Australia: Professor Marian Simms Head, Political Studies Department University of Otago Paper prepared for presentation at the joint ANU/UBA ‘John Fogarty Seminar’, Buenos Aires, Argentina 26-27 April 2007 Please note this paper is a draft version and is not for citation at this stage 1 Overview: Australian has been characterized variously as ‘The Lucky Country’ (Donald Horne), ‘A Small Rich Industrial Country’ (Heinz Arndt), and as suffering from ‘The Tyranny of Distance’ (Geoffrey Blainey). These distinguished authors have all mentioned negatives alongside positives; for example, political commentator Donald Horne’s famous comment was meant to be ironic – Australia’s affluence, and hence stability, were founded on good luck via rich mineral resources. For Blainey, the historian, geography mattered, both in terms of the vast distances from Europe and in terms of the vast size of the country.1 For economic historian Arndt, size was a double-edged sword – Australia had done well in spite of its small population. Those commentatories were all published in the 1970s. Since then much has happened globally, namely the stock market crash of the eighties, the collapse of communism in the late eighties and early nineties, the emergence of the Asian tigers in the nineties, and the attack on New York’s twin towers in 2001. All were profound events. It is the argument of this paper that in spite of these and other challenges, Australia’s institutional fabric has incorporated economic, social and political change. This is not to say that it has solved all of its social and economic problems, especially those dealing with minority groups such as the indigenous community, disaffected youth and some immigrant groups. Some would say that Australia’s political institutions may have stifled change and innovation but that has been the price of stability. 2 1. Stability and Democracy As a federal system, the Commonwealth government in Australia shares power with the six states and two internal territories. The federal system was established in 1901 and has never been under serious challenge. The broad outlines of the current party system were subsequently established in 1910, and have remained in place with only minor variations.2 Both levels of government conducted extensive legal reforms in the 1970s and 1980s dealing with social rights especially equal rights and anti-discrimination procedures. Both levels also underwent extensive reforms in the 1980s implementing new public management policies. Local government is weak and regional government non- existent, Parties are deeply entrenched in Australian political life – one indicator being the very few private members bills passed by national and state parliaments. By international standards, then, Australian politics is dominated by an extremely strong party-system, which has been in place since early in the twentieth century. The electoral system for the House of Representatives – the majoritarian, alternative vote (since 1918) with single member constituencies – has militated against the formation of new parties, and the election of minor party and independent candidates, for the House of Representatives. There have been at least four failed attempts to establish a Woman’s party and one unsuccessful effort to set up an Aboriginal party. The first attempt occurred immediately after Federation, in 1903, and was at the first election where all adult white females could vote. The party was center-left, and lost female support to the Labor party. This was the same story at the three subsequent efforts, which have coincided with the re-birth of feminism, during the Second World War, the 1970s and the 1990s. The Aboriginal Party 3 of the mid-1990s, met with a similar fate, as the majority of Aboriginal electors identify with the Labor Party. Subsequently, several minor parties have emerged that have successfully gained Senate representation. The introduction of proportional representation in 1948 gradually paved the way for new parties and minority candidates. The Australian Democrats Party has been very effective in selecting women candidates and has produced five women party leaders since its establishment in 1977. The Australian Democrats also selected a high- profile Aboriginal candidate in 1998, who was subsequently elected, becoming only the second Aboriginal Senator. In 2003 he was elected as Deputy Party Leader. Since that time the Democrats popularity and their parliamentary representation has shrunk, and they have been largely displaced by the Australian Greens. 