Election!

May 18 is Federal Election Day in Australia, and it offers a welcome opportunity to shift away from Donald Trump and focus on the scene down-under. I would imagine most Americans have little idea as to what goes on in Australian politics.  Don’t despair:  many locals have a rather limited understanding, too.  However, before we go any further, it might be helpful to have a brief introduction to how the Australian electoral system works, as it is both interesting and distinctive in two ways: voting is compulsory, and candidates are chosen on the basis of a preferential voting system.  I’ll try not to make this too complicated, so hang in there.

Voting is compulsory. It didn’t happen all at once.  To explain, Australia is a federal country, established on 1 January 1901, when the six separate and self-governing British colonies, (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia) came together to form the Commonwealth of Australia.  In addition to those six states, there are now two territories.  The Australian Capital Territory was formed from land ceded to the Federal Government in 1911, and became a self-governing territory in 1988, but remains under the control of the national government.  In the same year, the Northern Territory was created out of land given by South Australia to the federal government.  It achieved self-governing status in 1978, but it also remains under the power and control of the Commonwealth.

Compulsory voting was first introduced for state elections in Queensland in 1915, although then excluding Aboriginal (indigenous) Australians. Victoria introduced compulsory voting in 1926, New South Wales and Tasmania in 1928, Western Australia in 1936 (again excluding indigenous Australians), and South Australia in 1942. It was introduced for federal elections in 1924 for “British subjects” aged 21 and over, but was not compulsory for indigenous Australians until 1984. The compulsory voting age was reduced to 18 in 1974. Failure to vote at a federal election without a “valid and sufficient reason” is an offence: those found guilty are fined $20.

All 151 seats in the House of Representatives (lower house) and 40 of the 76 seats in the Senate (upper house) will be up for election. Lower house seats represent individual constituencies, and the Electoral Commission works to ensure each electorate’s population is within 10% of every other (there’s a novel idea). The Commission reviewed electorates in 2017, when Victoria gained one seat (one new electorate) up to 38, the Australian Capital Territory gained one to a new total of 3, and South Australia lost one dropping to 10. 1,056 candidates are standing for lower house seats (an average of 7 per electorate). Senators are elected by the states as a whole (despite great variations in population, each of the original states has 12 senators, whereas both the two territories have only two – sounds familiar?). Half the state positions and all four territory seats are on the ballot, 458 candidates competing for 40 seats, an average of 11 per seat.

Just one more topic, as we need to get to the mechanics of preferential voting! Let’s begin with House of Representatives ballot papers.  These list the candidates for an electorate in random order with a square beside each name.  To vote, every square must contain a number ranking the candidates in preference order (eg. 1-7 if there are seven candidates).  If the procedure is not followed, the vote will be declared invalid (there are some minor twists we can ignore).  Note, merely putting a 1 by the favoured candidate is not enough, all must be in order of preference.

The allocation of votes is based on these preferences. The total first preference votes for each candidate are tallied:  if one candidate has a majority of the total votes, they are elected.  However, it seldom happens.  More often no-one is in the majority in the first round, and so the second preferences of those who voted for the least popular candidate are then allocated to the others, and that person is no longer considered.  If this adds sufficient to the preferences for one candidate to giving him or her a majority, the process is over.  However, redistributing the second preferences of those voting for less preferred candidates can often go through three or more cycles, until a candidate with a majority is identified!

If you thought that was tricky, senate elections are worse. The voting paper is a long, horizontal document: above the line are the names of the parties for whom there are candidates seeking election, with a box beside each party name; below the line, each party’s individual candidates are listed, with a box beside each name, listed in the party’s preference order.  You may vote above the line, where at least numbers 1 to 6 have to be marked in the squares (i.e. six parties identified in preference order).  Alternatively, in voting below the line, at least the numbers 1 to 12 must be marked in the squares of individual candidates. The system is so complicated (surprise!) a vote saving measure was introduced: you may mark just one square above the line (thereby accepting the allocation of preference between parties your chosen party determined).  There are some other options, but rather than confuse you further, I think that’s enough for now.

