tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/australian-parliament-26603/articlesAustralian parliament – The Conversation2023-11-12T19:15:16Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2165282023-11-12T19:15:16Z2023-11-12T19:15:16ZHalfway through their term, the ‘teal’ MPs look here to stay – and may present a huge challenge in 2025<p>Halfway through the 47th federal parliament, we can begin cautiously to gauge the potential historical significance of the “teal” independents.</p>
<p>Contemporaneous analysis, of course, can be problematic but it can also direct attention to emergent dynamics in the way politics operates in Australia. This includes how well voters are represented, politico-cultural shifts and the influence on how laws are made.</p>
<p>The next election will tell us if the 2022 infusion of these independents marked an electoral realignment of longer-term substance or merely a short-term reaction to circumstances. In other words, was it a movement or a moment? </p>
<p>There are three key issues that will help answer this question. </p>
<p>First, many or all of the new crossbench MPs could be defeated, casting their 2022 victories as an aberration driven largely by the unpopularity of the Morrison government rather than by something deep and structural. </p>
<p>Alternatively, they may all be returned, consolidating their respective support locally. </p>
<p>A third outcome builds on the second and would see their ranks swell in 2025, confirming a trend of voter disillusionment with the major parties.</p>
<p>In the second option, Australia would have been politically transformed. In the third, that transformation could be regarded as highly significant, heralding an era of minority governments becoming the most common election result. </p>
<p>The pre-conditions of such a change are already there. The crossbench in the House of Representatives now stands at 16 – a record since the two-party era settled in after the first dozen years of the federation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-this-the-end-of-the-two-party-system-in-australia-the-greens-teals-and-others-shock-the-major-parties-182672">Is this the end of the two-party system in Australia? The Greens, teals and others shock the major parties</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Given how finely balanced the political contest appears halfway into this term, a hung parliament looms as more than a mere possibility. Outside of a huge government scandal, a parliamentary majority for the Coalition seems unattainable – that is, without unseating the teals and making other gains. More on that in a moment.</p>
<p>Labor is in a stronger position as the incumbent government, but is hardly ascendant. It confronts a serious cost-of-living crisis that has the potential to cause serious voter unhappiness. While the most recent Newspoll reported a two-party-preferred result of 52-48 in favour of the Albanese government, there is some suggestion the government’s post-election popularity may have topped out and could decline from here.</p>
<p>With a record-low 32.6% primary vote delivering a slender two-seat majority, (a third was gained at the Aston byelection) Labor has little ground to give. The “majors” appear to be managing their prospects in a climate of declining brand loyalty. </p>
<p>For the independents, the opposite may be true. This stark reality is what made the federal election in May 2022 feel like a <a href="https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/watershed">watershed</a>. </p>
<p>In 2022, teals picked up six seats (Curtin, Goldstein, Kooyong, Mackellar, North Sydney, and Wentworth), adding to two formerly safe Liberal seats (Indi and Warringah)that community independents gained in 2019 and successfully defended in 2022.</p>
<p>It is now plausible to conceive of the “teals” as a loose grouping of eight centrist independents occupying once-safe Liberal seats. Important to that conception also is that all are female and that, on any issue, not all eight automatically align.</p>
<p>Election 2022 was also a watershed because the Australian Greens quadrupled their lower house holdings with three upset wins in Queensland, a state where no “teals” were running. </p>
<p>The future of these Greens seats is an important factor to add into considerations.
As independents, the teals cannot ensure legislative change or drive through private members’ bills to a final vote. However, they have proved influential in raising issues, improving legislation and, in some cases, in stiffening government resolve. </p>
<p>This was the case with the government’s emissions reduction legislation. The Greens’ public pressure succeeded in convincing Labor to make its 2030 emissions reduction target of 43% a floor rather than a ceiling. This was a significant change given Labor’s timidity around the electoral politics of emissions.</p>
<p>The government’s National Anti-Corruption Commission – which eventually passed with Coalition support – was also a product in part of the moral leadership from Indi independent Helen Haines. Her private member’s bill ultimately provided the basis of the government’s formula. </p>
<p>Perhaps the biggest macro-political change wrought by the teals has been in the conduct of politics and parliamentary behaviour. This can be difficult to measure, but most observers I’ve spoken to concede the overall tone of parliament has improved in this term, due in no small part to the presence and the articulate advocacy of female MPs, primarily the teals.</p>
<p>Government ministers treat their questions in the House with more respect and civility than was the standard response to crossbenchers under previous governments, most pointedly during the former Morrison period.</p>
<p>Another strength of the teal MPs is their combination of active local representation and clear leadership. This was evident in the referendum. Australia may have rejected the proposed Voice to Parliament by 60% to 40%, but in the 2022 teal seats, where the majority of constituents had been life-long Liberal voters until recently, the Voice registered majority support.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/voice-to-parliament-referendum-has-been-heavily-defeated-nationally-and-in-all-states-213156">Voice to Parliament referendum has been heavily defeated nationally and in all states</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For these voters, it appears it was the campaigning of the new MP that was persuasive, rather than the Liberal-National Coalition’s bellicose opposition to the proposal.</p>
<p>Among the enlarged group of eight, it was only in the “pre-teal” seat of Indi, held by Haines, that the proposal was rejected. This result is probably explained by the electorate’s status as “rural” according to the Australian Electoral Commission.</p>
<p>Beyond the voter rejection of populist and divisive politics in these inner-urban electorates, the immediate significance of the “yes” vote points to another hurdle for the Liberal Party if it is to reclaim them.</p>
<p>Take the example of Goldstein in Victoria, where independent MP Zoe Daniel ran a vigorous local campaign involving 600 volunteers, 285 Voice-related local events and the specific strategic targeting of some 10,000 homes for doorknocking.</p>
<p>Organised, engaged, locally driven but professional campaigning such as this is beyond even the major parties these days. Along with socio-economic factors, this may be a key reason the teals did better for the Voice than many pro-Voice Labor MPs, whose constituents went decidedly the other way.</p>
<p>More worrying for the Liberals is that the teals have had the benefit now of running a mid-term electorate-wide local campaign in which they could hone their organisational capabilities, connect meaningfully with their constituents outside of an election context, and energise their supporters.</p>
<p>With a well-resourced ground game like that, based on the kind of responsive local representation the established parties more often talk about than actively deliver, the teals may prove supremely hard to dislodge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Kenny does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While most are still relatively new to federal politics, the teal independents have had a big impact on the way the country is run.Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2127852023-09-13T20:06:27Z2023-09-13T20:06:27ZExplainer: what is executive government and what does it have to do with the Voice to Parliament?<p>In the upcoming Voice referendum, all Australian voters must decide whether to approve the proposed law to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through the mechanism of a Voice to Parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth.</p>
<p>So what actually is the “executive government”? Here, I will answer that question, specifically in the context of the proposal that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will “make representations” (that is, provide its views and advice) to it on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. </p>
<h2>What does ‘executive government of the Commonwealth’ mean?</h2>
<p>There are three branches of government at the Commonwealth level in Australia: the parliament, the executive government, and the judiciary. Broadly speaking, each branch performs a different function of governance. </p>
<ol>
<li> The parliament makes the laws. The federal parliament may only make laws that are connected to its powers, but these laws can override inconsistent state laws.<br></li>
<li> The executive develops laws and policies. Once laws are enacted, it executes or administers those laws (that is, it puts the laws into practice at a day-to- day level).</li>
<li> The judiciary determines disputes that arise under the laws.</li>
</ol>
<p>Once these different functions are understood, it becomes clear why it is important the Voice should speak to both the parliament and the executive. </p>
<p>The Voice needs to speak to parliament as our ultimate lawmaker. It can inform parliamentarians when they debate proposed laws and consider amendments to them. </p>
<p>But the Voice will also need to be involved earlier in the development of proposed laws. This means these earlier and more formative steps, which the executive government undertakes, can benefit from the input of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s views and experiences. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1700770651928428738"}"></div></p>
<p>It’s also important the Voice be involved when policies (which might never become formal laws) are developed, as these will shape government practice and so can have a big impact on peoples’ lives. And of course, once a law is enacted, how the executive government actually applies those laws and policies will benefit from their input. As Senator Patrick Dodson <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2023/july/patrick-dodson/firelight-stick-hill#mtr">has explained</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Government policies and bureaucratic actions have so often adversely affected First Peoples who have not had a say in the implementation of those policies and actions.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>So, who is this ‘executive government’?</h2>
<p>The “executive government of the Commonwealth” is not a new term. It has been used in a number of other constitutional provisions. </p>
<p>It’s often useful to think of the executive like a pyramid. </p>
<p>At the top of the pyramid sits the governor-general, representing the king, who plays a largely symbolic role. The governor-general acts on advice of the federal ministers, who sit in the next layer down. This is where the prime minister also sits. </p>
<p>In the next layer down are the “other officers of the executive government of the Commonwealth”. This is a much larger group including public servants working in federal government departments, advising ministers and making government decisions, as well as the front-line workers – think, for example, of the service staff at Centrelink. It will also include defence force personnel and police officers. It doesn’t include the public servants working for state and local governments.</p>
<p>The executive also includes people who work in a range of federal statutory entities and authorities. The majority of these are officers of the executive – such as those in the Australian Tax Office, Fair Work Australia, or the Parliamentary Budget Office. (If you are curious, you can see a <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/Flipchart%201%20September%202023%20-%20FINAL_5.pdf">flip chart</a> of them and their nature here.)</p>
<p>However, some of these entities have been given their own legal “personality” by statute and are incorporated separate from the executive government. These are sometimes described as “independent” agencies. This includes bodies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission, the National Library of Australia and the Reserve Bank. This has given rise to confusion as to whether the Voice may make representations to these entities.</p>
<p>In practice, there is likely to be little confusion. All statutory agencies and independent office-holders are accountable to a minister and therefore have close relationships with them. This means, if that agency is making decisions relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the Voice would be able to make representations to the minister, and the minister would (one would hope) bring that advice to the attention of the agency. </p>
<p>And, as has been stressed many times, no person or body in the executive is under any legal obligation to accept that advice.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1639783056180649985"}"></div></p>
<h2>What does it mean to say the Voice will make 'representations’ to the executive?</h2>
<p>Many parts of the executive already seek the views of all sorts of different people and groups before making decisions and developing policy. This will often include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and groups. </p>
<p>Sometimes consulting with affected groups is mandated by statute, and sometimes it isn’t. But government officials realise the huge benefit of engaging with people affected by what they do: decisions and policies improve through consultation, and people feel they have been given a fair hearing and process even if the outcome is not exactly what they were seeking. This in turn increases trust in government. </p>
<p>Of course, it’s important to remember that not all parts of the executive are making decisions and developing policies and laws that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. But in those areas where it is, the Voice proposal builds from and improves the current position in three key respects. </p>
<p>First, it provides a standing national body that is representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is of huge benefit not just to these people, who will be given a say in matters that affect them, but to the vast array of executive officers, who now have the convenience of being able to access views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the Voice when making decisions that will affect them. </p>
<p>Second, it provides a guaranteed avenue for the Voice to be able to speak to all layers of the executive. This means Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people don’t have to wait to be consulted, but can be proactive, engaging with the executive and making representations on matters that those in the community are telling the Voice are important and pressing. This will enhance those benefits I spoke about above – improving decision-making and policy/law development, as well as improving a sense of fairness in government process and trust in government. </p>
<p>Third, if the Voice is established, laws will be passed to clarify the relationship between it and the executive. These laws are likely to govern matters such as exactly to whom representations will be directed in the first instance within a particular department or agency, how they will be received and considered, and their legal effect. </p>
<p>This will bring a welcome level of clarity – not confusion – to government decision-making, law and policy development.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212785/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabrielle Appleby was a pro bono constitutional consultant to the Regional Dialogues and First Nations Constitutional Convention that delivered the Uluru Statement from the Heart. She is a member of the Indigenous Law Centre (UNSW Law & Justice) and supports the work of the Uluru Dialogues.</span></em></p>A Voice to Parliament would advise the “executive government” – that is, ministers and the public service – on issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2106402023-08-03T20:03:11Z2023-08-03T20:03:11ZThe Voice is a simple and enduring idea with a past – and a promise<p><em>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised an image in this article contains antiquated language.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The Voice is a simple idea. The proposed <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7019_first-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7019_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0">amendment</a> to Australia’s Constitution is short and sweet.</p>
<p>Yet the referendum debate is at risk of inundation, and too often misses the point. While there are many things the Voice cannot do, there is one thing it can do. </p>
<p>It offers a permanent, public and culturally distinct way forward for Indigenous consensuses to develop and find their rightful place in national politics.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/solicitor-general-confirms-voice-model-is-legally-sound-will-not-fetter-or-impede-parliament-204266">Solicitor-general confirms Voice model is legally sound, will not 'fetter or impede' parliament</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The past as prologue to the present</h2>
<p>The Voice is rehearsed rather than radical. National Indigenous representative bodies have been on and off the agenda for 50 years. Australia has had three formalised national Indigenous representative bodies between 1973 and 2005. The history of this is significant.</p>
<p>Colonialism radically disrupted traditional governance. While country and culture remain a bedrock of Indigenous identities, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-voice-to-parliament-isnt-a-new-idea-indigenous-activists-called-for-it-nearly-a-century-ago-122272">from the 1920s</a> an Indigenous-led movement developed an agenda that favoured commonwealth over state power and lobbied for input at the national level. </p>
<p>This occurred alongside the Commonwealth’s increasing involvement in Indigenous affairs, a dynamic entrenched by the 1967 referendum. By 1967, the Commonwealth could not be seen to countenance the formulation of law and policy without Indigenous input. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540929/original/file-20230803-22531-koh01h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540929/original/file-20230803-22531-koh01h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540929/original/file-20230803-22531-koh01h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540929/original/file-20230803-22531-koh01h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540929/original/file-20230803-22531-koh01h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540929/original/file-20230803-22531-koh01h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540929/original/file-20230803-22531-koh01h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">By 1967, Australian governments could no longer be seen to make policy decisions without input from Indigenous peoples.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://museumofcaah.weebly.com/1967-referendum.html">Museum of Contemporary Aboriginal Australian History</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>National governments needed a way to obtain advice from Indigenous peoples. Liberal Prime Ministers Holt, Gorton and McMahon all acknowledged this. </p>
<p>But it was Gough Whitlam who established the first such representative body: the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (1973–1977). Malcolm Fraser replaced this with the National Aboriginal Conference (1977–1985) and Bob Hawke legislated the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (1989–2005). </p>
<p>At their core, these bodies involved Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders choosing their own representatives to proffer advice to the Commonwealth. While the first two bodies were clipped, each collected Indigenous viewpoints and formulated national agendas. </p>
<p>A smattering of topics covered from the 1970s include land rights, treaty, recognition of colonisation without consent, police brutality, and the forced removal of children from their families. </p>
<p>Yet as much as government needed Indigenous input and advice, without constitutional entrenchment these bodies could be (and were) <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/before-the-voice-political-posturing-and-failed-ambition-20221213-p5c607.html">terminated</a> for political expediency. This insecurity was not just existential; it inhibited the potential of these bodies. </p>
<h2>The Voice as constructive</h2>
<p>Much debate about the Voice has focused on either party politics, or the desirability of the Voice in improving tangible outcomes. This has come at the expense of considering its potential to construct a “national” Indigenous politics, out of regional and sectoral voices. </p>
<p>Politics is protean. But, at its root, democratic politics is about governing society through representation and compromise. This means a representative Voice is also about constructing a system where mainstream government – executive and parliament – and wider society listens to Indigenous concerns. </p>
<p>John Howard’s <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/from-lucky-colonisation-to-misinformation-fears-former-pms-weigh-in-on-voice-debate/pemowjsrp">recent comments</a> against the Voice unwittingly highlight how it can be positively differentiated from previous representative bodies. He argued the Voice would not “produce anything other than regular stand-offs between what the Voice is asking for and what the government of the day is willing to do”.</p>
<p>Leaving aside disingenuous phrasing (the Voice we are voting on can only offer advice, there is no power to “stand off” against governments), the telling words are “what the government of the day is willing to do”. </p>
<p>Compromise is the essence of politics. If a government or parliament is not willing to accommodate reasonable positions of a representative Voice, then that is a failure of our politics. Not of the Voice. </p>
<h2>A core ‘no’ argument is a reason to vote ‘yes’</h2>
<p>The official <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf">“no” case</a> also unwittingly highlights a key reason to support the referendum, come October. In a classic conservative move, the absence of detail about the internal structure of the Voice is taken to be a reason to be cautious and vote “no”. </p>
