POL101 Research Essay by Mallory Watters

Australia’s Political institutions and practices echo that of the British Political system, specifically the Westminster system. This is a result of Australia’s values reflecting religious tolerance, freedom of speech and association, and the rule of law. Although the Australian Political system shares many similarities with The British Westminster Political system, there are number of subtle differences at the same time. Australian politics operates as a multi-party system; there are two major parties, as a result of the coalition between the Liberal Party and National Party, and the Australian Labor Party. The leader of the elected party becomes the Prime Minister, and for the party to be in power it needs to have a majority in the House of Representatives in order to make and enact policies on behalf of their party and the country. Since the advancement of technology and the availability of television and radio, the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have been identified by the public as the leader of their parties due to fact that they are the person that the public sees the most. As a result they have been key representatives of their party in order to get their message across in the shortest possible amount of time. Due to the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader being identified as the leader the achievements and failures of their political party fall heavily upon them. Thus many political spectators are seeing the “presidentialisation” of Australian politics. According to R.A.W. Rhodes, John Wanna & Patrick Weller, ‘Presidentialism occurs when there is a shift of political power resources and autonomy to the benefit of individual leaders...corresponding loss to such collective actors as cabinet”. Within Australia we are currently seeing the reverse of this. Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s’ is currently relying on the Independents and the Greens to keep her party in power, plus with some internal problems within the Australian Labour Party, this has weakened her authority and diminishes any hope of a strong “presidential” influence. Throughout Australia’s Prime Ministerial history, one of Julia Gillard’s’ Predecessors John Howard was able to exert a strong “presidential” influence as a result creating and gaining a strong and stable party which lead to having a majority within the House of representatives over his 21 years in power. This in turn lead to John Howard and the Liberal Party achieving a high level of acceptance by voters which allowed him to exercise significant “presidential” control and influence over the cabinet and the country. Phillip Adams stated when John Howard was in power, “That's why we don't need a president. We've got one already. Unprotected by a two-term limit, we've had President John Howard for 11 years.” Although the emergence of “Presidentialism” was before John Howards Prime Ministerial years, he a key figure to nursing the new political ideology to the Australian public.

Throughout Australia’s political history there have been subtle and gradual changes from a Prime Ministerial system to a presidential system. A major contribution to this was the invention of television. Phillip Adams writes, “Australia has had a de facto presidential system since the end of the Menzies era, accelerated and intensified by the influence of television.” A part of the Australian parliamentary system is that parties are held responsible for their actions to the voters and as McAllistair states, 'it is therefore parties that should be either rewarded or punished by the electorate for their performance.' McAllistair also wrote that 'In the 1950s, most researchers regarded the party and its leader as virtually indistinguishable in the popular mind.' However, with the advancement of technology, the emergence of “presidentialisation" of Australian politics is seen as the Prime Minister begins to fill the spotlight on the camera. As a result of this it has become a reality that the Prime Ministers with strong backing support, John Howard, have become presidential within their decision making. Bean & Mughan stated that “Television is regarded as the leading means by which a party can convey its message and 'shape their popular images.' Australia saw how powerful the use of television can be when Gough Whitlam introduced his famous, ‘It’s Time” advertisement campaign. A good example of how television became such an important component of politics is the success of Bob Hawke in 1987. Hawke's 'exceptional popular appeal' can most certainly be associated with Labour's considerable success in that particular election It was this popular appeal which lead to Hawke acting in a truly “presidential” style. Thus the "presidentialisation" of political leadership in Australia has significant implications for increasing the significance of 'upping' the party leader's profile. It is often said that the people least interested in voting have the swinging power to change electoral results. Survey results also show that this generalised group of people tend to vote along leadership appeal lines and thus the implication of this is that political advertising has to reflect this trend. Hence this has also contributed to the move towards a “presidential” style leadership. In the history of Federal politics there was a concentration on the party that was in power, what they stood for and the people behind it. During 1983 to 1991, Bob Hawke and the Labor Party were in government. It was during this time that Bob Hawke relied on a senior team which consisted of Treasurer Paul Keating and Industry Minister John Button, who also received some media limelight. However even though Hawke consulted his senior team and they were acknowledged, it was still Hawke who had the final word. In Federal government today there is a major emphasis on the key figurehead in political parties, and this not only applies to the Prime Minister by also to the Leader of Opposition. It is not just the current Labor Party which had this ideology of a tightly run ship. This ideology was best used within the Howard years. Throughout the John Howard years, as a result of having a sound majority, a strong and stable party and high level of acceptance by voters, he was able to exercise significant control and influence over the cabinet and the country. During his term he became so powerful that he was on some occasions able to make his own policies, sometimes announcing them without consulting anyone in his senior team – much like the President in the United States of America. It is this Howard created environment that seems likely to be the preferred model for future Prime Ministers to follow in, certainly from a Prime Minister’s perspective. However this is not the case for PM Julia Gillard.
In the Australian Labor Party today many people on the street would only be able to name, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and maybe Peter Garrett (But probably not for his political significance). When the media speak of the Labor Party, many people automatically think of Julie Gillard. When the cameras are turned off, millions of people do not realise the amount of work that is continuing within the Labor party. It is just that many people do not hear about such work unless the country is in the midst of an election campaign or if the Prime Minister is rattling off her achievements in order to gain popularity. This shows the “presidential” mood that is being created. It is only key members of the community with an interest in politics that realise the work behind the carbon tax, the Refugee plans with Malaysia and the controversies within the political parties. The emphasis on Julia Gillard as the figurehead of the Party shows that there is an emergence of “Presidentialism” within Australia. Because Julia Gillard’s popularity is very low, this is creating considerable concern within the Australian Labor Party, for the very reason that the leader is as the party; i.e. the “presidential” style of leadership that Australia now has is very much working against the Australian Labor Party at the moment
Although Australian politics has shown a clear emergence of the American “Presidentialism” system of government, in particular the last three Prime Ministerships, there are still some serious differences that indicate Australia still follows a Westminster political system. A key difference is that The Australian and British Governments are chosen by the democratically elected lower house and that the government requires the continuing support of a majority of members of that chamber to stay in office. A key similarity between Australia and the United States of America is their devotion to Democracy. However, in recent years Australia has shown more similarities to the US political system. When Julia Gillard was Deputy Prime Minister in 2010, she controversially contested the leadership which saw Kevin Rudd replaced by Gillard as party leader. Much of the Australian public were confused at this as because they did not elect her as their Prime Minister.

These differences show that “Presidentialism” has advantages. These include, “Presidentialism” ensures that much accountability is bestowed upon the Prime Minister. An example of this is Julia Gillard’s Carbon Tax policy. Much of Australian public have identified the sole voice behind the Carbon Tax Policy is Julia Gillard rather than the Australian Labour Party. Also within the Australian quasi presidential system there are more checks and balances than in the United States of America because our Prime Minister, like Kevin Rudd and Gough Whitlam, can be sacked but the America President basically can’t be. This is another factor which further distinguishes Australia’s political system to Americas. Even though our Prime Minister can act presidentially, it is only if certain factors are in play. Even then the PM can be override. Particularly, that the American President has his/her own policies, people and own power base, and the parliament has their own. Although this is true the American President still needs to the congress to ratify all of these his policies. The Americans for example do this very well; with the president setting the big agenda and pushing for reform etc, but with congress having their own policies and priorities. In Australia the ‘president’ can, if all the factors are in place, drown out the smaller issues of other parliamentarians or ministers.
Although the above reasons show Australia’s ties with the British Political System, there has been a major shift over the last two decade. In 2010 there was a major occurrence which further moves towards a Presidentialism political system as a result of the axing of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd by the deputy prime minister. Although there was a Prime Ministerial change from Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard, both of their political strategies and models are much the same. Gillard ensures that within her party, everyone is on the same page as her and she is the sole voice of her party. Alex Hamilton states that “It has been called the ‘Hawker Britton” model of politics, but it could easily be referred to as a ‘presidential style’ too”. When the Australian Labor Party came into power, Julia Gillard was able to make a minority government with the support of the Greens member (Bandt) and three of the Independents (Wilkie, Windsor and Oakeshott). Currently Julia Gillard does not have strong support from her own party and she is running a minority government. As a result of Gillard needing the support from the independents and the Greens she has less opportunity to act ‘presidentially’ and make unilateral decisions. It is this which confirms quite clearly the political difference between the USA and Australia. In Australia the Prime Minister needs power to make decisions and enact policies. As a result of this many of the policies enacted by the Australian Labor Party, are simply seen, consequently by the media, as Julia Gillard’s Policies. Furthermore as a result of Julia Gillard having a majority within the House of Representatives, many of her policies are also seen as a compromise to pander to the independents and the Greens to get them approved by parliament. An examples of this is the Carbon tax Policy and the watered down Minerals Resources Rent Tax which Gillard lead the charge on. As a result of this many of the things that the Australia Labor Party does are not highlighted as party decisions but rather as decisions of the PM. However Julia Gillard’s position is still weakened due to the Independents and the Greens which as a consequence creates a loss of her “presidential” powers. Policies and ministers, sometimes receive none of the limelight as a result of them not being put next to the heavy weight figures in politics, especially by the leader of the party. As a result of the smaller policies not receiving any major promotion it is harming the Gillard governed. Although Julia Gillard receives all of the limelight like a ‘president’ would do, the lack of support within her government is preventing her from making more unilateral decisions.