I won’t attempt to explain how the allocation of preferences works for the senate. The principle is the same, in that successful candidates have to reach a certain percentage of the State vote, and those candidates with the least votes find their second preferences being allocated, and so on.  The system aims to have senators elected proportionate to the political makeup of the state as a whole.  Sufficient to say it’s not unusual to wait two weeks for senate voting to be finalised!

If you are still reading, all the foregoing will have made it clear that the allocation of preferences is a very important business, and each party works hard to negotiate deals which they use to complete ‘how to vote’ cards for supporters. Those same deals are also revealing about the values a party endorses.  In the lower house there are four major parties, the Australian Labor Party, a party of the left, and the Liberal, Liberal National and National Parties, which together form the ‘Coalition’, the party of the right.  Since the party which holds the majority in the house forms government, (and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister), preference deals are critical.  In the Senate, neither of the two major parties have been able to claim a majority in recent years, and typically smaller parties, including the Australian Greens, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and a scattering of others, are courted on key issues to join one side or the other.

How has this been playing out in the 2019 negotiations? For the leaders of Labor and the Coalition, the strategy to ensure they have the best preference deals takes time, and can be controversial.  Labor usually looks to the Greens:  they have similar values, but as the Greens  are also hoping to win some seats in the Senate in particular, the deals can have important implications.  For the Coalition, the situation is more complex.  Since the Coalition comprises three parties, they need preference deals among themselves, with the Liberals seeking to be the dominant partner.  However, each party also form alliances with others for voting preferences at electorate and state level.  This time around, it has landed them in more than usual controversy.

Despite the fact that Scott Morrison, currently Prime Minister, once suggested that Clive Palmer, leader of the United Australia Party, was a “flimflam merchant” and ran a “very very shabby show” in 2016, this year the Liberals have tied themselves to Palmer’s party in a preference deal. Described as a “Trumpesque-lite shtick”, what was Palmer’s platform? In summary: the UAP position was that party officials should not be paid lobbyists; the refugee policy should be revised to ensure Australia is protected; Australia’s mineral wealth should be developed; and those who create wealth should enjoy the profits. That is the total official policy!

Those who have delved deeper into this strange multi-millionaire’s statements have detected his real motivation is clear. He is generally regarded as an aggrandizing self-serving capitalist, and “The evidence suggests [UAP candidates] are but a vehicle to harvest the votes of the politically ignorant and marginalised, a cohort described by one political professional as the “up yours” vote. And Palmer’s narrow goal is to ensure a right-wing government that will protect the fossil fuel industry, particularly the interests of coalminers in Queensland’s Galilee Basin, which includes himself.” [i] Oh, did I mention that Australians pride themselves on making comments that are clear and to the point? As one commentator noted, “When your political stocks are low courtesy of your own self-created dramas, you’ve got to enter the preference flow crapshoot. That’s the long and the short of it. Hold nose, avert eyes and shake hands in the hope it works.”[ii]

In the same vein, the leader of the Nationals declared they were pursuing preference tie-ups with One Nation. Also controversial? Yes, given One Nation policies position Hanson’s party on the extreme right fringe, where it is known for racist statements (for example arguing the country is in danger of being ‘swamped’ by Muslims). A preference tie-up implies the Nationals see the world the same way. Nationals used to disassociate themselves from extremists, but “as the right lined up “with “creeps, crackpots and cranks” (as Labor’s deputy leader Tanya Plibersek put it colourfully on the hustings) they began to appear happy to endorse ideas at the margins of Australian politics. In politics, you reap what you sow.” [iii]

In Australia, it’s all about getting in to bed with others, and the choices made can be critical. For most people, Labor linking with the Australian Greens is seen as acceptable:  they do share some of the same philosophy (although less in recent years).  As mentioned above, making preference deals with the Greens can also help Labor in the Senate, as Greens Senators are more likely to vote with Labor, increasing Labor’s chances of effective control of the upper house, although not recently as the total of Labor and Green senators still falls below a majority.