<p>But that detail is not important to the principle of a national representative Indigenous body. Excess detail at this point would contradict the principle of parliamentary supremacy, of which conservatives are most protective. </p>
<p>Worse, it would pre-empt the right of Indigenous peoples to hammer out the balance between regional and urban voices or established Indigenous structures and an elective principle. </p>
<p>That is significant, given the 1970s bodies mentioned above were very much constructs of executive governments. Each of the three earlier bodies became, if anything, unduly sensitive to regionalism. Such diversity is important; but a “national” Voice cannot be just a confederation of local concerns. </p>
<p>The Voice proposal does not undercut or establish a body to talk over local voices. These voices were <a href="https://theconversation.com/regional-communities-were-central-to-uluru-statement-and-they-must-also-be-for-the-voice-to-parliament-206288">central</a> to its drafting, through consultation processes. </p>
<p>On the contrary, the 2021 Indigenous Voice Co-Design <a href="https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report">Report</a> (which consulted widely to assay aspirations and models) plumps for two-way interaction between local, state and territory, and the national Voices.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/regional-communities-were-central-to-uluru-statement-and-they-must-also-be-for-the-voice-to-parliament-206288">Regional communities were central to Uluru Statement, and they must also be for the Voice to Parliament</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An enduring idea</h2>
<p>The Voice proposal is simple. There are a thousand things it cannot do, and one significant thing that it promises to be.</p>
<p>As an embedded but flexible institution, it would channel an evolving national Indigenous politics, as a representative conduit of many voices speaking up to the behemoth that is the Commonwealth of Australia. </p>
<p>Importantly, it would also put an end to a long political process that has always intended to constitutionally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a way that is meaningful to them – through a constitutionally enshrined Voice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210640/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite all the arguments flying around the Voice offers one simple thing: a long overdue way for Indigenous consensuses to develop and find their rightful place in national politics.Laurel Fox, PhD candidate, The University of QueenslandDani Linder, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Queensland, The University of QueenslandGraeme Orr, Professor of Law, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2081912023-06-21T08:24:18Z2023-06-21T08:24:18ZView from The Hill: Linda Burney says the Voice won’t be able to advise on Australia Day – but how could that be?<p>There was much celebration in the Albanese government this week at the passage through parliament of the bill to set up the referendum on the Voice. Anthony Albanese sent out a national rallying call ahead of the vote later this year: “I say to my fellow Australians: parliaments pass laws, but it is people that make history”.</p>
<p>But the parliamentary week showed that if the government is to maximise the chance of a “yes” result, it needs to sharpen its performance – in particular, that of the lead minister on the issue, Linda Burney. </p>
<p>Burney, minister for Indigenous Australians, handled poorly questions on the scope of issues on which the Voice would be able to advise parliament and executive government.</p>
<p>On Tuesday in question time, Burney declared, “I can tell you what the Voice will not be giving advice on. It won’t be giving advice on parking tickets. It won’t be giving advice on changing Australia Day. It will not be giving advice on all of the ridiculous things that that side has come up with.” </p>
<p>In regard to Australia Day, this is either wrong or, if correct, absurd. </p>
<p>In his second reading speech, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the “primary function” of the Voice would be to make representation “about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”. </p>
<p>Dreyfus said these included matters specific to these people, as well as “matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently to other members of the Australian community”.</p>
<p>On any commonsense view, of course the issue of Australia Day is one on which the Voice could advise. The day affects many Indigenous people “differently”, in that they feel January 26 is for them “invasion day”, and Australia Day should be moved. </p>
<p>Given the heat in recent years around the Australia Day date, it would be surprising if the Voice did not, at some point, have something to say about it. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean the Voice’s advice would necessarily prevail. Burney said on Wednesday, “It is not the policy of this government to change the date of Australia Day”. </p>
<p>As the opposition in parliament has homed in on the Voice’s scope, Burney has responded by deflecting questions, rejecting “culture wars”, and concentrating on its potential role in helping in “closing the gap”. </p>
<p>She and the government are painting the Voice’s remit as limited rather than wide. </p>
<p>The government, for tactical reasons, at present wants to emphasise the part of the proposed constitutional change that recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the constitution. </p>
<p>This is because “recognition” is considered to have more public support, including among conservative voters, than the actual Voice. </p>
<p>As far as the Voice goes, with the referendum campaign ramping up, Burney is concentrating on the practical things she believes the Voice will, and should, focus on. But what it might choose to highlight can’t be predicted with certainty – that would depend in part on who was on it. </p>
<p>Playing down how much the Voice will advise on has its own potential downside. It feeds into the argument of those such as (at the extreme end) Lidia Thorpe who say if it’s to be so constrained, it will be worth even less than other advisory bodies have been.</p>
<p>If the Voice gets up, in reality it could probably find ways to advise on a very wide range of issues. But if it were savvy, it would confine its operations to areas where it was well-informed and likely to make a difference. To buy in on too much could reduce its clout on the most pressing issues for Indigenous communities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208191/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The parliamentary week showed that if the government is to maximise the chance of a “yes” vote, it needs to sharpen its performance – in particular, that of Linda Burney.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2070142023-06-18T20:08:26Z2023-06-18T20:08:26Z10 questions about the Voice to Parliament - answered by the experts<p>As we start to see the campaign for the Voice referendum gather momentum, there are a lot of Australian voters with genuine questions, trying to understand the proposal and wade through the information – including <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-we-can-avoid-political-misinformation-in-the-lead-up-to-the-voice-referendum-206500">misinformation and active (that is, intentional) disinformation</a> – that is out there in this public debate. </p>
<p>This type of information <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-are-tired-of-lies-in-political-advertising-heres-how-it-can-be-fixed-189043">can</a> manipulate people’s understanding of the issues, distort their vote and the result. It can also cause enormous <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-can-we-learn-from-the-marriage-equality-vote-about-supporting-first-nations-people-during-the-voice-debate-205745">harm</a> to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.</p>
<p>Those looking for answers that avoid misinformation and disinformation often – with good reason – turn to experts. And there are lots stepping up and trying to help, including those writing for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/first-nations-voice-to-parliament-130871">The Conversation</a>, and most recently <a href="https://twitter.com/referendumQandA">@ReferendumQandA</a>, a group of public, human rights and international lawyers answering common questions as the referendum approaches. When you read this information, you should always be wary of people speaking outside of their expertise and experience, and anonymous accounts where these points can’t be checked.</p>
<p>With that in mind, we are a group of three non-Indigenous and Indigenous academics, providing our answers to ten key questions arising in the Voice debate, where the answers are often confused and distorted by misinformation. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-now-know-exactly-what-question-the-voice-referendum-will-ask-australians-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-202143">We now know exactly what question the Voice referendum will ask Australians. A constitutional law expert explains</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>1. Do Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support the Voice?</h2>
<p>While there is not a <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-au/voice-to-parliament-perspectives">single view</a> among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there is significant – indeed extraordinary – levels of support among them for the Voice.</p>
<p>First, Indigenous support is demonstrated by the deliberative processes that sits behind the <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a>. This involved more than 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from across the country (the claim that non-Indigenous people attended the dialogues is false). </p>
<p>From this process, delegates were able to arrive at a national consensus position, prioritising the reforms of Voice, towards Makarrata (<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-a-treaty-what-could-it-mean-for-indigenous-people-200261">Treaty</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/first-nations-people-have-made-a-plea-for-truth-telling-by-reckoning-with-its-past-australia-can-finally-help-improve-our-future-202137">Truth</a>).</p>
<p>Second, polling confirms the Voice continues to receive <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/27/a-majority-of-first-nations-people-support-the-voice-why-dont-non-indigenous-australians-believe-this">overwhelming</a> Indigenous support. Two polls from 2023 confirm that 80% and 83% of Indigenous people support the Voice. </p>
<p>Further, Indigenous organisations across the country have indicated their support for the Voice. This includes land-based representative bodies such as the <a href="https://nit.com.au/09-06-2023/6301/all-northern-territory-land-councils-unite-to-issue-historic-declaration-supporting-the-voice-and-constitutional-recognition">Northern Territory Land Councils</a> and the <a href="https://www.klc.org.au/newsroomblog/indigenousaspirationcallsforavoice">Kimberley Land Council</a>, and peak service organisations such as the Australian <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/medical-groups-are-backing-the-voice-indigenous-mental-health/9x9o5alrj">Indigenous Doctors Association</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532093/original/file-20230615-19-uyw8kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532093/original/file-20230615-19-uyw8kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532093/original/file-20230615-19-uyw8kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532093/original/file-20230615-19-uyw8kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532093/original/file-20230615-19-uyw8kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532093/original/file-20230615-19-uyw8kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532093/original/file-20230615-19-uyw8kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Voice is based on the national consensus agreement outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Museum of Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Will the Voice insert race into the Constitution?</h2>
<p>The concept of race is already in <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html">section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution</a>, which gives the Commonwealth parliament the power to legislate for “people of any race for whom it is deemed to be necessary to make special laws”.</p>
<p>That section was originally included so as to give effect to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-politics-explainer-the-white-australia-policy-74084">White Australia Policy</a>, and Aboriginal people were excluded from it. But since the section was amended in 1967, following a nationwide campaign for change, it has included the power to make such laws “for people […] of the aboriginal race in any State”. </p>
<p>As was intended in 1967, the power has been exercised for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (such as in relation to native title and cultural heritage protection laws). On the other hand, the same power could also arguably be used to pass laws that operate to their detriment. Its existence and breadth underscores the need for a mechanism – the Voice – to listen to the very people to whom those laws would apply.</p>
<h2>3. How will the Voice make a practical difference?</h2>
<p>The Voice will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a constitutionally guaranteed right to speak to government and the parliament about what’s needed for practical improvements to people’s lives. This in turn would help address disadvantage and systemic discrimination. </p>
<p>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have answers to many pressing issues confronting their communities, but all too often are not heard. The positive impact of listening to Indigenous voices is supported by research such as that conducted in Australia led by <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jpc.15701">Fiona Stanley and Marcia Langton</a>, and internationally at the <a href="https://indigenousgov.hks.harvard.edu/">Harvard Project on American Indian Development</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1667697093916655616"}"></div></p>
<h2>4. How can the Voice represent the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander views?</h2>
<p>Claims that the Voice will be a “<a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-to-oppose-canberra-voice-in-war-with-albanese-20230405-p5cy8g">Canberra Voice</a>”, unrepresentative of the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and their views, misrepresents the proposal.</p>
<p>The constitutional provision requires only that the Voice is an “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”, and leaves the rules governing its composition to be determined by parliament. It is appropriate that parliament is responsible for determining the composition of the Voice, because the identity, experience, culture and views of First Nations across Australia are complex and diverse. This means it will need to be done in close consultation with local Indigenous communities, and will require ongoing monitoring, input and evaluation in cooperation with those communities. The parliament is <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4344248">best placed</a> to undertake that sort of ongoing negotiation.</p>
<p>The government has committed to exactly that form of consultation in the <a href="https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles">design principles</a> that have been set in collaboration with the Referendum Working Group, a group of Indigenous leaders. These principles indicate how the government intends the Voice to represent the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and their views. These principles commit the government to a Voice that is chosen based on the wishes of local communities, is not appointed by government, reflects gender balance and youth perspectives, and all members must be Indigenous. </p>
<p>These principles are informed by the recommendations of the <a href="https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report">2021 Indigenous Voice Co-Design</a> process as well as the design and proposed reforms of ATSIC. </p>
<p>Importantly, however, the government recognises <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-we-know-about-the-voice-to-parliament-design-and-what-do-we-still-need-to-know-195720">the need for further consultation</a> with Indigenous people on the specific design of the Voice.</p>
<p>These commitments will ensure the Voice is representative of the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander views. </p>
<h2>5. Is the Voice in breach of international human rights standards?</h2>
<p>No. In fact, the Voice is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-voice-is-not-revolutionary-or-threatening-only-its-opponents-say-it-is-20230407-p5cywr.html">supported</a> under international human rights law as it recognises Indigenous peoples’ rights to political representation and is consistent with the <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf">UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples</a>. </p>
<p>In human rights and international law, equality and anti-discrimination means more than just treating people exactly the same. Indeed, this type of formal equality will often result in ongoing discrimination against people who have been historically marginalised because it doesn’t redress institutional and structural discrimination, or recognise difference. </p>
<p>The Voice has been <a href="https://www.refworld.org/docid/59cb9bd34.html">endorsed</a> by several UN treaty bodies, which have also expressed serious concern about the human rights violations Indigenous people in Australia continue to experience. </p>
<h2>6. Don’t Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people already have lots of ‘voices’ to government and parliament?</h2>
<p>No. There is currently no representative body to provide, in a nationally coordinated way, the government and parliament with the views and experience of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will be affected by their decisions.</p>
<p>To the extent there are other Indigenous organisations working with government and parliament, the Voice will complement, not detract, from their work. For instance, peak service organisations working in areas such as health, education and law, offer important Indigenous specific services and advice to government in service delivery, they are not representative. </p>
<p>And while there may be more Aboriginal parliamentarians than ever – and this should be celebrated – these individuals do not primarily represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They are party members bound by party policy, or individual MPs, who represent the whole of their constituencies. Further, Indigenous representation in the parliament is not guaranteed – it will rise and fall depending on party selection, and election results.</p>
<p>Finally, while individual traditional owners might be able to negotiate land claims and native title rights with government, they do not have a nationally representative voice to speak to parliament and government in a coordinated way about the laws and policies that will apply to these negotiations. There is no one to make sure the rules of the game are fair.</p>
<h2>7. Will the Voice give rise to High Court litigation and clog up parliamentary work?</h2>
<p>No. According to the prevailing weight of informed legal opinion, the establishment of the Voice does not pose any abnormal risk of excessive litigation. </p>
<p>Any suggestion the Voice would clog up the parliament or the government ignores the parliament’s ability to determine its own business, and the parliament’s legislative power to determine how the Voice will engage with the government. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-if-the-government-goes-against-the-advice-of-the-voice-to-parliament-200517">What happens if the government goes against the advice of the Voice to Parliament?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>8. How does the Voice affect sovereignty?</h2>
<p>Sovereignty is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-we-mean-when-we-say-sovereignty-was-never-ceded-195205">complex idea</a>, referring at a general level to ultimate political authority within a community. However, people talk about it in different ways. The Voice proposal interacts with sovereignty at three different levels.</p>
<p>First, the call for the Voice reform is based on the strong assertion in the <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> of the continuing and unceded sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. </p>
<p>Second, there is nothing in the Voice proposal which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/26/will-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-impact-first-nations-sovereignty-explainer">alters</a> the British Crown’s assertion of sovereignty at settlement, nor the fact that First Nations people have never consented to the forceful transfer of sovereignty to the Australian nation as we now know it.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-we-mean-when-we-say-sovereignty-was-never-ceded-195205">What we mean when we say 'sovereignty was never ceded'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The third is under international law, which requires the agreement or consent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to cede sovereignty. This is <a href="https://nit.com.au/16-01-2023/4736/voice-will-empower-us-not-undermine-sovereignty">not what is happening</a> under the Voice proposal. Indeed, international treaty bodies have repeatedly confirmed that the Voice would be a positive step for the recognition and political participation rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within the state.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1668738136346599426"}"></div></p>
<h2>9. Why do we need to put the Voice in the Constitution?</h2>
<p>There are two key parts to this <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-cant-we-just-establish-the-voice-to-parliament-through-legislation-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-203652">answer</a>. The first is that the Voice has a number of objectives, one of which is the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of the land. First Nations people, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, indicated they wished for recognition in the form of the Voice. If we are serious about recognition, we should do it in a way that accords with the wishes of those to be recognised.</p>
<p>The second part of the answer relates to the operation of the Voice. If the Voice is in the Constitution, it can only be abolished by another referendum, rather than by a change of government policy. This gives it independence and stability, so it can fulfil its function of speaking about matters that might not be politically popular. </p>
<h2>10. Do Australians have enough detail to vote at the referendum?</h2>
<p>Yes. There’s often a lot of confusion about this question, which is because there are two types of detail that people talk about.</p>
<p>The first is the detail about the constitutional change. This is the bit Australians are being asked to vote on, and the bit that is “permanent” (subject to a future referendum). There is heaps of detail in relation to the constitutional change, including the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7019">wording of the amendment</a>, the <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/referendum-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice">referendum question</a>, the explanatory memorandum to the amendment, a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Voice_Referendum/VoiceReferendum/Report">parliamentary inquiry’s report</a>, and the government has even taken the extraordinary route of releasing the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367">solicitor-general’s advice</a> on the legal soundness of the amendment.</p>
<p>The second is the detail about what the legislation establishing the “nuts and bolts” of the Voice will look like. To be clear, this detail is not part of the constitutional amendment – and it is entirely normal for constitutions to leave this type of detail to be worked out in future by the parliament. It would be misleading to release the full detail of the Voice, because this detail would need to be passed through parliament, and would be subject to future change.</p>
<p>However, there is some detail about what the Voice will look like. The government has taken the sensible option of indicating what it will do following a successful referendum, and how it will go about setting up the Voice. It has worked with the Referendum Working Group to finalise a set of <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/education/design-principles/">design principles</a> that provide the outline of what the voice will look like – how it will represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the country, what functions it will have, and how it will be accountable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207014/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabrielle Appleby was a pro bono constitutional consultant to the Regional Dialogues and First Nations Constitutional Convention that delivered the Uluru Statement from the Heart. She is a member of the Indigenous Law Centre (UNSW Law & Justice) and supports the work of the Uluru Dialogues. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoffrey Lindell has provided pro bono assistance to the UNSW Indigenous Law Centre on the Voice. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah McGlade is a member of the Referendum Engagement Group, the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issue and supports the work of the Uluru Dialogues.</span></em></p>Mis- and disinformation about the Voice to Parliament proposal are rife. Here, experts address 10 of the most common myths.Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW SydneyGeoffrey Lindell, Adjunct Professor in Law, University of AdelaideHannah McGlade, Associate professor, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1927332022-10-31T00:59:12Z2022-10-31T00:59:12ZBook extract: Dreamers and schemers and the election that changed us<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491557/original/file-20221025-14-fhvb7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rick Rycroft/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This is an edited extract from Dreamers and Schemers: A Political History of Australia by Frank Bongiorno, La Trobe University Press, 2022.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The term “democracy sausage” first appeared in Australia in 2012. It literally referred to the practice of voluntary organisations running fundraising barbecues at polling booths during Australian elections. Symbolically, though, the term expressed the spirit in which Australian elections are held, perhaps even saying something broader about the political culture.</p>
<p>Australians, it seemed to suggest, do not take their politics so seriously that they cannot have a laugh. Contention and disagreement are necessary ingredients of democracy, but a smoking barbecue and a cake stall speak to a deeper sense of community, a more meaningful civic belonging than can be expressed by the political system itself.</p>
<p>There is, of course, a sleight of hand in the rise of the democracy sausage, which occurred during the very same time political trust plunged to very low levels. A peaceful election day came about through historical development. Early elections were often far from gentle occasions. It is the bureaucratic administration of elections that permits organisations to go about the business of fundraising on election day. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491556/original/file-20221025-18-rhpacm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491556/original/file-20221025-18-rhpacm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491556/original/file-20221025-18-rhpacm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491556/original/file-20221025-18-rhpacm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491556/original/file-20221025-18-rhpacm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1154&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491556/original/file-20221025-18-rhpacm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1154&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491556/original/file-20221025-18-rhpacm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1154&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In recent years, we have seen intense debate about corruption, bullying and misogyny that hints at a darker side to the country’s politics. The Machiavellian behaviour of factional operatives and branch-stackers is sometimes the squalid backdrop to a pristine election day overseen by smiling and helpful officials and peopled by cheery volunteers handing out how-to-vote cards for the candidates. </p>
<p>Sexual harassment and assault have received unprecedented attention as a major problem in that citadel of the country’s democracy, Canberra’s Parliament House. For many of the women who sought to practise politics within its walls, it was neither a safe nor a peaceful endeavour.</p>
<p>Australians have been creative in their politics, often drawing on forms and practices from elsewhere but also developing a distinctive culture of their own. What was distinctive about it? </p>
<p>In 1930, the historian W.K. Hancock famously presented Australian democracy as having “come to look upon the State as a vast public utility, whose duty it is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. The citizen, Hancock explained, claimed not “natural rights” but rights received “from the State and through the State”. Collective power was in the service of individual rights, so that Australians saw “no opposition between […] individualism and […] reliance upon Government”.</p>
<p>These strains were evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, reminding us of their deep embeddedness. Many Australians longed for greater freedom; most were also willing to agree there is individual responsibility for the collective welfare. There was a broad acceptance, stronger among some than others, that government should play the predominant role in defining where the boundaries between individual rights and the common good lie. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491564/original/file-20221025-20-letjy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491564/original/file-20221025-20-letjy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491564/original/file-20221025-20-letjy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491564/original/file-20221025-20-letjy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491564/original/file-20221025-20-letjy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491564/original/file-20221025-20-letjy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491564/original/file-20221025-20-letjy7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australians have developed their own distinctive – and peaceful – polling day. Historically, this was not always the case.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Baker/AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Outside extreme libertarianism, a minority taste in Australia, there tends to be only mild political disagreement. Otherwise, most people get on with their lives, expecting the state to set reasonable parameters for individual behaviour while allowing people a wide scope to pursue their private interests as individuals and families. As Hancock said, “collective power at the service of ‘individualistic’ rights”.</p>
<p>Yet is this sufficient? Australian political history has had its dreamers and visionaries alongside the pragmatists and schemers. </p>
<p>Big change of the kind that occurred in Australia in the 1850s, 1890s, 1940s and 1980s would have been impossible without the idealists and thinkers: that is, without political leaders, activists, intellectuals and movements who refused to be merely “practical”. Change depended on people willing to resist complacent utilitarian appeals to majority interests and consensus opinion, on refusing to accept injunctions merely to tinker rather than transform. In the end, it depended on a vision, however modest, of the good life.</p>
<p>It remains too easy in a political culture based on the vague notion that everyone should be treated “equally”, and that nurtures a value as contested as “fairness”, to marginalise those who have historically been left out or left behind. </p>
<p>Their claims are sometimes dismissed as “special treatment”, their needs as no more compelling or urgent than the better-off – “battlers”, “aspirationals”, “working families” – whom politicians flatter as the most deserving of their constituents.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, a political culture that lays so much stress on the practical and material can shun the creativity and imagination invariably required to master the complexities of intractable problems.</p>
<p>There are, in our own times, plenty of these. On issues as diverse as constitutional recognition for First Nations people, the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and management of the rise of China, Australia’s political system has often appeared stodgy and ineffective. </p>
<p>New forms of online politics have evolved, yet political parties with rapidly declining membership bases, whose practices persistently fail to conform to reasonable democratic norms, still play the central role in the system. An adversarial parliament too closely resembles an arena for a sporting contest, with citizens as spectators rather than players, if indeed they engage at all.</p>
<p>As Australians faced a federal election that Scott Morrison called for May 21 2022, it was hard to discern among the major parties a political vision that might engage the imaginations and ideals of masses of people. The aspirations that attached to democratic self-government in the 19th century, to the social laboratories of the federation era, to postwar reconstruction in the 1940s, and to progressive reform in the late 20th century were now apparently beyond either the consciousness or memory of many Australians. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/book-extract-from-secret-ballot-to-democracy-sausage-112695">Book extract: From secret ballot to democracy sausage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The 2022 election, however, produced a result that was potentially transformative for the nation’s politics. A government that had served three terms without establishing much that could be called a legacy trailed in the polls. Morrison’s personal standing, revived in the early months of the pandemic, now collapsed, the marketing man’s habit of denying responsibility for failure while owning every success having eroded respect for his leadership.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491582/original/file-20221025-14-seyy2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491582/original/file-20221025-14-seyy2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491582/original/file-20221025-14-seyy2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491582/original/file-20221025-14-seyy2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491582/original/file-20221025-14-seyy2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491582/original/file-20221025-14-seyy2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491582/original/file-20221025-14-seyy2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The success of the ‘teal’ independents, who snatched several previously safe Liberal seats, was one of the big stories of the 2022 federal election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While the parties tussled in their usual way, a political revolution was brewing in parts of the country that usually received little attention in elections. In electorates normally regarded as safe for the Liberals – predominantly in the leafy, affluent suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, but also in a few regional areas – independent candidates came forward. Most were women already successful in business or the professions. They were known as the “voices of” movement, “community independents” or “teals”. </p>
<p>They received a bitter opposition from the Liberal Party and its friends in the Murdoch media, who saw in this unwelcome outbreak of grassroots politics a clear and present danger to good government and stable democracy. The teals, they said, were really fake independents advancing the Labor cause. Coalition partisans made it plain they felt their own enterprise was being deprived of property that was rightly its own.</p>
<p>While often insulting their values and lifestyles as those of the fashionable inner-city elite, the Coalition did little to draw women into its ranks, protect the planet or promote clean politics. Two of the eventual teal victors – Allegra Spender in Wentworth, Sydney, and Kate Chaney in Curtin, Perth – belonged to multi-generational Liberal parliamentary dynasties. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1519106118391197696"}"></div></p>
<p>Each teal, moreover, received financial and strategic support from Climate 200, a political action committee on the US model founded and led by businessman and clean-energy advocate Simon Holmes à Court. Predictably, right-wing commentators depicted Holmes à Court as a puppeteer, which only confirmed the prevailing impression among women of the way that conservative male politicians and their media mouthpieces demeaned them.</p>
<p>The 2022 election disclosed the resilience and adaptability of the country’s distinctive democracy. Independent candidates had successfully challenged well-resourced party machines and had raised the profile of issues that mattered to voters but which had been handled badly by the major parties, especially by the incumbent government. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/did-australia-just-make-a-move-to-the-left-183611">Did Australia just make a move to the left?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There was an increase in the number of women elected, of Indigenous parliamentarians and of members from non-English-speaking backgrounds; the parliament would at last begin to reflect the notable diversity of the country. Chinese-Australians acted on their disaffection with the increasingly aggressive posturing towards China among senior Coalition politicians. </p>
<p>Millions of voters ignored the urgings of News Corp to shun Labor, the Greens and the teal independents, and they seemed to pay little attention to right-leaning media that often appeared more interested in testing the memory of the Labor Party leader than in impartially assessing the offerings of parties and candidates, or in holding a three-term government to account for its record. </p>
<p>Rather, the result arguably saw the most drastic electoral shift to the left since the elections of 1969 and 1972 that had brought Gough Whitlam to power. Dreamers imagined that a new era of political creativity might be just around the corner, even as the schemers manoeuvred in their familiar patterns. While the challenges faced by the new government were formidable, for a moment it seemed possible that the nation’s imaginative energies might not yet be completely exhausted.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Bongiorno does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia has a long history of imaginative, even transformative, electoral politics – and a new book argues the 2022 federal election shows that spirit is still alive and well.Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1879162022-07-29T04:27:43Z2022-07-29T04:27:43ZVIDEO: the state of the economy, the Indigenous ‘Voice’ and whether the first parliamentary week saw better standards<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476636/original/file-20220729-19-t3rcsj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan discusses the week in politics with University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher.</p>
<p>This week saw parliament meet for the first time since the election. Michelle and Caroline talk about Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ sombre report on the economy, and the early flurry of legislation. They also examine whether we saw the much hoped for better standards in the house. Finally, they canvass the Indigenous “Voice” to parliament, which Anthony Albanese will speak about this weekend at the Garma festival.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vpfJeNaVBw8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan discusses the week in politics with University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher. This week saw parliament meet for the first time…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1803172022-03-31T08:57:42Z2022-03-31T08:57:42ZRussia a ‘real threat’ to Australia as well, Ukranian president Zelenskyy warns parliament<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/455483/original/file-20220331-15-mmbbns.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his speech to the Australian parliament on Thursday evening, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy made an emotional appeal. He also appealed to Australia’s own interest in containing Russian aggression.</p>
<p>The appeals had a purpose: to persuade Australia to do more to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion.</p>
<h2>An appeal to Australian emotions</h2>
<p>One of Zelenskyy’s techniques was what the classical philosophers called “pathos”: awakening emotions in the hearts of his audience to prepare them to form the desired opinion. </p>
<p>He spoke about cities being shelled, children being killed, and the destruction of an aircraft evocatively called <em>Mriya</em> (“dream”). What matters, he said, is “the dream of bringing back a peaceful life”.</p>
<p>For first-generation Australians who have fled wars in other countries, the images might be viscerally familiar. But they are beyond the experience of most people in Canberra or elsewhere in Australia. Zelenskyy was asking his audience to see the Russian invasion of Ukraine through the eyes of Ukrainians and to feel (rather than intellectualise) the urgency of acting.</p>
<p>In speeches to other parliaments, Zelenskyy has gone further. He has tailored his appeal to their particular history. To the parliament of Japan, a country with its own experience of a nuclear accident, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/world/asia/zelensky-japan-parliament-speech.html">he spoke about Russia’s seizure of Chernobyl</a>. </p>
<p>To the Israeli Knesset, he quoted former prime minister Golda Meir, who was born in Kyiv: “<a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-ukraine-president-zelenskys-speech-to-israeli-lawmakers/">We intend to remain alive</a>”.</p>
<p>With Australia, Zelenskyy did not need to reach far back into history. He reminded his audience about a recent episode. In 2014, Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. They killed almost 300 people, including 38 Australians.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-west-owes-ukraine-much-more-than-just-arms-and-admiration-179383">The West owes Ukraine much more than just arms and admiration</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An appeal to Australian interests</h2>
<p>The reminder about MH17 was an appeal not only to the emotions of Australians, but also to their interests. It reinforced Zelenskyy’s message that if a great power like Russia starts to use violence to achieve goals – instead of peaceful means like law, diplomacy, and trade – then no one is safe. Russia, he said, is “a real threat to your country, to your people as well”.</p>
<p>He added that if the world had punished Russia for its actions in Ukraine in 2014, it would not have been emboldened to invade in 2022: “unpunished evil comes back with inspiration”. This may align with Australian priorities. Since the war began, Australia (with the Netherlands) has launched <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/australia-and-the-netherlands-launch-legal-action-against-russia-over-mh17-disaster">an international legal action against Russia</a> about MH17.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/455485/original/file-20220331-21-wb3pe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/455485/original/file-20220331-21-wb3pe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455485/original/file-20220331-21-wb3pe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455485/original/file-20220331-21-wb3pe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455485/original/file-20220331-21-wb3pe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455485/original/file-20220331-21-wb3pe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455485/original/file-20220331-21-wb3pe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy used the downing of flight MH-17 to appeal to Australian emotions as his country fights the Russian invasion.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Evgeniy Maloletka</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the same theme, Zelenskyy highlighted recent statements by Russian officials about the use of nuclear weapons. “Nuclear blackmailing”, he argued, ought to be resisted.</p>
<p>In their introductory remarks, the Australian prime minister and opposition leader emphasised another interest that Australia shares with Ukraine: preserving freedom and democracy. Zelenskyy has described the war in those terms many times. But it was noticeable that, in this speech, he said comparatively little about freedom and democracy.</p>
<p>That may be because he was seeking the best way to cut through to Australians. He perhaps calculated that his audience would be more receptive on a basic human level than to political ideals that, to people who have grown up taking them for granted, might seem abstract.</p>
<h2>A plea for action</h2>
<p>Zelenskyy expressed thanks for Australia’s efforts to support Ukraine so far, which have included imposing sanctions on Russia and providing military equipment and other supplies.</p>
<p>But the purpose of his speech was not to say “thank you”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/455489/original/file-20220331-13-uqp83w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/455489/original/file-20220331-13-uqp83w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455489/original/file-20220331-13-uqp83w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455489/original/file-20220331-13-uqp83w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455489/original/file-20220331-13-uqp83w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455489/original/file-20220331-13-uqp83w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/455489/original/file-20220331-13-uqp83w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prime Minister Scott Morrison committed A$25 million in military assistance to Ukraine to help fight the Russian invasion.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alex Ellinghausen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>His speeches to parliaments are designed to persuade other countries to provide more support. In some speeches, he has been specific about the help he wants. If he has carried his audience with him up to this point, this is where he might start to lose lawmakers who are thinking about their own countries.</p>
<p>For example, he has asked European nations, such as <a href="https://www.thelocal.dk/20220329/light-a-candle-for-ukrainians-zelensky-in-speech-to-danish-parliament/">Denmark earlier this week</a>, to stop buying Russian oil and gas. That would come at an economic cost that some are hesitant to pay.</p>
<p>He has also asked the United States and its NATO allies for a no-fly zone. Experts dismiss that option because of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/opinion/no-fly-zone-ukraine-nati-russia.html">the risk of triggering a war between NATO and Russia</a> (and because a war between nuclear-armed powers would be unthinkably worse than other scenarios).</p>
<p>Australia does not depend on Russian oil and gas and does not belong to NATO. That explains why Zelenskyy’s requests for help in this speech were somewhat generic. He asked for more sanctions and more military equipment, such as Bushmaster armoured vehicles. He also foreshadowed that Australia might, one day, be able to help rebuild Ukraine.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/i-have-a-need-how-zelenskyys-plea-to-congress-emphasized-shared-identity-with-us-179349">'I have a need': How Zelenskyy's plea to Congress emphasized shared identity with US</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Australia’s response</h2>
<p>In response to Zelenskyy’s request, the Australian government announced an additional A$25 million of military assistance to Ukraine. Australia will also take fiercer economic measures, including imposing additional tariffs on imports from Russia and its ally Belarus.</p>
<p>Will that make a big difference? Australia cannot achieve as much as nations with closer links to Russia. But Zelenskyy might hope every extra bit of pressure on Russia will help.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180317/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rowan Nicholson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In his address to federal parliament, the Ukrainian president asked Australia to do more to support his country against the Russian invasion.Rowan Nicholson, Lecturer in Law, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1713882021-11-23T01:45:00Z2021-11-23T01:45:00ZAndrew Wallace becomes the new speaker – a role that’s never been more important in Australian politics<p>The House of Representatives today chose <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=265967">Andrew Wallace</a> as the new Speaker. Wallace has been the member for the Queensland Sunshine Coast electorate of Fisher since 2016. He worked as a carpenter and barrister before entering parliament. </p>
<p>He is probably pleased to have this prestigious post. It pays well and comes with a nice office. His portrait will hang in the halls of parliament for posterity. On formal occasions, the speaker ranks ahead of the chief justice, the deputy prime minister and former prime ministers in the <a href="https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfat.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcommonwealth-table-of-precedence.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK">table of precedence</a> (the official hierarchy list of key positions, used for ceremonial purposes). </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1462957957302292484"}"></div></p>
<p>But speakers pretend to be reluctantly dragged to the position. This reflects a British <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/customs/">political tradition</a>. Standing up to the king as parliament’s representative used to be a dangerous role. </p>
<p>As is usual in Australia, the new speaker comes from the government’s ranks, which means Wallace may be one of the shortest-serving speakers in Australian history if the government changes at the next election. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-truly-independent-speaker-could-renew-australias-parliamentary-democracy-44915">A truly independent Speaker could renew Australia's parliamentary democracy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The role of the speaker</h2>
<p>The speaker is the House of Representative’s “principal officer”, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter6/Powers,_functions_and_duties">fulfilling</a> “constitutional, traditional and ceremonial, statutory, procedural and administrative” functions. </p>
<p>Perhaps the most public role they have is to preside over the debates in the house, ensuring these are conducted according to standing orders. </p>
<p>The speakership is anything but a sinecure. Most Australians are well aware of televised images of the incumbent perched in the speaker’s chair at the head of the chamber during question time.</p>
<p>At times, the speaker strains to manage 150 clamorous parliamentarians. One speaker, <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/martin-stephen-paul-28210">Stephen Martin</a>, was only half joking when he said his experience as a rugby league referee and high school teacher was good preparation. </p>
<p>Along with the <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/presidential-politics/">Senate president</a>, the speaker runs the parliamentary building and manages the staff.</p>
<p>The careers of the Australian speakers are described in the recently published <a href="https://history.cass.anu.edu.au/centres/ncb/biographical-dictionary-house-representatives">Biographical Dictionary of the House of Representatives</a>, prepared by the <a href="https://history.cass.anu.edu.au/centres/ncb">National Centre of Biography</a> at the ANU and funded by the department of the House of Representatives. </p>
<h2>How is the speaker chosen?</h2>
<p>Speakers are chosen by the house itself. But in practice it is nearly always formalising a selection by the nominee’s parliamentary party. </p>
<p>The first speaker, <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/holder-sir-frederick-william-6706">Frederick Holder</a> attempted, unsuccessfully, to embed Westminster convention that the speaker ceases to be an active member of a political party.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433290/original/file-20211122-15-y621ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Frederick Holder" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433290/original/file-20211122-15-y621ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433290/original/file-20211122-15-y621ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433290/original/file-20211122-15-y621ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433290/original/file-20211122-15-y621ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433290/original/file-20211122-15-y621ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=985&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433290/original/file-20211122-15-y621ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=985&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433290/original/file-20211122-15-y621ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=985&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The first speaker was Frederick Holder.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-136693584/view">National Library of Australia/Trove</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the UK, the speaker has usually not faced opponents from other major parties at general elections. </p>
<p>But in the smaller Australian parliament, parties have been unwilling to give up a seat. Under the <a href="https://aph.org.au/2021/09/speakers-deputies-and-the-clerks-the-revealing-light-of-biography/#:%7E:text=The%20Biographical%20Dictionary%20of%20the%20House%20of%20Representatives,Speaker%2C%20or%20Clerk%20of%20the%20House%20since%20Federation.">Australian model</a>, the speaker remains a member of their party but generally adopts a less partisan role. </p>
<p>Speakers typically have long parliamentary experience, but few have had major further political ambitions. Several were past senior ministers for whom being parked on the backbench seemed decidedly risky. This made their appointment to the chair a face-saving precaution. </p>
<p>Holder was a former premier of South Australia who had been dismayed by being excluded from the federal ministry. <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/watt-william-alexander-9011">William Watt</a> had been acting prime minister for over a year. </p>
<p>Most such elders proved excellent speakers. Indeed, seven years in the job partly restored <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/snedden-sir-billy-mackie-15519">Billy Snedden’s</a> tattered political reputation. </p>
<h2>Why is the speaker important?</h2>
<p>A good speaker is a bulwark against the worst excesses of political partisanship. Truly effective ones determine the tone of the house, often skilfully exercising their personal authority with a seemingly light touch. </p>
<p>Most speakers have successfully balanced party loyalty with wider expectations of the office. They struck a workable compromise between partiality to their own government and keeping favouritism within bounds the opposition could tolerate. </p>
<p>Only a few, such as the truculent <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/cameron-archie-galbraith-9669">Archie Cameron</a> in the 1950s, faced persistent opposition calls for resignation. Such qualified non-partisanship was probably helped by the speakership not usually having served as a career stepping stone.</p>
<p>This pragmatic, largely workable, model faces pressure from the encroachment of party politics. Although supported by deep roots in our little appreciated parliamentary history and in the wider Australian “fair go” ethos, it should never be taken for granted. It needs to be defended against the remorseless politicisation of public life. </p>
<p>The speaker’s role is becoming more important as politics becomes more partisan. If the people elect a “hung parliament” next year, with no party or coalition having a majority, the role will be even more crucial. </p>
<h2>Tony Smith is a hard act to follow</h2>
<p>The new speaker takes over from <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=00APG">Tony Smith</a>, generally regarded as a very capable speaker. </p>
<p>He projected authority. His impartiality is reflected in his signalling that as an ex-speaker still in the chamber he will distance himself from the cut and thrust of party-driven debate. He received a standing ovation for his work.</p>
<p>He may have been rather blunter than many of his 29 predecessors in asserting himself. But he also showed a love of parliament – not to be underrated as a characteristic of an effective speaker.</p>
<p>Overall, not a bad way to exit parliamentary life. But interestingly, and perhaps worryingly, he was the first <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=00APG">career</a> political activist (as a former political staffer and research assistant at the Institute of Public Affairs) to ascend to the office.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/slipper-saga-begs-the-question-do-we-need-a-speaker-at-all-6611">Slipper saga begs the question – do we need a speaker at all?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171388/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Hawkins was a former adviser to the House Economics Committee and secretary of the Senate Economics Committee. He contributed six essays to the Biographical Dictionary of the House of Representatives. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Wilks edited the Biographical Dictionary of the House of Representatives, which was funded by the Department of the House of Representatives. </span></em></p>Andrew Wallace has been appointed to the increasingly important role of speaker of the House of Representatives.John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of CanberraStephen Wilks, Research editor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1608672021-05-18T01:19:46Z2021-05-18T01:19:46ZQuestion Time reforms are worthy but won’t solve the problem of a broken political culture<p>Schoolchildren are told democracy, especially Australian parliamentary democracy, is a great and glorious thing. <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter15/Question_Time">Question Time</a>, in which our elected representatives ask questions of the government of the day, is meant to be emblematic of all that is best in that democracy. </p>
<p>Australian parliamentary democracy is a form of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system#:%7E:text=The%20Westminster%20system%20or%20Westminster,that%20is%20responsible%20to%20the">Westminster system</a>, and one of the key features of that system is that parliament keeps the government of the day accountable by scrutinising its actions. </p>
<p>In a democracy, the people have a right to know just how well the government is performing. Question Time is meant to be central to ensuring government accountability. </p>
<p>That, of course, is the ideal. The reality is somewhat different. Question Time is now often seen as something of an embarrassment, in which government and opposition members manoeuvre for political advantage. The tone and the outcome are often less than edifying. </p>
<p>Governments too often spend their time avoiding answering questions asked by the opposition and using the questions asked by their own supporters (known as “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Dixer#:%7E:text=In%20Australian%20politics%2C%20a%20Dorothy,party%20during%20Parliamentary%20Question%20Time.%22">Dorothy Dixers</a>”) to paint a rosy picture of their performance. </p>
<p>It would not be so bad if Question Time was, like so much parliament does, largely outside of public view. Instead, it is the primary means through which parliament displays itself to the public, so it becomes the public face of parliament. </p>
<p>So instead of an advertisement for the virtues of Australian parliamentary democracy, Question Time is instead a running sore that oozes many unsavoury aspects of parliamentary behaviour into the wider public sphere. </p>
<p>In light of this, a parliamentary committee has released <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportrep/024667/toc_pdf/AwindowontheHousepracticesandproceduresrelatingtoQuestionTime.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">a report</a> on ways of improving question time. The aim is to make it, as committee chair Ross Vasta puts it in his foreword,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>offer greater opportunities for scrutiny, and show parliamentarians as better role models. </p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-question-time-becomes-political-theatre-does-it-still-play-a-vital-role-in-government-121177">As question time becomes political theatre, does it still play a vital role in government?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are two issues here: one is that Question Time does not enable proper scrutiny of the government. The other is enhancing the public profile of parliamentarians. </p>
<p>To this end, the recommendations have much to commend themselves. They seek to:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>restrict the use of Dorothy Dixers by preventing ministers attacking opposition policies as part of their answers</p></li>
<li><p>allow a non-government member to ask a supplementary question, a follow-on question for clarification</p></li>
<li><p>allow at least ten questions from opposition MPs</p></li>
<li><p>increase the number of constituency questions from government members</p></li>
<li><p>reduce the time limit for all questions to 30 seconds and all answers to two minutes. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Regarding the “role model” issue, the report recommends that the Speaker should tell an MP who behaves in an unbecoming matter to leave the chamber for one or three hours. </p>
<p>It also recommends a trial of “very limited use of mobile phones” by MPs during Question Time. From an image perspective, a parliamentarian sitting and fiddling with his or her phone during a televised Question Time is not desirable. </p>
<p>The real issue is whether these reforms will actually create greater scrutiny and a better image of parliament. There is no doubt the authors of this report genuinely want both of these things. However, one wonders whether this goal could be achieved by what is essentially “tinkering” with procedural mechanisms. As with any institution, parliament is much more than the rules and regulations its members follow. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-curtains-for-clive-what-covid-means-for-populism-in-australia-153101">Is it curtains for Clive? What COVID means for populism in Australia </a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It also has an animating culture that influences how people deal with those rules and regulations. As with all Westminster systems, the Australian parliament is adversarial in nature. It relies on a certain amount of conflict between the government of the day and the opposition. For quite some time, the focus of that conflict has been Question Time. </p>
<p>Question Time is where the prime minister establishes his or her credentials as leader, and where the opposition leader seeks to dent the reputation of the prime minister and establish his or her credentials as a better alternative. It is a crucial arena in the ongoing battle of politics. </p>
<p>Question Time is caught between the high-minded civic conception of politics and the reality of the struggle for dominance in our adversarial system of politics. </p>
<p>It is difficult to measure such things, but one could argue that Australian politics has become more adversarial over the past 25 years. Politics, as exemplified by such things as conflict between those seeking to become prime minister, has become quite brutal at times. </p>
<p>Given recent debates about the treatment of women in Parliament House, one wonders if the real issue may be the desirability of an adversarial culture underpinning the conduct of politics in Australia. </p>
<p>Perhaps, rather than seeking to reform such institutions as Question Time, we should be looking more closely at the values that animate our political life. At the moment, it would seem to be the case that winning the political battle and establishing dominance are far more important than developing policies that benefit the public, and which can be scrutinised in a calm and rational fashion.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160867/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Melleuish receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>A review of Question Time in the House of Representatives aims to make it more democratic and more edifying. But it’s not the structure as much as the culture that needs fixing.Gregory Melleuish, Professor, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1350362020-03-31T02:34:50Z2020-03-31T02:34:50ZExplainer: what is the national cabinet and is it democratic?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/324165/original/file-20200331-65537-6o3gan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mike Bowers</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Crises pose particular challenges for democratic leaders. They are expected to make critical decisions in times of uncertainty and rapidly develop effective plans to lead us out of the crisis. Normally, we are more interested in constraining our leaders through the checks and balances of accountability. But in times of crisis, we look to our leaders to lead. Finding the right balance between accountability and rapid decision-making remains a challenge during an era of <a href="https://theconversation.com/trust-in-politicians-and-government-is-at-an-all-time-low-the-next-government-must-work-to-fix-that-110886">reduced trust in political leaders</a>.</p>
<p>In Australia, the establishment of the national cabinet has undertaken this crisis leadership role.</p>
<p>The national cabinet comprises the prime minister and all state and territory premiers and chief ministers. Basically, it is COAG by another name.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/where-no-counsel-is-the-people-fall-why-parliaments-should-keep-functioning-during-the-coronavirus-crisis-134772">'Where no counsel is, the people fall': why parliaments should keep functioning during the coronavirus crisis</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Though called a cabinet, the national cabinet is technically an intergovernmental forum. The <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/cabinet-handbook">conventions and rules of cabinet</a>, such as cabinet solidarity and the secrecy provisions, do not apply to the national cabinet.</p>
<p>Its power is that which the leaders of all Australian jurisdictions bring to negotiate on behalf of their people, and to implement the decisions reached. This model is called executive federalism.</p>
<h2>Advantages of executive federalism in a time of crisis</h2>
<p>In a crisis, decision-making automatically shifts upwards with the expectation that leaders will work together to find a way through the crisis. The National Cabinet meets these expectations in several ways.</p>
<p><em>Timeliness and risk</em></p>
<p>Response time is critical, and with the national cabinet meeting multiple times a week, issues can be addressed as they emerge. Risk is reduced by bringing together technical and political experts. </p>
<p>The national cabinet is supported by the chief medical officers, who meet as the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/committees-and-groups/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahppc">Australian Health Protection and Principles Committee</a> (AHPPC). They pull together the modelling, research and data that form the basis of decisions made by the national cabinet.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-a-contest-of-credible-views-should-be-seen-as-useful-in-a-national-crisis-134419">View from The Hill: A contest of credible views should be seen as useful in a national crisis</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The national cabinet is the mechanism to bring together information and intelligence sharing, and the capacity to pool and test ideas before locking in coordination and jurisdictional capacity. </p>
<p>Because of the frequency of meetings, decisions are expected and made. The consideration of different jurisdictional viewpoints and expertise puts rigour and contestability into the decision-making and strengthens the outcome.</p>
<p><em>Clarity and coherence</em></p>
<p>In a time of national crisis, agreement on a plan of action and then rapid and effective implementation is crucial. The national cabinet brings that focus. By putting aside their “politics as usual” squabbles the leaders demonstrate their desire for agreement and unity and communicate that firmness of purpose to the community at large. </p>
<p>Though the search for unity can be overborne by local circumstances. Some states <a href="https://theconversation.com/nsw-and-victoria-announce-shutdowns-as-federal-government-widens-and-ramps-up-income-support-134355">moved earlier</a> to introduce restrictions and shutdowns outside of the national cabinet. Though criticised for breaking ranks, the premiers were reacting to the different circumstances and anxiety within their jurisdiction. They decided to trade off the perception of a loss of unity against the need to create local responses for local circumstances. </p>
<p><em>Dual democracy</em></p>
<p>The national cabinet helps reconcile the dual allegiances citizens have to the national government and their state or territory government. People are looking for a coherent national approach through the crisis, but they do not want to see their individual jurisdiction to be disadvantaged compared to the rest of the country. At the national cabinet, the smaller states have equal representation, whereas in parliament their representation is proportionate to their population size.</p>
<p><em>Is it anti-democratic?</em></p>
<p>Executive federalism forums such as the national cabinet <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/%7E/link.aspx?_id=C8C131542382464EB28135A33F9EA201&_z=z">can be criticised</a> for being undemocratic and unaccountable, with the role of the parliament marginalised. However, these forums are undertaking different roles. The national cabinet deals with negotiation and compromise between states, which recognise difference and diversity. The parliament is about majority will. </p>
<p>The connection has not been lost with parliament, which is <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-virtual-australian-parliament-is-possible-and-may-be-needed-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-134540">suspended not pro-rogued</a>, and will be brought back to pass legislation from decisions made by the national cabinet.</p>
<p>Once the COVID-19 crisis has passed, the full democratic accountability processes can scrutinise the decisions taken. This includes parliamentary committee investigations and royal commissions. The checks and balances of the democratic constraints on our leaders will reassert themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135036/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Menzies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The ‘war cabinet’ is vital in a time of crisis, with the federal and state governments all having a say. And once the crisis has passed, parliament will resume its normal function.Jennifer Menzies, Principal Research Fellow, Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1347722020-03-26T19:06:50Z2020-03-26T19:06:50Z‘Where no counsel is, the people fall’: why parliaments should keep functioning during the coronavirus crisis<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323113/original/file-20200326-168899-1cmt97g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Set into the tiles of the entrance to the boomtime-era Victorian Parliament is a message from the past that is as urgent as it is ancient: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/archive/Assembly/FactSheet12/Fact12.htm">Old Testament</a> language contains a powerful contemporary insight: multiple sources of advice provide better outcomes. </p>
<p>It reminds us as citizens of a long-established parliamentary democracy, of why we need to bother about parliament and why – not despite the corona-crisis, but because of it – we should recognise how it can help to get us through to the other side in one piece. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-virtual-australian-parliament-is-possible-and-may-be-needed-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-134540">A virtual Australian parliament is possible – and may be needed – during the coronavirus pandemic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Instead, shockingly, we have allowed sittings of the Australian Parliament to be cancelled for the duration of the crisis. We are being deprived of the “safety” that comes from a multitude of counsellors. </p>
<p>Parliaments in representative democracies serve five complementary democratic values. Our parliament: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>provides a vehicle for the interests and preferences of individual voters to be represented in aggregate decision-making (<em>representation</em>)</p></li>
<li><p>provides the ultimate source of authority for legislation (<em>authorisation</em>)</p></li>
<li><p>is an assembly for advocacy, debate and consideration (<em>deliberation</em>)</p></li>
<li><p>provides the means by which governments can be made and broken (<em>executive legitimacy</em>)</p></li>
<li><p>scrutinises executive actions (<em>accountability</em>). </p></li>
</ul>
<p>As a result of this week’s one-day session of parliament, each of those functions has been set back.</p>
<p>Consider the extraordinary organisational arrangements behind the meeting of the House of Representatives that approved the government’s stimulus and safety net legislation.</p>
<p>Driven by a view that a full attendance of members would be inconsistent with social-distancing rules, <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-mps-aim-for-lightning-sitting-on-stimulus-as-third-parliamentarian-contracts-virus-133938">the two major parties agreed</a> to “pair” 30 Coalition MPs with 30 Labor MPs. This meant 60 elected representatives could stay away from Canberra: parliament could go ahead with a quorum, and the government’s narrow majority was not at risk.</p>
<p>This rump assembly suited everyone – except of course the roughly 6 million voters in those 60 electorates whose members were absent. In the interests of social distancing, their interests in being effectively represented were traded away without comment or explanation. </p>
<p>Its unrepresentative character is underlined by its low female attendance. Only about one-fifth of those present (18 out of 87) were women MPs. Labor, which prides itself on gender parity, selected only seven women in its contingent of 37. (However, all three female independent MPs were present.)</p>
<p>Even so, the reality of this sitting was that the pandemic created the perceived need for urgent legislative action. Parliament did that job with care and alacrity. Legislation was debated constructively and amendments were proposed and accepted, leading to improved outcomes. “Multitudes of counsellors” at work. </p>
<p>So the most shocking and damaging aspect of Monday’s parliament was the revised sitting calendar, dropped on parliament by <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/bead2837-76c9-4ce9-952b-eafe8e2d614f/toc_pdf/House%20of%20Representatives_2020_03_23_7656.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">Attorney-General Christian Porter</a>. Having decided to delay the May budget until October, the government now saw no need for the 18 sitting days that had been scheduled for May and June. Tellingly, Porter did not spell out the implications: parliament would not be recalled until August 11. </p>
<p>During this 20-week period, we’re in a parliament-free zone. The executive – the Morrison government – governs alone. </p>
<p>This is the very time when parliament should be in session. There are four (at least) vital functions that parliament should perform in this time.</p>
<p>First, at a time when future legislative packages are likely, parliament will need to authorise them and perhaps, through deliberation and amendment, improve them.</p>
<p>Second, the executive has shouldered a complex implementation task and has now been resourced with a massive war chest to fight the virus. So the need for scrutiny and accountability increases. The <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-24/centrelink-minister-stuart-robert-not-anticipate-coronavirus/12080612">Centrelink fiasco</a> shows that, if nothing else. Parliament and parliamentary committees should continue in session. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-endgame-c-stop-almost-everything-restart-when-coronavirus-is-gone-134232">The case for Endgame C: stop almost everything, restart when coronavirus is gone</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Second, at a time when the big-picture strategy is still evolving, parliament has a key deliberative role in debating the strategic options to resolve the crisis. </p>
<p>Should we “flatten the curve” or – as John Daley of the Grattan Institute <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-endgame-c-stop-almost-everything-restart-when-coronavirus-is-gone-134232">has argued</a> – “stop and restart”? What are the costs of each course of action? What is the trade-off between the goals of public health and economic growth? And how are those costs being allocated across members of our society?</p>
<p>Third, at a time when we are still learning how to cope with this pandemic, and grappling to comprehend its immense social, cultural and economic costs, it is essential parliament play its representative role. The beauty of parliament’s electorate-based design is that members from around the nation can bring to national attention, however fleetingly and imperfectly, their local issues and insights and judgment.</p>
<p>Not all parts of Australia will experience this crisis in the same way. So local stories are not dispensable but vital: both the success stories and the stories of hardship, the local heroes and the silent Australians who are suffering from joblessness, isolation and trauma as well as the virus. “Multitudes of counsellors” with many stories to tell: even in this era of party dominance, that is still their job.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison opened the one-day parliamentary sitting on Monday <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/ministerial-statement-australian-parliament-house-act">with an invocation</a> that we must not allow the coronavirus pandemic to change “who we are as Australians”. The challenge, he said, was bigger than anything since the second world war.</p>
<p>But by the end of the day his government had taken a giant step towards changing Australia’s identity, by adjourning parliament for more than four months. </p>
<p>If we are looking for comparisons with the second world war, it is worth remembering that the House of Representatives sat in Canberra throughout the war years. The parliament debated war strategy, deliberated on legislation and even, in 1941, defeated the government in a vote of no confidence. </p>
<p>Against the mighty achievements of the 16th parliament (1940-1943), the current parliament is a pale disappointment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/134772/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Mills does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The 20-week adjournment of parliament will harm our capacity to fight the virus and subverts Australia’s identity as a parliamentary democracy.Stephen Mills, Hon Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1209712019-08-01T01:26:36Z2019-08-01T01:26:36Z‘A worthwhile project’: why two chief justices support the Voice to parliament, and why that matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286370/original/file-20190731-186833-etq5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A First Nations Voice would help parliamentarians come to more informed, just decisions with respect to First Nations peoples.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57e8c98bbebafba4113308f7/t/5d30695b337e720001822490/1563453788941/Recognition_folio+A5_Jul18.pdf">July 18</a>, the former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, delivered a powerful endorsement of the proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a First Nations Voice, describing it as a “worthwhile project”.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/voice-of-reason-not-beyond-us/news-story/1e1715b36c7eeb49f3f1b98c3c377774">Two weeks later</a>, another former chief justice, Robert French, wrote an essay in The Australian explaining that the constitutional entrenchment of a First Nations Voice would be part of Australians’ journey to know “who we are as a nation”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-when-it-comes-to-indigenous-recognition-ken-wyatt-will-have-to-close-multiple-gaps-120230">Grattan on Friday: When it comes to Indigenous recognition, Ken Wyatt will have to close multiple gaps</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The intervention of two esteemed and vastly experienced judges in a controversial and complex debate is significant and provides an important signal of hope in finding a way towards political agreement on the issues.</p>
<h2>Why their views matter</h2>
<p>Gleeson was appointed by the Howard government and he served as chief justice between 1998 and 2008. The Rudd government appointed French to succeed Gleeson and he served until our current chief justice, Susan Kiefel, was appointed in 2017.</p>
<p>The importance of Gleeson’s speech extended beyond his status as a former High Court chief justice. Gleeson is one of Australia’s most respected thinkers on constitutional law.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286371/original/file-20190731-186846-93531m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286371/original/file-20190731-186846-93531m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286371/original/file-20190731-186846-93531m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286371/original/file-20190731-186846-93531m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286371/original/file-20190731-186846-93531m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286371/original/file-20190731-186846-93531m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286371/original/file-20190731-186846-93531m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former chief justice of the High Court Murray Gleeson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While appointed by the Howard government, Gleeson was never considered to be a political or partisan conservative. Rather, he maintained wide respect across the political spectrum as what is referred to as a legally (as opposed to politically) conservative, or orthodox, judge. His legal decision-making was closely confined to established legal rules and steered clear of controversial policy issues.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/listening-with-our-ears-and-our-eyes-ken-wyatts-big-promises-on-indigenous-affairs-120165">Listening with 'our ears and our eyes': Ken Wyatt's big promises on Indigenous affairs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While Gleeson has largely kept himself out of the public spotlight since his retirement in 2008, he did accept an appointment to the <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/">Referendum Council</a>. The council was convened in December 2015 to advise the prime minister and leader of the opposition on progress and next steps towards a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution.</p>
<p>In its <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf">final 2017 report</a>, the council endorsed the proposal from the <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a>. It recommended that a referendum be held to provide in the constitution for a body that gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations a Voice to the Commonwealth Parliament. So the former chief justice delivering a speech endorsing the proposal may have come as little surprise.</p>
<p>However, it represented an important and new contribution to the current debate. It revealed, for the first time, one of Australia’s most highly respected, legally conservative mind’s understanding of why the Voice was consistent with our constitutional system, and why it should be pursued as “a worthwhile project”, as he put it.</p>
<p>French is also one of Australia’s most respected constitutional lawyers. Before his appointment to the High Court he was the president of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. French was, and is, well respected across political lines. Indeed, as a young man he had run for office in Western Australia as a Liberal candidate against Kim Beazley senior. </p>
<p>French’s intervention in the current debate also drew on his extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As founding member of the West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, he was involved in many native title cases as a Federal Court judge from 1986-2008. He was president of the Native Title Tribunal from 1994-1998. </p>
<p>French’s essay, which largely endorses and expands upon the position of Gleeson, is heavily informed by this extensive experience with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly in relation to native title claims, over the course of his career.</p>
<h2>‘A worthwhile project’</h2>
<p>Australia, Gleeson explained in his speech, has undergone fundamental legal developments in the last 30 years. In this time, the Australian people have changed in their social and cultural attitudes towards Indigenous people. He argues that these changes, particularly in relation to land rights and native title, demonstrate we are ready to address the historical fact of dispossession and its consequences, possibly through constitutional recognition. </p>
<p>French echoes these sentiments, explaining the importance of constitutional recognition as the next step Australians need to take in a journey towards “knowing who we are as a nation”. He writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Recognition in the Australian Constitution would reflect an existing national growth of respect for our First Peoples and thus for the whole of the full, rich and long history of the people of this continent.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gleeson is not, however, in favour of any form of constitutional reform. He placed two conditions on his support. First, such reform must be consistent with the nature of the constitution. Second, it must confer “substantial benefit upon Indigenous people”.</p>
<h2>‘Constitutionally entrenched, but legislatively controlled’</h2>
<p>The Australian Constitution was not forged during revolution in which the people demanded greater controls on the power of the state. Rather, it was about creating a federation between the colonies, which wished to come together for largely pragmatic reasons. The document, Gleeson reminded us, “is essentially a structural plan for a federal system of government, not what would now be called a human rights instrument”.</p>
<p>It is for this reason, Gleeson said, that many people have rejected one proposal for constitutional recognition, recommended first in 2012 by the <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Recognising-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Peoples-in-the-constitution-report-of-the-expert-panel_0.pdf">Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians</a>, for a constitutional protection against racial discrimination.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/changing-the-australian-constitution-was-always-meant-to-be-difficult-heres-why-119162">Changing the Australian Constitution was always meant to be difficult – here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In his words, once the nature of our constitutional document is remembered, that proposal appears “incongruous”, in that it would reduce the law-making powers of the parliament.</p>
<p>In contrast, the proposal for a First Nations Voice is entirely consistent with the Australian constitutional system. Gleeson provides three reasons why this is so.</p>
<p>The first is that it does not limit parliament’s law-making powers. </p>
<p>This is sometimes referred to it as being consistent with parliamentary sovereignty. This is because the Voice is <em>to</em> parliament, advising parliament. It is not <em>in</em> parliament, exercising or limiting legislative power. Certainly, it would be hoped that the Voice would have influence over how the legislative powers are exercised, but there would be no way of compelling that to occur.</p>
<p>The second is that, while it is proposed that the Voice will appear in the constitution, the structure, composition and functions of the Voice will still be determined and susceptible to change by legislation. It would be, in Gleeson’s words “constitutionally entrenched but legislatively controlled”. French, in his essay, provides the constitutional and legal detail as to how this might be achieved. </p>
<p>The third is that the Voice was intended to have as its core function monitoring the use of the federal parliament’s <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html">races power</a>, which has been used to make special laws for Aboriginal people.</p>
<p>Gleeson believes it should remain parliament’s decision as to whether a particular law is beneficial to Aboriginal people and thus justifies the passage of a law under the races power. This is further evidence as to why he doesn’t endorse the racial non-discrimination clause, which would pass this power across to the courts. </p>
<p>Given our constitution confers a power on the parliament to make special laws for Aboriginal people, he says, establishing a body to advise on the exercise of that power “hardly seems revolutionary”.</p>
<h2>‘Substantive, and not merely ornamental’ recognition</h2>
<p>Gleeson’s second condition was that the reform must confer substantial benefit on Indigenous people. His view is that, the Voice represents “substantive, and not merely ornamental” reform.</p>
<p>Gleeson provided two compelling reasons why this reform was a substantive project.</p>
<p>The first came in response to objections that the proposal would be divisive. More specifically, that it would undermine the value of equality that informs our democracy. </p>