Throughout Australia’s Political history, “Presidentialism” can be traced back to the Robert Menzies era. It is throughout the Prime Ministerial years of Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John Howard that the “presidential” political nature has been nurtured and been shown to the Australian public. Through the years of John Howard, many advantages of the presidential political style were seen. His years showed the Australian public that the presidential political style was the emerging mode within Australian politics and a successful one. It is now, with the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, which is showing the disadvantages of not have a “presidential” style figure head within the elected political party. It is this evidence that shows that not only is “Presidentialism” and emerging political mode within Australia, but that it is a system that has been quite successfully used when all the factors are in place. When the factors are not in place, and when there is not a strong head to the political party, Julia Gillard and her minority government, it shows that it is not triumphant system within the eyes of the Australian public.

Bibliography

“The Personalization of Politics” by Ian McAllister Published on 27 Oct 2005 by Research School of Social Sciences Australian National University

“Comparing Westminster” by R. A. W. Rhodes, John Wanna & Patrick Weller, Published by Oxford University Press in 2009

“Political discourse in the age of the sound bite: The election campaign sound bite on Australian television news” by Sally Young Published by Melbourne University in 2008

“Television and Presidentialism: Australian and U.S. legislative elections compared” by Anthony Muhgan published by Taylor & Francis Volume 12, Issue 3, 1995

Alex Hamilton, “One voice, one message: Presidentialism in Australia” published in July 29th 2011, on Law and Crime and Politics.
“Decision making in political systems: veto players in Presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism.” By George Tsebelis Published by the British Journal of Political Science on 1st July 1995

“The Perils of Presidentialism” by Linz, Juan J. (Juan José), - Journal of Democracy, Volume 1, Number 1, Winter 1990, pp. 51-69 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press

"Americanization": Political and Cultural Examples from the Perspective of "Americanized" Australia” by Philip Bell and Roger Bell published by Sydney, UNSW Press, 1998, pp. 1-14

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. R. A. W. Rhodes, John Wanna & Patrick Weller, “Comparing Westminster”- Published by Oxford University Press in 2009.
[ 2 ]. Phillip Adams, “The Australian- A de Facto Presidential Race”, published 7th August 2007.
[ 3 ]. Phillip Adams, “The Australian- A de Facto Presidential Race”, published 7th August 2007.
[ 4 ]. McAllistair, A. “Political Behaviour”, pg 187 Published by Longman Cheshire, in Melbourne 1992
[ 5 ]. McAllistair, A. “Political Behaviour”, pg 188 Published by Longman Cheshire, in Melbourne 1992
[ 6 ]. Bean, C. & Mughan, A. 'Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Britain and Australia', Published in 1989 by the American Political Science Review, vol. 83, no. 3 pp. 1166-1177
[ 7 ]. Alex Hamilton, “One voice, one message: Presidentialism in Australia” published in July 29th 2011, on Law and Crime and Politics.