[fblike]
On September 7th, Australian voters went to the polls and returned the Coalition, which is an alliance of the Australian Liberal Party and the Australian National Part, to power for the first time since 2007. The Australian Labor Party suffered its worst electoral defeat in a century despite presiding over an economic boom that has enabled Australia to escape a severe global economic recession and the effect of financial crises in the United States and Europe. The prime minister-elect, Tony Abbott of the Coalition, was at one time deemed too radical and unelectable, but managed to convince Australians that carbon taxes and refugee issues needed swift attention to preserve Australia’s place as one of the strongest economies in the world and one of the powers in Southeast Asian affairs. Australia is often the “red headed stepchild” of extemporaneous speaking in the sense that it is often ignored by question writers since it does not neatly fit into geographic topic areas. Nevertheless, due to the country’s strategic alliance with the United States and its economic ties to China, it is an important country to know when assessing Asia-Pacific affairs.
This topic brief will provide some background information on the recent parliamentary elections, discuss the results of the election, and then analyze how the new Coalition government will deal with the major issues that affect Australia, both foreign and domestic.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
Background
For those unfamiliar with how Australia’s elections, the BBC on September 7th provided a very useful guide that all extempers should cut and place in their files. This guide discusses some of the candidates and issues and also discusses how Australians cast ballots. As that article explains, Australia’s government is a combination of the United States and United Kingdom in the sense that it is a parliamentary government, but there is an upper house and a lower house. The party that controls the lower house, which has 150 seats that are determined like the U.S. House of Representatives whereby states with higher populations get more representation, is in control of the government and that party’s leader is made the prime minister. Members in the lower house serve three year terms unless early elections are called, but elections have to be called every three years at a minimum. The upper house of the Australian parliament is like the U.S. Senate in that the six largest states in Australia get six senators each and the two less populous territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, get twelve senators each. The Senate in total has 76 members, with members usually serving six year terms like their American counterparts. The upper house has the power to approve or deny legislation, which can create headaches for the government in power if it cannot get the upper house to approve of its legislation. Think of this as the current division on Capitol Hill between the Republican controlled House and the Democratically controlled Senate.
Voting procedures are also very interesting in Australia. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has a mandatory voting law. This means that if you do not cast a ballot, you could be fine up to $18. Other countries in the world that practice mandatory voting (also called compulsory voting) include Argentina, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Luxembourg, the island country of Nauru, Peru, Singapore, and Uruguay. Some countries like Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Greece, Lebanon, Mexico, and Panama, among others, have compulsory voting laws but they do not enforce them. When voting for parliament, voters number the candidates present on the ballot in order of their preference, with a “1” signifying their topic choice. If a candidate fails to reach 50% of the vote, election authorities remove the candidate with the lowest vote total and all voters that chose that candidate have their second choice counted. If a candidate still fails to reach 50%, then the next lowest candidate is removed and the cycle repeats itself until there is one candidate that crosses the 50% threshold. This is called “instant-runoff” voting (IRV) or preferential voting. This system also creates situations where election outcomes are not immediately known and at the time of this brief there were a handful of offices that had yet to be decided as election authorities work through the IRV system.
Moving onto the candidates, the election was contested between the Coalition leader Tony Abbott and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Labor Party. There are a handful of other parties that also contested the election, which included the Green Party, known for its support of environmental issues, the Palmer Unity Party, which supports secession for the state of Northern Queensland, and the Australian Sports Party, which only stands for encouraging national sports. Tony Abbott replaced Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull, a former merchant banker and technology entrepreneur, in 2009 after Turnbull favored Rudd’s establishment of a carbon emissions trading system, thereby becoming leader of the Australian opposition. Reuters on September 8th points out that Abbott won the leadership by one vote and that Turnbull is still a minister of parliament (MP) and the wealthiest one at that. Abbott is socially conservative and favors a very strict policy on asylum seekers coming into Australia (which will be discussed in the next section) and he opposes gay marriage despite having a lesbian sister. The Toronto Star on September 7th reveals that Abbott is a former boxer, Rhodes scholar, and went through some training to be a Catholic priest, although he did not finish his religious schooling. Under John Howard, who led the Liberal Party and was prime minister between March 1996 and December 2007, Abbott was the employment minister (1998-2001) and minister of health and ageing (2003). Abbott got a name for himself for his off the cuff remarks. For example, as the Economist notes on September 11th notes, he had characterized the Syrian civil war as a conflict between “baddies vs. baddies” and has said that climate change is “absolute crap.” Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard said in the lead up to the 2013 election that Abbott is disrespectful of women and is a misogynist. Abbott has also been called “Dr. No” by his political opponents because he was a very vocal critic of Labor’s policies. Now, though, he will have to govern.