<p>Gleeson explained his view that, rather than cause damaging division, the Voice would provide Australia with an opportunity to provide an appropriate response to the history of division through dispossession that started in 1788. Further, it would provide a safeguard and response to the division that still forms part of our constitutional system today through the races power. </p>
<p>The second reason was based on the practical value he saw in the operation of the Voice to parliament. He explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[a] body that has the capacity to speak to the Parliament on behalf of Indigenous people should be of advantage to Parliament and, through it, the nation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The parliament will benefit from advice that will help it come to more informed, just decisions with respect to First Nations peoples.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>Much consensus in the debate about constitutional recognition for First Nations has been forged in the two years since the Uluru Statement was delivered.</p>
<p>Following the reports of the Referendum Council and the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/constitutionalrecognition">Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples</a>, we have seen major political parties form a consensus that reform is needed to provide an institutional Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. </p>
<p>But there remains significant division as to whether the Voice should be constitutionally entrenched. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-shuts-down-calls-to-enshrine-indigenous-voice-in-constitution-20190711-p526f8.html">indicated</a> he would not support such a move. So the contributions of Gleeson and French about the desirability, as well as the practicality, of achieving this are significant. </p>
<p>There is also much work to be done before a First Nations Voice can be established, including detail around its precise composition, functions and powers.</p>
<p>In its April budget, the government committed $7 million to a co-design process for this to occur. French rallied us in the final words of his essay: while there is much to be done in the detailed design of the Voice, “the creation of a national consensus should not be beyond our wit”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120971/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabrielle Appleby has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. In 2016-2017, she was a technical constitutional adviser to the Regional Dialogues and the Constitutional Convention that endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
</span></em></p>Two former high court justices and constitutional experts have thrown their support behind the importance of a First Nations Voice to parliament.Gabrielle Appleby, Associate Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1137112019-03-16T06:52:42Z2019-03-16T06:52:42ZCan a senator be expelled from the federal parliament for offensive statements?<p>In the wake of comments about the Christchurch massacre, members of the public have raised the question of whether a senator can be expelled from the Senate for making offensive statements. </p>
<p>It is now well known that members of parliament can have their seat vacated in the parliament due to their disqualification under section 44 of the Constitution for reasons including dual citizenship, bankruptcy, holding certain government offices or being convicted of offences punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer.</p>
<p>But there is no ground of disqualification for behaviour that brings a House of Parliament into disrepute. This was something left to the house to deal with by way of expulsion.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dual-citizenship-debacle-claims-five-more-mps-and-sounds-a-stern-warning-for-future-parliamentarians-96267">Dual citizenship debacle claims five more MPs – and sounds a stern warning for future parliamentarians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What powers do the houses have to expel?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s49.html">Section 49</a> of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that until the Commonwealth parliament declares the powers, privileges and immunities of its houses, they shall be those the British House of Commons had at the time of federation (1901). </p>
<p>The House of Commons then had, and continues to have, the power to expel its members. The power was rarely exercised, but was most commonly used when a member was found to have committed a <a href="http://www.election.demon.co.uk/expulsions.html">criminal offence or contempt of parliament</a>. Because of the application of section 49 of the Constitution, such a power was also initially conferred upon both houses of the Australian parliament.</p>
<p>The House of Representatives exercised that power in 1920 when it expelled a member of the Labor opposition, <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mahon-hugh-7460">Hugh Mahon</a>. He had given a speech at a public meeting that criticised the actions of the British in Ireland and expressed support for an Australian republic.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Billy Hughes (whom Mahon had previously voted to expel from the Labor Party over conscription in 1916), moved to expel Mahon from the House of Representatives on November 11 – a dangerous date for dismissals. He accused Mahon of having made “seditious and disloyal utterances” that were “inconsistent with his oath of allegiance”. The opposition objected, arguing that no action should be taken unless Mahon was tried and convicted by the courts. Mahon was expelled by a vote taken on party lines. </p>
<p>In 2016, a private member’s <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F715fab49-01b7-4d20-89b0-5496732f6bc2%2F0267;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F715fab49-01b7-4d20-89b0-5496732f6bc2%2F0267%22">motion was moved</a> to recognise that his expulsion was unjust and a misuse of the power then invested in the house.</p>
<p>The power of the houses to expel members, as granted by section 49, was subject to the Commonwealth parliament declaring what the powers, privileges and immunities of the houses shall be. This occurred with the enactment of the <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ppa1987273/">Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987</a>. </p>
<p>It was enacted as a result of an inquiry by a parliamentary committee, which pointed out the potential for this power to be abused and that as a matter of democratic principle, it was up to voters to decide the composition of the parliament. This is reinforced by sections seven and 24 of the Constitution, which say that the houses of parliament are to be “directly chosen by the people”.</p>
<p>As a consequence, the power to expel was removed from the houses. <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ppa1987273/s8.html">Section 8</a> of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A House does not have power to expel a member from membership of a House. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This means that currently neither house of the Commonwealth parliament has the power to expel one of its members.</p>
<h2>Could the position be changed?</h2>
<p>Just as the parliament had the legislative power to limit the powers and privileges of its houses, it could legislate to amend or repeal section eight so that a house could, in future, expel one of its members, either on any ground or for limited reasons. </p>
<p>Whether or not this is wise remains doubtful. The reasons given by the parliamentary committee for the removal of this power remain strong. The power to expel is vulnerable to misuse when one political party holds a majority in the house. Equally, there is a good democratic argument that such matters should be left to the voters at election time.</p>
<p>However, expulsion is still an option in other Australian parliaments, such as the NSW parliament. It’s used in circumstances where the member is judged guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of parliament and where the continuing service of the member is likely to bring the house into disrepute.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-government-would-be-mad-to-advise-the-refusal-of-royal-assent-to-a-bill-passed-against-its-will-110501">Why a government would be mad to advise the refusal of royal assent to a bill passed against its will</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is commonly the case, though, that a finding of illegality, dishonesty or corruption is first made by a court, a royal commission or the Independent Commission Against Corruption before action to expel is taken. The prospect of expulsion is almost always enough to cause the member to resign without expulsion formally occurring. So, actual cases of expulsion remain extremely rare.</p>
<h2>Are there any other remedies to deal with objectionable behaviour?</h2>
<p>The houses retain powers to suspend members for offences against the house, such as disorderly conduct. But it is doubtful that a house retains powers of suspension in relation to conduct that does not amount to a breach of standing orders or an “offence against the house”. Suspension may therefore not be available in relation to statements made outside the house that do not affect its proceedings.</p>
<p>Instead, the house may choose to censure such comments by way of a formal motion. Such motions are more commonly moved against ministers in relation to government failings. A censure motion is regarded as a serious form of rebuke, but it does not give rise to any further kind of punishment such as a fine or suspension. </p>
<p>The primary remedy for dealing with unacceptable behaviour remains at the ballot box. This is a pertinent reminder to all voters of the importance of being vigilant in the casting of their vote to ensure the people they elect to high office are worthy of fulfilling it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the ARC and occasionally does consultancy work for governments and inter-governmental bodies.</span></em></p>The short answer is no. But the longer answer is that it has a complicated history (and the best remedy remains at the ballot box).Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1105012019-01-28T19:17:00Z2019-01-28T19:17:00ZWhy a government would be mad to advise the refusal of royal assent to a bill passed against its will<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/255539/original/file-20190125-108351-seklj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With the Morrison government now in minority, it is possible a bill for the transfer of asylum seekers from Nauru could pass against the government's wishes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In both the United Kingdom and Australia there is speculation that controversial bills may be passed against the will of the government. If so, could the government advise that the bill be refused royal assent – the last formal step in turning a bill into a law? </p>
<p>This raises questions about whose advice the Queen or governor-general acts upon when giving royal assent, and whether it is constitutionally permissible or wise for ministers to advise that assent not be given to a bill that has validly passed both houses of parliament.</p>
<h2>Could it happen with Brexit and Nauru?</h2>
<p>In the UK, internal parliamentary dissent about the management of Brexit has led some cross-party parliamentarians to suggest they might support a bill that would require the deferral of Brexit, rather than allow Britain to crash out of the European Union without an agreement. </p>
<p>This has given rise to speculation in both the British <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8244760/brexit-latest-plotters-the-queen/">popular</a> <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1076768/the-queen-brexit-royal-assent-brexit-amendments-latest-news">press</a> and <a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/tqzvCjZrzqHoDOgQtWTyqF?domain=publiclawforeveryone.com">academic</a> <a href="https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/22/robert-craig-could-the-government-advise-the-queen-to-refuse-royal-assent-to-a-backbench-bill/">blogs</a> about whether the Queen could refuse assent to such a bill, acting on the advice of government ministers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-hung-parliament-and-how-would-it-affect-the-passage-of-legislation-105358">Explainer: what is a hung parliament and how would it affect the passage of legislation?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In Australia, the issue has arisen because the Morrison government has slipped into a parliamentary <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-hung-parliament-and-how-would-it-affect-the-passage-of-legislation-105358">minority</a>. This creates the potential for a bill, such as one concerning the transfer of asylum seekers from Nauru to Australia for <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p%3Bquery=Id%253A%2522legislation%252Fbillhome%252Fr6236%2522">medical care</a>, to pass the House of Representatives and the Senate <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-06/crossbench-mps-push-federal-government-refugees-on-nauru/10588374">without government support</a>.</p>
<p>In both the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/house-commons-government-executive">UK</a> and <a href="https://questions.peo.gov.au/questions/under-what-circumstances-would-standing-orders-be-suspended-and-for-what-purpose/22">Australia</a>, the standing orders of the relevant houses of parliament impose impediments to the passage of bills without government support. This is done by giving the government effective control over parliamentary business. Other parliamentary tactics, such as <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/lost-in-stagnation-behind-the-refugee-bill-that-plunged-the-parliament-into-chaos-20181206-p50koo.html">filibustering</a>, may also be used to prevent the passage of such bills. </p>
<p>But if such impediments are <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46818428">overcome</a> and a bill passes both houses against the wishes of the government, can it advise the Queen or the governor-general (described here collectively as the “head of state”) to refuse royal assent, and what should the head of state do if so advised?</p>
<h2>Royal assent</h2>
<p>In both the UK and Australia, parliament is defined as having three constituent parts – the lower house, the upper house and the Queen. A bill does not become a law until it has been passed by both houses (subject to special procedures for certain bills that may not need to be passed by the upper house) and has received royal assent. Royal assent is therefore a critical part of the legislative process. It has not been refused in the United Kingdom since 1707.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/255542/original/file-20190125-108361-1h6dfry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/255542/original/file-20190125-108361-1h6dfry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255542/original/file-20190125-108361-1h6dfry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255542/original/file-20190125-108361-1h6dfry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255542/original/file-20190125-108361-1h6dfry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255542/original/file-20190125-108361-1h6dfry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255542/original/file-20190125-108361-1h6dfry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Royal assent is a critical part of the legislative process.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/EPA/Neil Hall</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In practice, in neither country is the head of state given ministerial advice to assent to bills. While there is a common belief that assent is advised in meetings of the <a href="https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/">Privy Council</a> or the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter2/Federal_Executive_Council">Federal Executive Council</a> as the case may be, this is not so. It is done separately by the head of state as part of his or her normal paperwork, once the houses have passed the bills.</p>
<p>Indeed, in the UK, the formal words of enactment of a bill state that it is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In Australia the more succinct phrase is: “The Parliament of Australia enacts”.</p>
<p>The position is nicely illustrated by the controversy concerning Britain’s entry in 1972 into what later became the European Union. A British subject, Alan McWhirter, argued that the Queen should refuse assent to the European Communities Bill as it would fetter the powers of parliament.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=J7pQDwAAQBAJ&q=McWhirter#v=snippet&q=McWhirter&f=false">first draft</a> reply prepared by the British government explained it was a constitutional convention that the Queen cannot refuse assent to bills passed by both houses, and which ministers advise should receive assent.</p>
<p>After legal advice from the Lord Chancellor’s Office that ministerial advice is not tendered in relation to royal assent, the draft letter was corrected to say that it is an established constitutional convention that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the Royal Assent is not withheld from Bills which have been passed by both Houses of Parliament.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The relevant principles</h2>
<p>If ministers were to advise the head of state to refuse assent to a bill that both houses had validly passed, it would potentially raise a clash between the principles of representative and responsible government. The principle of representative government requires the head of state to act in accordance with the will of the democratically elected parliament by giving assent to bills the houses have validly passed. </p>
<p>The principle of responsible government ordinarily requires the head of state to act on the advice of ministers who are responsible to parliament because they hold the confidence of the lower house. The corollary of this principle is that the head of state is not obliged to act on the advice of ministers who have ceased to hold the confidence of the house.</p>
<p>The principle of responsible government serves that of representative government by ensuring that the executive government is responsible to, and derived from, the representatives of the people in parliament. Both principles require that parliament prevails over the executive, and the executive can only function as long as it holds the support of the lower (representative) house. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/09/25/nick-barber-can-royal-assent-be-refused-on-the-advice-of-the-prime-minster/">Nick Barber</a> has argued, it would therefore be inappropriate to rely on the principle of responsible government to undermine parliamentary representative government by allowing ministers to defeat the will of the houses of parliament. </p>
<h2>The consequences of advising refusal of assent</h2>
<p>The defeat of a government on a bill, whether it be defeat of a bill proposed by the government or the passage of a bill opposed by the government, will not necessarily indicate a loss of confidence and require the government to resign or seek an election. But it will do so when the bill is one of major importance to the government.</p>
<p>There is therefore a strong argument that if a government regards a bill to be of such critical importance that it is prepared to advise the head of state to refuse assent to it, then the government’s defeat indicated by the passage of that bill amounts to a loss of confidence in the government.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dual-citizenship-debacle-claims-five-more-mps-and-sounds-a-stern-warning-for-future-parliamentarians-96267">Dual citizenship debacle claims five more MPs – and sounds a stern warning for future parliamentarians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This is why it would be madness for a government to advise the head of state to refuse assent to a bill that has been passed against its wishes. Such action would not only raise a serious question about whether it can continue governing, but it would place the head of state in an invidious position by forcing him or her to reject either the advice of the houses of parliament or of ministers. </p>
<p>Added to this would be enormous public controversy about the constitutional propriety of the government’s action. This would undoubtedly be damaging for a government in a subsequent election.</p>
<p>There is a reason why there is no precedent of a government in the UK or Australia advising the refusal of assent in such circumstances. It would not only be a constitutionally dubious thing to do, but would also be politically stupid.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110501/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the ARC and occasionally does consulting work for governments. She has written a book on the reserve powers, 'The Veiled Sceptre - Reserve Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems', from which this article is drawn.</span></em></p>There has been recent speculation that governments could advise royal assent not be granted if bills are passed against their wishes. Here’s why this is very unlikely to happen.Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1035172018-09-20T20:15:13Z2018-09-20T20:15:13ZQuotas are not pretty but they work – Liberal women should insist on them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237260/original/file-20180920-10508-v1ophr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Liberal women such as those in the Morrison ministry, pictured here, should organise to achieve structural change - the only kind that ever sticks.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is an historic moment for Liberal Party women. Individual complaints of sexist bullying invariably end with the lone complainant being isolated and getting crunched.</p>
<p>But since the Liberal leadership spill, several women have spoken out and two MPs, Julia Banks and Ann Sudmalis, have foreshadowed their exit from parliamentary politics over it. This post-#LibSpill moment holds immense promise – but only if the collective momentum is seized and built upon. </p>
<p>From Prime Minister Scott Morrison down, <a href="https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/prime-minister-scott-morrison-100-percent-sure-no-liberal-bullies-in-parliament-ng-b88964116z">Liberal Party men are pushing back</a> against women pressing for cultural change within the party. They don’t want to share power for ideological reasons: conservative men like women to know their place, and that place is not in the House of Representatives or the Senate. This ethos is intensifying as <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-religious-minority-seizing-power-in-the-liberal-party-20180601-p4ziyq.html">fringe</a> and <a href="https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/liberal/wa-liberal-senate-candidate-trish-botha-ng-b88861653z">evangelical Christians</a> make ever deeper inroads into Liberal Party branches and preselection processes. </p>