2. Interaction of political forces Political parties have been the main type of political force in Australia. They are federal creatures having strong roots at the State level and a thinner veneer at the national level. In this part of the paper, I will firstly discuss the nature of party interaction at the national level in recent years; and I will then outline this interaction at the State level, using the example of New South Wales the oldest and by far the largest of the Australian States (i) National Politics By the end of 2007, the Coalition government of the Liberal and National parties, led by John Howard and John Anderson, will be seeking its fourth term in office. First elected in 1996, it replaced the Labor Government, which had been in office since 1983. Prime Minister Howard has become the second longest serving Prime Minister in Australian 4 history. Labor, with a new leader Kevin Rudd, will be seeking government after eleven and a half years in Opposition. Rudd is the fourth Labor Leader during that period. The Labor party has begun to resemble the divided Liberals during their period in the wilderness from 1983-1996. Of the minor parties, the Australian Democrats are in a weakened state and the Greens who polled over 800,000 primary votes in 2004 are appearing confident. All eyes will be on the Senate as the Coalition Government gained control of the Senate after the 2004 election. The 2007 election may well be a referendum on the Government’s handling of the war in Iraq and its part in President George W. Bush’s war on terror. The economy is likely to be foregrounded in 2007; as it was one factor assisting the Howard Government in 2004. Subsequently there have been several increases in interest rates.3 Another big issue may be the handling of refugees, as the Howard Government’s new policy of exchanging asylum seekers with the United States may provoke controversy in some quarters. Earlier in the pivotal 2001 campaign – when the early indicators were suggestive of a Labor victory – the Coalition Government’s linking of the threat posed by illegal entrants from the North, with the problem of burgeoning terrorism swayed enough undecided voters to retain power.4 The Labor Party has endured a tumultuous time in the opposition wilderness. After its 1996 defeat Paul Keating resigned as leader and was replaced by deputy leader and former Defence Minister Kim Beazley, who led Labor to two election defeats. After the 2001 defeat, Simon Crean, Labor’s deputy, replaced Kim Beazley and many frontbench members stood down, including its Leader in the Senate John Faulkner. Between 2001 and 2007 the party was bitterly divided. Crean survived a challenge from former leader 5 Beazley before eventually falling on his sword to allow a second contest between Beazley and political neophyte Mark Latham. Latham won narrowly, and surprisingly, by just two votes. One policy that needed urgent resolution was on asylum seekers and detention policy. The internal tensions were evidenced by the early resignation from the front bench of the high profile Dr Carmen Lawrence and the formation of an internal grouping named ‘Labor for Refugees’.5 While Crean was still leader Lawrence successfully stood for the position of Labor’s first directly elected party president, which she held during 2004. Public debate about Labor’s prospects and weaknesses continued throughout the period. After sustained ill-health Latham resigned from the leadership and from Parliament in January 2005. Surprisingly Beazley was re-elected as leader immediately provoking much media speculation regarding the need for new talent. Meanwhile the Coalition Government demonstrated its capacity for internal renewal, which is one of the keys to success in a Westminster style parliamentary system. Howard appointed women to senior posts with a record three woman in the cabinet. For most of the period the Howard-Costello relationship has remained an issue. When Howard announced in mid-2003 (July 26) on his 64th birthday that he would be carrying on beyond the next election Costello was visibly disappointed. There have been several ministerial resignations since Rudd’s election as leader and Howard has managed to turn these into signs of strength (i.e. sticking to principles) rather than of weakness (i.e. poor quality talent). Howard has remained dogged in the face of sustained attacks upon his integrity and performance. Australia’s enthusiastic membership of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ and its commitment of troops to the war in Iraq, however, have remained a significant political issue. It had 6 hurt the Labor party, as under Latham’s leadership the Coalition Government could exploit his well-known antipathy to the US in a society that has economic, cultural and historical links to the US. In contrast, the current leader Kevin Rudd has been careful to stress his and Labor’s support for the USA alliance in spite of disagreement over the handling of the war in Iraq. Critics of the government, including church leaders and former public servants, have been particularly concerned with the Iraq War. Forty-three former Defence, military and public service leaders, led by Richard Woolcott and John Menadue, issued a statement entitled ‘Time for Honest, Considered and Balanced Foreign and Security Policies’ (Canberra Times 9 August 2004). Shortly afterwards former Defence bureaucrat Mike Scrafton challenged John Howard’s version of events in the Children Overboard affair (The Australian 16 August 2004).