Cross-Party Collaboration in the Australian Federal Parliament: Testing the Limits of Institutional Constraints and Enabling Factors Adele Lausberg A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Politics & International Studies, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, University of Adelaide. June 2018 Abstract This thesis identifies and explores the use of cross-party collaboration (CPC) in Australian politics. It investigates why politicians collaborate across party lines in the Australian Parliament and how this relates to political representation. Although there are some earlier examples, CPC rose to prominence when it was used to achieve legislative change in 2006 by four women Senators. These women employed CPC to circumvent institutional norms by presenting a co-sponsored bill concerning the medical abortion drug RU486. Their success contributed to an acceleration of CPC. This thesis finds that both women and men have become more likely to adopt the previously rare practice of CPC since 2006. The occurrence of CPC is stimulated by enabling factors which include: electoral shifts; a shared cosmopolitan outlook that compels actors to disregard localised party policies in favour of a higher universal law; and desire for community leadership. For women using CPC to represent women, there are some differences in the enabling factors: critical actors and a critical mass of women; minor parties; and parliamentary groups/committee minority reports. CPC has occurred despite the existence of institutional constraints which deter politicians from seeking collaboration across party lines. These constraints include: strict party discipline; party leadership style; and limitations in the norms, practices, and structure of parliament. The phenomenon of CPC has not been holistically analysed in Australian political science, and this thesis offers in-depth analysis of the topic. It combines critical constructivist and New Institutionalist theories to understand the broader implications of CPC by unveiling power dynamics and questioning institutional norms. The methods used include analysis of Hansard, media reports, and political-party documents, complemented by original interviews with politicians and participant observation in parliament. The investigation focuses on six case studies involving socio-moral issues that in many respects transcend left-right party-political cleavages: RU486; pregnancy counselling; same-sex marriage; asylum seekers; banning cosmetic testing on animals; and gene patents. ii While this thesis explores CPC generally, including examples from before 2005, there is a close focus on women’s use as they have participated more than men. As women intensively used CPC in 2005 and 2006 this thesis examines gendered practices in parliament that help explain why they adopted the practice. It also explores whether this constitutes a substantive representation of women. Other actors with less power, including backbenchers of major parties, minor party members, and independents, noted women’s success in 2006 and after became increasingly likely to use CPC for their policy interests. While the success of CPC has been limited, politicians with the requisite political will continue to pursue collaboration across party lines to achieve their policy aims. This thesis identifies CPC as a form of representation which provides a means of opening debate over hitherto ignored and/or contested issues in the political realm. It allows a wider variety of views to be represented by offering an alternative way to agitate for policy change. As parliament has become more volatile through close or hung numbers, CPC is increasingly recognised by politicians as a useful strategy to represent issues. iii Thesis Declaration I certify that this work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in my name, in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. In addition, I certify that no part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission in my name, for any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior approval of the University of Adelaide and where applicable, any partner institution responsible for the joint-award of this degree. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on the web, via the University’s digital research repository, the Library Search and also through web search engines, unless permission has been granted by the University to restrict access for a period of time. I acknowledge the support I have received for my research through the provision of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Signed ________________________________ Date ________________________________ iv Acknowledgements This thesis was made possible through the continued support of my family. Gisela, Werner, and Sebastian – I love you all very much. You are the family I would choose time and time again. To my friends who have seen me through this journey, thank you for loving me through the entirety of this experience. Subasha – without the tough love and late- night conversations this would’ve been much harder (and much less fun). Jess – for your inexhaustible willingness to dissect and discuss ideas (thesis related or not), thank you. My gratitude goes to all the friends I have made in PhD Land. Clare, Jill, and Alex, you all made coming in to the office a fun – if sometimes distracting – experience. Special mention to Erin and Meghan, though state borders separate us our mutual love/hate relationship with our theses unites us. Others from across Australia, including my APSA friends and Olivia, also, a huge thank you. Thank you to my supervisors Lisa Hill and Carol Johnson for your advice, wisdom, and willingness to answer every question I had. I am also appreciative of the funding I received through an Australian Postgraduate Award which helped me immensely and to Diana Barnes for her diligent editing work. I am especially grateful to the politicians I interviewed who were willing to share their experiences with me. There are others along the way that have provided help in some form or another, whether by reading a chapter, listening to me rant about politics, or simply giving me a friendly smile at a café. You all did your utmost to make this the best thesis possible. Any remaining errors are my own responsibility. v Table of Contents Abstract ii Thesis Declaration iv Acknowledgements v Table of Contents vi Abbreviations vii Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Literature Review 17 Chapter 2: Theory and Methodology 52 Chapter 3: Representation 89 Chapter 4: The Australian Parliament: Constraining Action 112 Chapter 5: Women and Cross-Party Collaboration 147 Chapter 6: Cross-Party Collaboration 2006 – 2016 178 Chapter 7: Discussion 232 Conclusion 252 Appendix 261 Bibliography 263 vi Abbreviations AES – Australian Election Study ALP – Australian Labor Party ANC – African National Congress APGPD - Parliamentary Group on Population and Development AWNL - Australian Women’s National League AWS - All Women Shortlists CBC – Children By Choice CEDAW - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women CI – Constructivist Institutionalism CLP – Country Liberal Party COAG – Council of Australian Governments CODESA – Convention for a Democratic South Africa CPC – Cross-Party Collaboration DEM – Australian Democrats DHJP – Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party DI – Discursive Institutionalism EMILY (EMILY’s List) - Early Money Is Like Yeast FF – Family First Party FI – Feminist Institutionalism GRN – Australian Greens HI – Historical Institutionalism HRA – Humane Research Australia ICC – International Criminal Court IND – Independent LDP – Liberal Democratic Party of Australia vii LP – Liberal Party of Australia LNP – Liberal National Party of Queensland MEP – Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party MP – Member of Parliament MPNP – Multiparty Negotiation Process NI – New Institutionalism NP – National Party of Australia NT – Northern Territory NXT – Nick Xenophon Team OI – Old Institutionalism PFG – Parliamentary Friendship Group PR – Proportional Representation PWG – South African Parliamentary Women’s Group RCA – Reproductive Choice Australia SI – Sociological Institutionalism TGA – Therapeutic Goods Administration UK – United Kingdom UN – United Nations US – United States WNC – South African Women’s National Coalition WWFP - Mulheres Sem Medo do Poder (Women Without Fear of Power) viii Introduction Australia has a Westminster two-party adversarial political system. As such, the wider public tends to view it as a competition-driven realm. This is supported by media stories citing the combative elements in politicians’ behaviour, attitudes and statements.1 This characterisation ignores the daily practices of politicians who often reach consensus in collaborative ways, particularly in the extensive committee system. While collaboration does occur in structured settings, more remarkable is the practice of cross-party collaboration (CPC). This phenomenon involves politicians collaborating across party