<p>Respected Liberal women like former Liberal Party vice-president Tricia Worth and former Liberal senator Sue Boyce have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/what-must-the-liberals-do-to-fix-their-gender-problem/10280600">poured scorn on the internal party mechanisms</a> proposed so far to deal with the problem. They point out the implausibility, for example, of making a bullying complaint to Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger who <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/michael-kroger-hoses-down-liberal-bullying-claims/news-story/ffcfe7e6177be840d375c573aa94d31b">denies such bullying exists</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-woman-problem-no-the-liberals-have-a-man-problem-and-they-need-to-fix-it-102339">A 'woman problem'? No, the Liberals have a 'man problem', and they need to fix it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Liberal Party women face an immediate choice. They can be cowed by the <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/liberals-need-to-tackle-party-s-gender-imbalance-20180913-p503n0.html">“quota girl”</a> sledge of hostile male colleagues, and other unsupportive comments by these men’s female enablers such as NSW Liberal Senator <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/i-dont-want-to-be-known-as-the-quota-girl/ar-BBNtF4l?li=AAgfIYZ">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</a>.</p>
<p>Alternatively, Liberal women can organise to achieve structural change – the only kind that ever sticks – arguing that if it’s good enough for “quota boys” like Senator Abetz and Michael McCormack, quotas are all right by them too.</p>
<p>Practical politics runs on quotas. They are the tool of last resort when dominant powers refuse to share power fairly or could refuse to in the future. They work.</p>
<p>The most striking example of a quota in Australian politics is that underpinning Federation. The Australian colonies would not agree to federate without agreement to an upper house in which each state, even the smallest, was represented by the same number of senators as the biggest. </p>
<p>That’s why NSW, with a <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0">population of 7.9 million, and Tasmania, with a population of 524,000</a>, both send 12 senators to Canberra every election. This makes the ranking Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz arguably the biggest beneficiary of quotas currently in the federal parliament.</p>
<p>There are 76 senators. Would anyone seriously suggest that on merit Eric Abetz would make the list of the top 76 Australians elected as senators in Australia’s upper house if they were elected in a single nationwide ballot? The state-based quota system established at Federation ensures he gets there.</p>
<p>The next most striking example is the quota agreement that enables Australia’s two main conservative parties to form government in coalition, since each usually returns too few MPs at federal elections to govern in its own right.</p>
<p>The National Party’s price for supporting the Liberals in forming government is a quota of ministerial positions reserved for National Party MPs, along with the deputy prime ministership. This quota arrangement today underpins the cabinet position and deputy prime ministership of National Party leader Michael McCormack. Does anyone really believe that without this quota McCormack would have naturally risen to become Australia’s second most senior politician? Of course not.</p>
<p>The third most striking example of quotas in Australian politics is their use by the Australian Labor Party to normalise the presence of women in progressive parliamentary politics. Attempts to establish quotas in the early 1980s, backed by then Labor opposition leader Bill Hayden, foundered when ALP conference delegates, including many women, voted them down on factional lines. It was not until 1994 that an <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-quotas-in-politics-the-absence-of-women-isnt-merit-based-45297">enforceable formula</a> guaranteeing women preselection in one-third of winnable seats was established.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="ek7sv" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ek7sv/5/" height="600" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>In her memoir <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/29197860?q&versionId=35524555+219955140">Catching the Waves</a>, Hawke Government cabinet minister Susan Ryan wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>These rules are bitterly resented by many men in the Party, and when they favour a woman from the wrong faction they upset some women as well.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Quotas are “a blunt tool”, Ryan readily conceded, but she supported them after experience showed nothing else could “change the gender balance among Labor members of parliament”. It worked. Labor now has a critical mass of women in caucus making a big contribution, their presence normalised and unremarked on except by misogynistic conservatives across the aisle.</p>
<p>People don’t have to like quotas. But no reasonable person can fail to accept that they are a regular part of political life, not the intrusive tool of progressive pinot noir drinkers pushing their own political barrows. Hundreds of examples beyond Australia’s shores could be cited, but here are just a few.</p>
<p>The United States has a quota of two senators from every state in its upper house, the inspiration for Australia’s state senate quotas. Conservative German chancellor Angela Merkel legislated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/06/germany-gender-quota-legislation-boardroom-law-women">board quotas for women</a> when German business proved intractable in voluntarily improving board diversity. Singapore set <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/09/17/singapore/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e7fa79c5c0eb">racial quotas in public housing</a>, reflecting the ethnic makeup of the country’s population, in the interests of racial harmony.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="HSEmC" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/HSEmC/4/" height="600" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>Quotas, in short, are management tools to ensure power-sharing where it would not otherwise occur in the interests of a greater good – and they’re used by progressives and conservatives alike. No-one could accuse Angela Merkel or the Singaporean government of being subversive left-wing entities. It has been estimated that half the countries in the world <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/ElectoralQuotas">use some kind of gender quota in their electoral system</a> and there is extensive evidence that they work.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrisons-challenge-with-women-goes-beyond-simple-numbers-103467">View from The Hill: Morrison's challenge with women goes beyond simple numbers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There is high level support from Labor for Liberal women to tackle the problem and succeed in the interests of improving Australia’s political culture overall. Labor Senate leader, Penny Wong, <a href="http://www.pennywong.com.au/speeches/senators-statements-a-more-equal-and-representative-parliament-the-senate-canberra/">told parliament this week</a> that the under-representation of women in the Liberal party room is “not only bad for women, and bad for the Liberal Party, it is bad for democracy”. She urged Liberals to walk the same difficult road to establishing quotas that so successfully fixed what had also been a chronic problem for Labor.</p>
<p>Failure to push on to embrace and establish quotas will see the current burst of bravery by Liberal women dissipate, and the male oligopoly in the Coalition party room become even more entrenched.</p>
<p>Advocates could impress on internal opponents that the only winner from the current extreme and worsening masculinist culture in the Liberal Party will be Labor, whose caucus since quotas for women in winnable seats were adopted has increasingly reflected the communities it represents – something voters very much like and ultimately reward.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103517/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Wallace receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The Liberal Party is at a crossroad in its history. It must take bold steps to ensure better representation in its ranks by introducing gender quotas.Chris Wallace, ARC DECRA Fellow, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/966432018-05-20T19:50:12Z2018-05-20T19:50:12ZThe Liberals have a serious women problem – and it’s time they took action to change it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219643/original/file-20180520-42230-m4l5sf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With LNP frontbencher Jane Prentice <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/14/jane-prentices-dumping-infuriates-liberal-women-we-need-to-do-better">ousted by a male challenger</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-17/ann-sudmalis-facing-challenge-for-gilmore-preselection/9768590">Ann Sudmalis under threat</a>, much has been said about the Coalition’s record of electing women to Australian parliaments.</p>
<p>The representation of women amongst Coalition MPs is significantly lower than for Labor or the Greens, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-15/the-coalitions-women-problem-jane-prentice-malcolm-turnbull/9761480">and this gap is growing</a>. This is concerning because parliaments should be reflective of the societies they represent. The Coalition should be worried because it coincides with a declining number of women voting for it. </p>
<h2>But this isn’t unique to Australia</h2>
<p>This partisan gender gap is also reflected in other Westminster parliamentary democracies such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland.</p>
<p>Typically, leftist, green and social democratic parties <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/organizing-political-parties-9780198758631?cc=au&lang=en&">nominate a higher percentage of female candidates</a> than centre-right, conservative and far right parties.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-liberals-can-fix-their-gender-problem-85442">How the Liberals can fix their gender problem</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The gap can be attributed to the social justice values that underpin leftist ideology, which has facilitated the successful introduction of quotas in these parties. But is also an outcome of the male-dominated cultures that permeate political parties, particularly long established ones.</p>
<p>The interaction of right wing values with masculine institutions is not particularly empowering of, or for, women. </p>
<p>This may also explain why gender gaps in voting behaviour have shifted over time. Women were <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9798/98rp03">once more likely</a> to support parties of the centre right than the centre left, but the <a href="http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n4149/pdf/ch10.pdf">former can no longer take women’s support for granted</a>. According to the <a href="https://www.australianelectionstudy.org">Australian Election Study</a>, women were more likely than men (by 7%) to support the Labor Party in the 2016 federal election. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219522/original/file-20180518-26266-4moz0w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219522/original/file-20180518-26266-4moz0w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219522/original/file-20180518-26266-4moz0w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219522/original/file-20180518-26266-4moz0w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219522/original/file-20180518-26266-4moz0w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219522/original/file-20180518-26266-4moz0w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219522/original/file-20180518-26266-4moz0w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Federal MP Ann Sudmalis is the latest Liberal woman facing a preselection threat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite setting targets to achieve representational gender parity by 2025, the Coalition remains steadfastly opposed to the idea of quotas, which they believe <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/julie-bishop-says-former-china-ambassador/9764678">“miss the point about merit-based pre-selections”</a>. It is an argument well rehearsed by quota opponents worldwide. </p>
<p>Prior to the adoption of a gender quota law in Ireland, the under-representation of women in Irish politics was <a href="https://www.rowmaninternational.com/book/gender_and_informal_institutions/3-156-4b66c512-a98d-462b-965a-b9e88806531d">framed as</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>an unfortunate consequence of a gender-neutral, fair and effective system, which produced the best people for the job.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In New Zealand, the issue of gender quotas was <a href="http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/labour-votes-for-gender-quota-system-2013110317">hotly debated in 2013</a>, when the Labour Party drafted a constitutional remit proposing the adoption of a UK-styled all-women shortlist option for candidate selection in electorate seats.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.noted.co.nz/archive/listener-nz-2013/parliaments-gender-balance/">A media frenzy followed</a>, with the policy labelled a “man ban” and commentators accusing Labour of discrimination, failing to select on the basis of merit, and looking “out of touch” with its rank and file. </p>
<h2>Candidate selection: The ‘secret garden’ of politics</h2>
<p>Such arguments ignore the many informal practices, norms and relations surrounding candidate recruitment and selection, a fact that has led political scientists to describe candidate selection as the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Candidate-Selection-Comparative-Perspective-Politics/dp/0803981244">“secret garden”</a> of politics.</p>
<p>The reality is candidate selection is often determined by interpersonal links, summed up in the old adage of who you know, not what you know. Given the male dominance of politics, this practice privileges men, who disproportionally hold positions of power within political parties and <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780230369269">tend to recruit and select other men for political office</a>.</p>
<p>Some <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/democracy-within-parties-9780199572540?cc=au&lang=en&">studies suggest</a> moving away from rank-and-file pre-selections will facilitate more equal gender representation. A more centralised, select group of party elites is better able to coordinate to increase the number of women candidates.</p>
<p>This argument speaks to the endorsements of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/11/lawyer-amanda-stoker-chosen-to-replace-george-brandis-in-senate">Amanda Stoker</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-14/georgina-downer-selected-unopposed-as-mayo-candidate/9759848">Georgina Downer</a>, neither of whom faced rank-and-file votes. Downer was endorsed unopposed, and Stoker was endorsed by members of the Queensland LNP’s State Executive Council. </p>
<p>Proportional electoral systems facilitate this elite involvement because party lists are usually centrally determined. This is the case <a href="http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n2585/pdf/ch09.pdf">in New Zealand,</a> where the Labour Party now has a soft target of 50% women and conducts an equity review after each bloc of five candidates during the list selection procedure.</p>
<p>The National Party also applies the principle of balance in its nomination process, although it has never applied strict alternation on its lists. </p>
<h2>Quotas make a big impact in Ireland</h2>
<p>While the Liberals may resist gender quotas, they cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence that quotas increase the numbers of women in politics.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07907184.2013.818537">gender quota law in Ireland</a> was adopted in 2012. This was partly in response to calls for political reform and greater diversity in public leadership following the financial crash and ensuing recession of 2008 - 2013. But it was also designed to intervene where political parties had failed.</p>
<p>While political parties in Ireland had given rhetorical support for more women in politics throughout the 2000s, their actions, particularly in the long established and centre-right parties of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, told a different story. Informal gender targets were missed; in the general elections of 2002, 2007 and 2011, Fianna Fáil selected just 13% women candidates, and Fine Gael 16% (the figure for the centre-left Labour was 25%). </p>
<p>Following the 2011 general election, just 15% of the seats in the Irish lower house of parliament, Dáil Éireann, were occupied by women. With election <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912909336270">surveys and analysis</a> showing women did not face discrimination at the hands of the electorate, it was clear women’s political under-representation lay at the door of political parties. </p>
<p>If Irish political parties could not be trusted to ensure gender equity, it was clear an interventionist measure in the shape of gender quotas was required. The 2012 <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/act/36/section/42/enacted/en/html#part6">gender quota law</a> specifies that political parties must select at least 30% female candidates and at least 30% male candidates; if they do not, they will forfeit 50% of their annual public funding.</p>
<p>The impact and success of the law was immediate. In its first roll-out at the 2016 general election, there was a 90% increase in women’s candidacy and a 40% increase in the number of women elected. All parties met the 30% gender quota threshold.</p>
<h2>Electoral systems matter too</h2>
<p>In New Zealand, with the adoption the German model of proportional representation (Mixed Member Proportional, MMP) in 1996 <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780230603783">there was a significant increase in the selection and election of women</a>.</p>
<p>Women constituted 28.3% of the new 120-member parliament, but most were elected from minor parties. Then, in 2005, for the first time, the percentage of women parliamentarians surpassed 30% (reaching 33.1%), with 19 Labour women and 12 National women sitting in parliament, supplemented by eight women from the minor parties. There are now 19 National women in parliament (33.9%). The Greens outshine both major parties with a caucus that is 75% female, the result of a long-held practice of alternating men and women on their party lists.</p>
<p>One reason why National has done better than conservative parties elsewhere maybe a result of a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241450519_Selecting_and_electing_women_to_the_House_of_Representatives_Progress_at_last">contagion effect</a>, which is more likely to appear in proportional systems. Contagion occurs when a small party (such as the Greens) stimulates other (larger) parties (such as Labour) to nominate more women candidates.</p>
<p>In doing so, the smaller parties highlight the lack of electoral penalty associated with selecting women candidates, while also threatening to take at least some votes from the largest party closest to them on the political spectrum.</p>
<p>Once a large party begins to nominate more women, the nature of party competition will ensure that other parties (National), out of political necessity, adopt their own gender equality strategies. </p>
<h2>Where will the Liberals go from here?</h2>
<p>Despite the ALP quota, contagion effects seem to have stalled in Australia.</p>
<p>Rather than implement quotas, the Liberal Party has just announced that it will establish a new fighting fund, the – <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-15/julie-bishop-supports-kelly-o-dwyers-female-liberal-mp-fund/9761900">Enid Lyons Fighting Fund</a> – to assist women candidates to gain pre-selection.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coalitions-lost-ground-on-women-mps-shows-we-need-to-tackle-new-gender-biases-62220">Coalition's lost ground on women MPs shows we need to tackle new gender biases</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This initiative recognises there is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-should-look-overseas-for-ideas-to-increase-its-number-of-women-mps-63522">gender gap in political finance</a>, with women less able to access the often large sums of money that are required to run effective campaigns.</p>
<p>It counters similar initiatives on the left of politics in Australia such as <a href="https://www.emilyslist.org.au/">Emily’s List</a> and the <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/734078?c=people">National Labor Women’s Network</a>. But it also reflects historical initiatives such as <a href="http://www.pearson.com.au/products/D-G-Fenna-Alan-et-al/Government-and-Politics-in-Australia/9781486000517?R=9781486000517">The Australian Women’s National League (1903) and the Liberal Feminist Network (1981)</a>, which were focused on increasing funds and skills for the pre-selection of women. </p>
<p>With the representative gender gap between the two major parties growing ever larger in Australia, reinstating these historical initiatives is probably too little, too late.</p>