Kevin Rudd had an interesting journey to the current election. Having led the Labor Party out of the political wilderness and ousting John Howard’s long serving Coalition government in 2007, Rudd was then knocked aside by the Labor Party in 2010 after seeing his approval ratings falter due to problems with his environmental policy. Rudd was replaced by his deputy, Julia Gillard, who became Australia’s first female prime minister. However, in Gillard’s first election as leader, the electorate deadlocked between Labor and the Coalition. As the Economist explains on September 7th, both parties in that election won 72 seats in the lower house, producing the first hung parliament since 1940. The balance of power was held by the Green Party and three independents. The Green Party made an agreement to join Labor, thereby creating a tenuous minority government that held a 76-74 vote margin in the lower house. As part of this deal, though, Gillard’s government had to agree on the imposition of a carbon tax, which it had offered tentative support for during the election. This carbon tax was imposed in 2012 on fossil fuels used by the country’s major industries. Not surprisingly, the country’s mining industry, which has been the engine behind economic growth, opposed it. Some Australian consumers complained that they received higher energy bills than the government’s estimates predicted and this, coupled with internal unrest in Gillard’s government over Rudd’s role as foreign minister, which led to leadership votes in February 2012 and March 2013, led to a decline in Gillard’s popularity. As the 2013 elections approached, some political analysts speculated that Labor would be lucky to win forty seats in the lower house. In June 2013, Rudd challenged Gillard again for the party leadership, which he failed to win in February 2012, and this time defeated her 57-45. Rudd’s history as a great campaigner and a fresh face for the Labor Party were deemed as the most expedient reasons that Labor went with him to face Abbott.
Despite early polls showing a Coalition rout, Rudd campaigned very hard for the Labor Party and its standing began to improve in the polls. During the five week election, the two campaigns battled over the state of the Australian economy, which is heavily dependent upon the mining sector, whose growth is now beginning to slow due to a slowdown in the Chinese economy. The Toronto Star previously cited mentions that while Abbott blasted the Labor government for spending more than it was taking in so as not to prepare for an economic slowdown, Rudd blasted Abbott’s planned spending cuts as “dangerous European-style” austerity. The Guardian of September 12th explains that Australia’s unemployment rate has increased from 5.5% to 5.8% and economists expect unemployment to rise to 6.25% by June of next year. Abbott also blasted the carbon tax as being a disincentive for business investment and made it one of the centerpieces of his campaign. USA Today on September 7th also explains that he promised to repeal a 30% profits tax on coal and iron ore mining companies. That tax, which was expected to bring in more than $3 billion Australian during its first year only collected $126 million Australian during its first six months on the books. However, some economists were wary of Abbott’s proposals, since, as the Economist of September 7th explains, he did not release a cost estimate of his economic policy savings until 48 hours before voters went to the polls and he has immediately jettisoned his pledge to turn Australia’s budget into his surplus during his first year in power. Al Jazeera also explains on September 6th that Abbott proposed a plan that would give working parents six months of paid leave at their full employment income after a child is born. The cost estimate of this program is $5.5 billion a year, but Abbott was not necessarily clear on how he would pay for it and conservatives in the Coalition oppose an expansion of the Australian welfare state.
Extempers that want a full overview of the issues debated between Abbott, Rudd, and other election forces during the election should check out a “key issues” guide produced by the BBC on September 5th. It is a very helpful chart that can greatly assist giving speeches on this topic.
The Election Results
After five weeks of campaigning, Australian voters went to the polls on September 7th to elect the lower house and forty seats in the Australian Senate. The outcome was not as bad as Labor was fearing, but it did result in a clear Coalition victory. At the time of the writing of this brief, because some seats are still in doubt, the Coalition is estimated to have won 91 seats, which represents a nineteen seat gain from 2010, and the Labor Party won 54 seats, which constituted a loss of eighteen seats. The green Party, Palmer United Party, and Katter’s Australian Party (which leans right on immigration and business policy, although it opposes future privatizations of government owned assets) each won one seat and two independent candidates won their races as well. The Toronto Star argues that Rudd’s presence as Labor leader may have saved an electoral disaster for his party as Labor won all of the close seats in Rudd’s home state of Queensland and then won several marginal seats in western Sydney. Nevertheless, the election represents Labor’s worst electoral showing this century since 2004, when John Howard’s government crushed the Mark Latham-led Labor Party by winning 87 seats to Labor’s 60. The Sydney Morning Herald on September 8th reveals that Labor only won 34% of the “primary” election vote (which means the number of first place votes they received on preferential ballots), which is the worst showing for the party in a century. The elected members of the lower house took their seats Monday.
While the Coalition will return to power in the lower house, the Senate represents a different picture. As the Sydney Morning Herald on September 8th points out, the Senate is rife with independent and fringe party members and the Coalition will not enjoy a rubber stamp for its policies. Abbott has already indicated that this is okay because the Howard government overreached after the 2004 elections by passing a program called Work Choices, which curtailed some of the powers for Australian workers to go on strike, limited collective bargaining rights and union recruitment, and removing some of the protections for workers being dismissed from their jobs. The unpopularity of the Work Choices program and the rising violence in Iraq in 2007 and 2008 (which was the subject of last week’s brief) are seen as the two major reasons that the last Coalition government collapsed. In the recent Senate elections, the Coalition is actually on course to lose a seat, although this pales in comparisons to the Labor Party losing six seats. While the major parties lost, the Green Party gained one seat, the Palmer United Party gained two seats, the Liberal Democratic Party (a libertarian party that seeks reduced taxes, imagines a less restrictive role for the government in climate change legislation, and legalizing marijuana) gained one seat, the Family First Party (a socially conservative leaning party that supports family values) gained one seat, the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party (formed in reaction to state attempts at enforcing speed limits and impounding vehicles) gained one seat, and the Australian Sports Party (who supports sports) gained one seat. For humor’s sake, extempers might want to note the latter two parties, who won due to the preferential voting system. If a party can avoid being the last choice of voters then it could win seats. For example, a voter might vote for the Green Party as their top two choice, but would put the Coalition, the Family First Party, and minor nationalist parties on the very bottom of their ballot. However, a party like the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party and the Australian Sports Party, which are single-issue parties that have not taken a stand on controversial issues like climate change, asylum policy, or the economy, seem less threatening and might occupy a second or third place position on their ballot. As a result, if the Green Party candidate received few votes and is eliminated, then these minor parties gain votes by being the second or third best choice.
It appears that the Australian Senate will have a composition of 33 Coalition members, 25 Labor members, ten Green Party members, two Palmer Unity Party members, and one member of the Liberal Democratic Party, Xenophon Group (the left-wing party of Nicholas Xenophon who leans left and shares many views of the Green Party), the Family First Party, the Democratic Labor Party, the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, and the Australian Sports Party. Therefore, if Labor and the Green Party collaborate, they will share 35 seats against 33 for the Coalition, leaving the other single legislators to decide whether to support Labor or the Coalition on policy choices. This may complicate Abbott’s plans to alter the nation’s tax structure and to abolish the carbon tax, which Labor and the Green Party firmly support. In an odd quirk of Australian politics, the newly elected Senate members, not including the ones elected from the territories, will not be seated until July 1, 2014, so the Coalition will work with a lame duck Senate where Labor (31 seats) and the Greens (9 seats) form a forty member voting bloc against the 34 seats of the Coalition. The other two seats of the older Senate belong to the Democratic Labour Party (a socially conservative and anti-neo-liberal party) and one independent.
Following the election, Rudd announced that he would step down as the leader of the Labor Party, although he says that he plans to fulfill his three year term as a member of the lower house. Labor figures, though, are urging him to leave parliament. The South China Morning Post of September 11th explains that former trade minister Craig Emerson, who was a Gillard supporter in the party, said that Rudd needs to leave because if he remains in the lower house Labor MP’s that become dissatisfied with the new Labor leader could try to convince him to run for the leadership again, thereby disrupting party unity. Advocates of Rudd leaving parliament subscribe to the theory that one of the major reasons for Labor’s defeat was internal bickering, which gave a poor impression to voters and undermined their confidence in the government. The BBC on September 13th explains that the election for a new Labor Party leader will take a month, with the party’s rank-and-file membership voting, which carries a 50% weight, and then a caucus vote being held, which will also carry 50% weight. This voting innovation is new and was installed by Rudd to make it harder for factions within the party to remove party leaders, thereby avoiding the instability Labor has experienced for two years. The leading candidates are former deputy prime minister Anthony Albanese and party powerbroker Bill Shorten. According to the BBC, party treasurer Chris Bowen will lead the party while the vote is taking place.
The New Coalition Government
One of Abbott’s first challenges will be to eliminate the carbon tax that he is so vehemently against on the campaign trail. Prior to Rudd’s election as prime minister in 2007, Australia was not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, which attempted to bring the world’s major countries together to reduce climate change and reduce emissions to agreed upon targets. Due to its mining industry, Australia is one of the heaviest producers of CO2 in the world and the Labor government implemented a three step strategy to reduce the country’s carbon emissions. As New Scientist explains on September 10th, the first step called for enacting an emissions trading scheme, which was set to go into effect in 2015 and would allow businesses to swap “carbon credits” with each other, thereby allowing businesses that emitted less than their agreed upon amount to profit by selling their excess permits to other businesses that went over their targets. The second step called for boosting the use of renewable energy sources by twenty percent and the third step called for government financing of clean energy projects. The only step of this strategy that Abbott has supported is the emphasis on renewables and as New Scientist explains, his program called for “direct action” to reduce the country’s CO2 emissions to five percent below 1990 levels. This “direct action” plan called for farmers voluntarily storing carbon in soils and planting trees and providing incentives for new renewables, among other steps. However, climate policymakers warn that Abbott is not going to spend enough to make his plan feasible. The other big problem is that if Abbott wants to rollback Labor’s climate change policies he is going to have to go through the Senate, where Labor has a sizeable voting bloc with the Green’s, who will be in no mood to see their pet project of carbon taxes die. At the end of last week Abbott made a public pronouncement that the recent election was a referendum on the carbon tax and the Senate should bow to the Coalition’s will in abolishing it, but Labor and Green MP’s signaled that they were not backing off their support for the program. The Guardian reveals on September 6th that if Abbott does not get his climate legislation through the Senate he may call for a double-dissolution election next year, whereby the full upper and lower houses will be up for election. Abbott would hope that by doing this the Coalition would receive a strong majority in the upper and lower houses to pass its program, although it carries the risk that it could lose the gains it made in this election. What is intriguing about this move is that if Abbott goes down this road the senators that recently won seats would have their victories nullified (because remember, they are not seated until July 1, 2014) and would have to run for office again.
The other controversial issue that Abbott will have to tackle involves asylum seekers coming into Australia. As is the case with most developed nations, Australia is a magnet for refugees fleeing political conflict their countries or those seeking a better economic life for themselves and their families. Just like the United States and some European nations, anti-immigrant sentiment is rising in Australia as these forces fear that the national character of the country is being changed by immigrants who do not speak English and have no attachment to their new homeland. The BBC on September 7th has an excellent graphic that illustrates the rise of asylum seekers into Australia between 1998-2012. It is estimated that 17,821 asylum seekers have arrived this year, which is triple 2011 levels. Most of these asylum seekers have come from Afghanistan (more than 13,000), Iraq (more than 6,000), and Iran (4,500). The Sydney Morning Herald of September 12th explains that Abbott’s campaign emphasized how he wanted to “stop the boats” of asylum seekers and wants the government to spend $420 million to buy unseaworthy boats that could be used to bring asylum-seekers to Australia and another $20 million for those providing information on smuggling rings. The Labor Party, sensitive to the asylum question, also proposed a resettlement plan during the campaign, which the BBC on September 7th notes is called the “Papua New Guinea” plan because it calls for spending $1.1 billion Australian on resettling asylum seekers outside of Australia. Abbott may find the domestic political support for his proposal, but the problem is that he needs to get the cooperation of Indonesia, where a large number of asylum seekers assembly before making the voyage to Australia. For its part, the Indonesian government says that the plan is a non-starter and it will be a hard sell for Abbott to make Australia’s case when he visits Indonesia in his first planned international trip as prime minister. The Economist of September 11th also explains that securing Indonesia’s cooperation might be made more difficult by Abbott’s pledge to cut $4 billion from the Australian foreign aid budget to pay for infrastructure projects at home. Indonesia is the largest recipient of Australian foreign aid, so they view the looming aid cutoff as unwelcome and an affront to them.
Lastly, Abbott will need to determine which foreign policy path his government wants to take with China and the United States. The Economist of September 11th argues that Australia likes to have good relations with China, who consumes a large quantity of Australia’s mineral resources, and the United States, with which it has a strong security alliance. In 2011, 2,500 American marines were placed in the Northern territory as part of President Obama’s move to emphasize Asian affairs, but China views this as unwelcome, especially because right-wing governments are propping up near its borders in South Korea, Japan, and now Australia. Whereas Kevin Rudd spoke Mandarin and liked to gloat about it, Abbott does not, but it is believed he will be a moderate on foreign affairs and will attempt to placate both Chinese and American concerns so that Australia does not have to choose between what the Economist calls “its history and its geography.” Abbott is also likely to place more of an emphasis on bilateral than multilateral relations, which as CNN points out on September 9th is the traditional way that the Coalition views foreign policy issues. Nevertheless, the above Economist explains this will also be limited based on Australia serving as the UN Security Council president for September and then hosting the G-20 leaders summit in 2014. Extempers, though, should be aware that Australia is in a tenuous position when it comes to rising tensions between the United States and China in East and Southeast Asia and they should not neglect its economic importance and security role in the region.