When we turn to the Coalition, the story is less edifying. First of all, they often squabble about deals among themselves.  In any particular electorate, the National and Liberal candidates might choose not to make a deal over preferences, if one or the other believes this will reduce the chance of being elected, and if they believe the support of other (smaller) parties will help.  It is not unknown for a National Party candidate to even make a preference deal with the Labor party in order to shut out the Liberal, especially if they calculate that Labor candidate has little chance of winning.  More broadly, linking with extremist conservative parties across the board is often seen as acceptable:  while the Coalition claims to abhor racism in all its forms, parties like One Nation are acceptable … because they resonate with many rural voters.

I wonder if this is sounding increasingly familiar to readers in the US. It all sounds like a perverted Hamlet soliloquy.  To stick with principles, or to win?  To claim the higher ground, or to pander to racists?  Were those silly questions?  Yes: it is all about winning, of course.

There is another Shakespearean element to all of this. Earlier I noted that the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the majority of seats in the House of Representatives.  That is true, but it is a little more complex than that.  The leadership of the party can change, and for as long as the party holds the majority in the lower house, a new leader automatically becomes the Prime Minister.  Every Prime Minister must keep a wary eye, as a new pretender might appear.  “Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.” [iv]

In recent years, turnover has been fast. In 2015, one commentator observed “With five prime ministers in as many years, Canberra has solidified its reputation as the coup capital of the democratic world.  A quarter century of Australian reform under Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard has been followed by an era of revenge.  Malcolm Turnbull, the new prime minister, was once knifed by the leader he deposed, Tony Abbott.  Kevin Rudd was ousted by Julia Gillard but then exacted vengeance by overthrowing her.  It is now over a decade since an Australian prime minister managed to serve out his or her first term.” [v]  It seemed to slow down, when Malcolm Turnbull actually survive long enough to contest a general election, but last year, he was shoved aside, and replaced by Scott Morrison (ScoMo as he is known).  In fact Turnbull was in trouble from the middle of 2016, the time of the last election: while the Coalition won, it was only by a whisker.  Any concerns in the general population were irrelevant to those within the parliamentary party:  the knives were out and being sharpened, then ScoMo struck.

In case you thought they were important, did you want to know the major policies of Labor and the Coalition? They could be those of Republicans and Democrats.  On tax, both have proposed tax cuts, especially for middle income earners.  The Coalition would extend them in later years, but Labor wants to reduce tax offsets for negative gearing and wealth tax.  Both are weak on climate change, not wanting to overtly attack the ‘usual business’ of extracting and selling coal and other resources; Labor is a little more aggressive.  On education, Labor will spend more on public education, but the Coalition will continue to favour non-government schools (especially the private school sector).  Labor has made health the centre of its campaign, at a cost, and hence the less generous tax cuts compared to the Coalition.  Both are pledging pork to bolster standing in the electorates – it’s amazing how many schools, hospitals and new roads are on the agenda.  Both favour some form of border control:  showing weakness on this will lead to being savaged by the other side.  Savaged?  A certain Rupert Murdoch might be enjoying his privileged access to Donald Trump, but he wants control in Australia, too, and have the Coalition in his pocket.

The Australian voting system is distinctive; the rest is horribly familiar. One side appeals to the self-interest of the rich and many in the rural areas with tax breaks and veiled racism.  The other likes to suggest it has better values.  Soon, you’ll see the outcome. It’s ‘funfunfun’ down-under!!

[i] https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2019/05/04/what-clive-palmer-wants-his-60m/

[ii] Much of this was summarised in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/01/the-coalition-is-normalising-the-far-right-with-its-one-nation-and-palmer-deals

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2, lines 193-195

[v] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34249214

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives