin's position has been basically that laws are for little people.  Now that their coalition is collapsing it's morning in America, I hope, but I think we narrowly missed something much worse...

      Everyone complains about his memory, but nobody complains about his judgment.--Francois de La Rochefoucauld

      by Turquine on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 07:29:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 34 comments