<p>Our political parties are responsible for changing their cultures, and if they can’t learn from each other, the most effective way of doing this is through interventionist measures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96643/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anika Gauja receives funding from the University of Sydney and the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Buckley has received funding from a variety of sources including the Irish Research Council, the Higher Education of Ireland, and the European Union. She is currently a Visiting Research Fellow with the Electoral Integrity Project in the University of Sydney (26/02/18 - 01/06/2018). A full list of funding can be viewed here: <a href="http://publish.ucc.ie/researchprofiles/B007/fbuckley#section2-2">http://publish.ucc.ie/researchprofiles/B007/fbuckley#section2-2</a>. She is a founding member of The 5050 Group, a voluntary group established in 2010 to campaign for the adoption of legislative gender quotas in Ireland. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Curtin is in receipt of research funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Auckland</span></em></p>Examples from Ireland and New Zealand show that, unless determined measures are taken, masculine political cultures will ensure the gender imbalance remains.Anika Gauja, Associate Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of SydneyFiona Buckley, Lecturer, University College CorkJennifer Curtin, Professor, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/743592017-03-19T19:26:45Z2017-03-19T19:26:45ZWhy guaranteed Indigenous seats in parliament could ease inequality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161068/original/image-20170316-20789-1srw3to.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Indigenous Labor MP Linda Burney says her party is trying to identify and remove structural obstacles to preselection.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>New South Wales Greens MP Dawn Walker used her <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEcB8nrEjJE">inaugural speech</a> this month to argue for guaranteed Indigenous parliamentary representation. The argument for designated seats is not a new one. It was <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/greens-call-for-dedicated-seats-for-aboriginal-people-in-nsw-parliament-20170309-guuev1.html">considered and rejected</a> by the Carr state government in 1998; Indigenous people would continue to compete for democratic voice like other minority groups.</p>
<p>Walker’s concern is for a secure and “direct [Indigenous] voice in our democracy”. New Zealand’s Indigenous population has had this voice since 1867.</p>
<p>In 2017, New Zealand’s unicameral parliament has seven designated Maori seats. From 1867 to 2017, Maori have almost always had cabinet membership and a <a href="https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/parliaments-people/maori-mps">recognised capacity to influence policymaking</a>.</p>
<p>In Fiji, guaranteed representation of various kinds occurred between independence in 1970 and the most recent coup in 2006. It is true that it sometimes contributed to political unrest. However, the present regime’s extreme of no guaranteed Indigenous representation at all is among the variables helping to create Fiji’s seemingly <a href="https://policypress.co.uk/indigeneity-a-politics-of-potential">irresolvable political instability</a>. </p>
<p>In Norway, there is a distinctive <a href="https://www.sametinget.se/english">Sami parliament</a>. Its consultation agreement with the national parliament recognises the particular character of indigenous people’s citizenship. It does not eliminate political differences with the state, but it does provide a path to agreement on most of the 40 to 50 legislative measures on which <a href="http://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/30/implementing-indigenous-self-determination-the-case-of-the-sami-in-norway/">it facilitates consultation each year</a>.</p>
<p>The question of guaranteed Indigenous parliamentary representation is especially timely as Australia considers the argument that <a href="https://theconversation.com/treaty-debate-will-only-strengthen-indigenous-recognition-process-61078">treaties</a>, rather than a constitutional statement, might provide more substantive political recognition.</p>
<p>However, treaties require that Indigenous people acknowledge the legitimacy of the state. Indigenous people need to determine the conditions under which they might provide that acknowledgement. They may, for example, want a more inclusive state; one that recognises a substantive and meaningful citizenship.</p>
<p>Guaranteed parliamentary representation responds to colonialism’s present as well as its past. Colonisation was not a single event “done” to Indigenous peoples. It is a political system under which justice cannot occur and its essential rationale is exclusive. Designated seats in parliament are a step towards inclusivity.</p>
<p>Treaties look to a post-colonial future. They require societies to describe in real terms, not just in the abstract, what a fair and reasonable political community would entail. They presume Indigenous voice. They require recognition that colonialism gives Indigenous peoples a shared and distinctive political history; a voice that cannot always be effectively expressed by other people. </p>
<p>The mining lobby’s call for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/13/minister-turned-lobbyist-ian-macfarlane-says-mines-need-protection-from-native-title">restrictions on native title</a> is a contemporary example. It is a point that concerns Indigenous peoples only because their relationships with the state are uniquely colonial. These are relationships that do not concern other citizens for the same reasons or in the same ways.</p>
<p>Recognising difference allows liberal political communities to extend their concern for individual rights to Indigenous people as much as they extend them to anyone else. Individual identity is shaped by culture and communal relationships.</p>
<p>Governments are increasingly recognising that Indigenous exclusion from the policy process is among the reasons for sustained policy failure. Guaranteed representation reduces the distance between policymakers and the people for whom policy is made.</p>
<p>The argument remains even as Australian political parties are exploring ways of increasing the number of Indigenous people preselected as party candidates. For example, federal Labor MP <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/greens-call-for-dedicated-seats-for-aboriginal-people-in-nsw-parliament-20170309-guuev1.html">Linda Burney</a>, who is Indigenous, explains that her party is trying to identify and remove structural obstacles to preselection. </p>
<p>It is a concession to the possibility that racism exists within the party itself. However, parties would also need to set aside the fact that they have no electoral incentive to court Indigenous votes. There are simply not enough of them. Designated seats would create an incentive to compete for Indigenous support.</p>
<p>Australia’s democracy is not well equipped to consider the implications of prior occupancy, culture or colonial legacy. Democratic structure determines whether public decisions are the outcome of an inclusive political process. It determines whether people have had equal opportunities to contribute to decision-making, and it is reasonable to expect Indigenous people to require some benefit in return for recognising the legitimacy of the state. </p>
<p>Guaranteed parliamentary representation is not the only mechanism for ensuring Indigenous political voice. It may not, ultimately, be one that Indigenous Australians choose to pursue. However, it is one that has served New Zealand Maori well for 150 years, and is worth considering in response to John Rawls’ <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=NBh6BDKhu1UC&pg=PA631&lpg=PA631&dq=The+unity+of+society+and+the+allegiance+of+its+citizens+to+their+common+institutions+rest+not+on+their+espousing+one+rational+conception+of+the+good,+but+on+an+agreement+as+to+what+is+just+for+free+and+equal+moral+person%E2%80%99s+with+different+conceptions+of+the+common+good.&source=bl&ots=MxWAxN5iaJ&sig=J_-r2hvjcnjAOcn_9KYx_HN5S8M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4yYrwzNzSAhXImJQKHVptBZoQ6AEIGzAA#v=snippet&q=espousing%20one%20rational%20conception%20of%20the%20good&f=false">argument</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The unity of society and the allegiance of its citizens to their common institutions rest not on their espousing one rational conception of the good, but on an agreement as to what is just for free and equal moral persons with different and opposing conceptions of the good.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74359/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominic O'Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Guaranteed representation reduces the distance between policymakers and the people for whom policy is made.Dominic O'Sullivan, Associate Professor, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/694762016-12-02T03:42:53Z2016-12-02T03:42:53ZParliament finishes for 2016, capping off a messy, turbulent year<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148352/original/image-20161202-25689-1vdbx7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Parliament has closed for the Christmas break after a turbulent year.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Federal parliament has finished for 2016, capped off by a rush of deal-making on key government policies. Three of our experts look back on a messy, busy year of running the country.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Nick Economou, Monash University</h2>
<p>This was the year in which Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull nearly lost government. The national election was the biggest event of the year, which in turn provided highs and lows for all political parties. Labor did very well, at least in the lower house contest, but questions remain about Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s ability to transcend his reputation as a factional bovver boy.</p>
<p>The Coalition, on the other hand, had a disastrous election. It nearly lost its lower house majority. It was also partly culpable for the increase in right-wing and populist senators, notwithstanding a ham-fisted attempt to block the “micro parties” with <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-voting-changes-pass-so-how-do-we-elect-the-upper-house-now-55641">Senate voting reform</a>. Whatever qualities Turnbull might possess, competence in electoral politics is not one of them. </p>
<p>Throughout the year, the Turnbull government seemed to be beset with minor crises, many of which were self-inflicted. Musing on raising the GST and doing away with Sunday penalty rates resulted in serious swings against the government in the economically stressed swinging seats. Its internal wrangling on racial vilification laws and marriage equality made the government appear obsessed with boutique inner-city issues that are more usually Labor concerns.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148369/original/image-20161202-25645-1wvtka8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148369/original/image-20161202-25645-1wvtka8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148369/original/image-20161202-25645-1wvtka8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=696&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148369/original/image-20161202-25645-1wvtka8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=696&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148369/original/image-20161202-25645-1wvtka8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=696&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148369/original/image-20161202-25645-1wvtka8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148369/original/image-20161202-25645-1wvtka8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148369/original/image-20161202-25645-1wvtka8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Serious tensions developed between the Liberal and National parties. This was reflected by the propensity for National Party whip George Christensen to command almost as much media attention as any Turnbull government minister. </p>
<p>Honourable mention should be made of Attorney-General George Brandis, who did his level best all year to gain more media attention than even Christensen, especially in relation to <a href="https://theconversation.com/standoff-between-brandis-and-solicitor-general-threatens-the-rule-of-law-66558">his dealings with</a> the solicitor-general. And, of course, Tony Abbott continued to haunt the government from the backbench. </p>
<p>It was all too easy for Labor, yet Shorten’s approval rating amongst the voters remained relatively low.</p>
<p>Thanks to the election, the Senate was the chamber in which the minor parties exerted a lot of influence over the policy debate. But even here the sailing was not totally smooth. Family First’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/now-resigned-bob-day-may-have-been-ineligible-to-sit-in-senate-67984">Bob Day is going</a>, and the prospect of another One Nation implosion appeared to increase with every passing day. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/rTLny/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="520"></iframe>
<p>Still, as the year ended it appeared that the government had found a way to navigate its agenda through the upper house. This may point to a better year ahead for the government.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZIi2j/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="520"></iframe>
<p>Given the state of the opinion polls, Turnbull will sincerely hope this will be the case.</p>
<h2>Carol Johnson, University of Adelaide</h2>
<p>This year has not gone as planned for Malcolm Turnbull. An ebullient prime minister was meant to sweep back into office, seizing our <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/03/04/malcolm-turnbull-these-are-the-most-exciting-times-to-be-alive/">“exciting” times</a> with his talk of innovation and agility. A convincing election victory was meant to confirm his legitimacy as leader, confounding both Labor and the Coalition’s social conservatives. </p>
<p>Instead, Labor came closer to winning the election than most expected, seriously damaging Turnbull’s credibility. The social conservatives within the party have had a resurgence. </p>
<p>Senator Cory Bernardi’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/cory-bernardi-selected-by-government-for-three-month-secondment/7211472">sojourn at the United Nations</a> in New York might have been intended to get him out of the way for a while at <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/cory-bernardi-selected-by-government-for-three-month-secondment/7211472">an institution he despised</a>. However, it merely enabled him <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-28/bernardi-warns-liberals-must-learn-lessons-trump-victory/8062738">to observe</a> the Trump forces in action. Tony Abbott has been citing <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/18c-a-bad-law-and-human-rights-commission-a-crook-org-abbott/8015876">the significance of Donald Trump’s victory</a> for the centre-right, while threatening to play a divisive role if not returned to cabinet.</p>
<p>Turnbull risks losing his own identity as he increasingly <a href="https://theconversation.com/pressure-on-malcolm-turnbull-to-bend-to-conservatives-is-stronger-than-ever-68479">bows to the social conservatives</a> in the Coalition. Most recently, he <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/turnbull-praises-dutton-amid-comments-about-lebanese-community/8047038">failed to tackle</a> Peter Dutton over the immigration minister’s remarks regarding Lebanese Muslims. </p>
<p>The prime minister who said that <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/05/31/pauline-hanson-not-welcome-presence-says-turnbull">Pauline Hanson was not welcome</a> in parliament is forced to deal with a fractious Senate crossbench in which One Nation has essential numbers. The Coalition, and particularly the Nationals, <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-government/one-nation-coalition-prediction-by-former-queensland-premier-campbell-newman/news-story/57364d6fed257f98fbe307d41d7a42d6">deeply fear Hanson’s resurgence</a>.</p>
<p>Nick Xenophon’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/xenophon-wins-govt-u-turn-on-local-industry/8077508">surprise victory</a> on government procurement policy in the ABCC bill negotiations suggests the government is increasingly aware of the challenges its free-market policies face from those with reservations <a href="https://theconversation.com/pressure-on-malcolm-turnbull-to-bend-to-conservatives-is-stronger-than-ever-68479">about globalisation</a> and who wish to support Australian industry. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Shorten seems to be settling into the role of opposition leader while still trailing Turnbull <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/28/malcolm-turnbulls-net-approval-rating-falls-to-zero-in-latest-poll">as preferred prime minister</a>. Brexit and Trump’s victory have largely reaffirmed Labor’s election strategy of focusing on tackling issues such as class and inequality. Labor is currently doing <a href="https://theconversation.com/newspoll-labor-gains-to-lead-53-47-68299">well in the polls</a>. </p>
<p>But Labor has risked damaging its relationship with some sections of <a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-populist-election-narrative-fails-to-placate-business-at-its-peril-60053">business</a>. Labor will also be hoping that its focus on addressing economic disadvantage helps defuse chances of it being wedged on <a href="https://theconversation.com/ideas-for-australia-consensus-versus-the-culture-wars-getting-the-balance-right-56665">culture war issues</a>, given its continuing support for socially inclusive policies on issues of gender, race and sexuality. </p>
<p>Overall, this was the government’s year to win or lose, and it has won by the narrowest of margins. In the process it has kicked some extraordinary own goals, as the latest forays by Deputy Prime Minister <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-takes-charge-on-water-in-bid-to-get-abcc-deal-69460">Barnaby Joyce</a>
and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4583355.htm">George Brandis</a> graphically illustrate. Turnbull will be desperately hoping that the government’s success in finally getting the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/abcc-passes-the-senate/8078242">ABCC bill</a> through the Senate promises a better year to come. </p>
<h2>Natalie Mast, University of Western Australia</h2>
<p>This has not been a great year for the Turnbull government. The overly long election campaign was draining, and the narrowness of the victory made it seem more like a defeat.</p>
<p>With the ending of the parliamentary year, the government can now enjoy what must seem like a Pyrrhic victory, with the passing of the double-dissolution trigger, the <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/11/29/abcc-bill-success-stunning-win-australian-jobs-xenophon">ABCC legislation</a>.</p>
<p>Ministerial gaffes and ineptitude from <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/george-brandis-faces-senate-inquiry-over-bell-group-high-court-case-20161129-gt00ne">George Brandis</a> and <a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2016/11/26/eject-dutton/14800788004013">Peter Dutton</a>, along with the failure of Treasurer <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/robert-gottliebsen/its-time-for-scott-morrison-to-go/news-story/6b8142a0f30ccf0651932381414e853a">Scott Morrison</a> to cut through have not helped the Coalition this year. But the heart of the government’s problems rest with the fact that the Liberal Party is split between two very different agendas.</p>
<p>There is a core conservative group within the Liberals, including Tony Abbott, who believe that his government could have been returned to power in 2016. The narrowness of the Turnbull victory in July is being <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-liberal-leading-the-liberals-can-turnbull-manage-the-ultra-conservatives-53976">used to corner the PM</a> on issues such as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/eric-abetzs-unyielding-opposition-to-gay-law-reform-20161011-gs03ur.html">same-sex marriage</a>, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/race-hate-laws-coalition-mps-hail-malcolm-turnbull-stance-on-18c-inquiry-20161028-gscynb.html">Section 18C</a> of the Racial Discrimination Act and the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-under-pressure-after-george-christensen-likens-safe-schools-program-to-pedophile-grooming-20160225-gn42jk.html">Safe Schools</a> program.</p>
<p>This has led to a situation in which voter satisfaction with the government is declining. The electorate is disillusioned that Turnbull <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll">is not delivering</a> the leadership and policy change they had expected. The lack of unity within the Liberal Party is evident throughout the mainstream media.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/11/26/bludgertrack-53-0-47-0-labor/">decline in support</a> for the government strengthens the anti-Turnbull faction, which limits Turnbull’s power to enact change – so voter support falls. He needs to break this cycle.</p>
<p>In September 2015 <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-defeats-abbott-set-to-become-prime-minister-experts-respond-47499">I suggested</a> that the Rudd-Gillard saga had taught us that former prime ministers needed to be removed from parliament as quickly as possible. I argued that the Turnbull government needed Abbott and his supporters to “accept their loss and work for the good of the party”.</p>
<p>Fifteen months later, Abbott <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/backlash-over-expms-attack-on-turnbulls-innovation-policy/news-story/368608b3831dd2d11466f351895fbe94">commented</a> that “it is good we’re no longer talking about innovation and agility because that frankly loses people”. This so openly undermines Turnbull’s agenda that it is almost inconceivable that he could rejoin cabinet without further destabilising the government.</p>
<p>The conservative faction within the Liberal Party needs to face the fact that they are part of the coalition’s problem, not its solution.</p>
<p>The Liberal Party can’t continue to run on two agendas. If 2017 is going to be a better year, and if the Turnbull prime ministership is to meet the expectations of the electorate, he needs to take control of his party and whip the malcontents into shape.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Bill Shorten followed up his “almost victory” <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/bill-shorten-starts-thankyou-tour-in-brisbane-20160705-gpz6jh.html">tour</a> of Australia with a plan to wedge Turnbull wherever possible. Labor has bounced back far more quickly than expected following the Rudd-Gillard saga and used the long election campaign to present a credible alternative government.</p>
<p>Turnbull can’t afford to fight on two fronts. He has two years to deal with Labor, but his timeline for his internal troubles will be much shorter.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69476/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carol Johnson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Mast is the Chair of The Conversation's Editorial Board.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Economou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull’s government has had a rocky year, almost losing an election and incurring a number of self-inflicted wounds. They will be hoping for better in 2017.Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityCarol Johnson, Professor of Politics, University of AdelaideNatalie Mast, Associate Director, Performance Analytics, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.