Economy
Westminster morphs into Presidential … by default
In Spin, fictions undermine faith in system ( Talking Point, Mercury Feb 10, Read here ) Richard Herr provided a timely and accurate clarification of the Westminster principle of Cabinet solidarity as an obligation of Government to Parliament.
In so doing he also referred to the Prime Minister’s claim that the people elected him at the last election and correctly implied that this is a departure from Westminster conventions just as ministerial responsibilty to Parliament has been severely eroded.
It is interesting that a Prime Minister, a Liberal Prime Minister and one who claimed to be the person best suited to the job would make such a claim, although wrongly as it subsequently turned out.
Herr’s defence of the Westminster principle of Cabinet solidarity to Parliament is also interesting because it fails to recognise significant underlying currents that seem to be at play.
All political systems evolve over time. The great strength of the Westminister system is that it has adapted and evolved over a long period of time as Parliament has slowly grown in power to nobble a governing (at times, but not always, despotic) monarch to produce a Parliamentary constrained cabinet of the Commons governing to a Party Government dominating (and largely expected to dominate) Parliament.
The assertion of Prime Ministerial election is but one sign of a developing Presidential model. Few commentators expect anything other than a Prime Ministerial dominated Party and Parliament; Parliament is expected to be nothing but a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister; Government without a dominating majority of subservient followers is seen as an anaethma, by commentators, media and many, if not most, voters.
Question time, which used to be a mechanism by which members of parliament, representing their electorates, were able to question or seek clarification of Government Ministers has been replaced by a mechanism for providing a venue for a gladatorial display.
Stability , by which is meant certainty of tenure, and increasingly of personnel, is seen as vital, particularly by business interests but also by commentators, the media and increasingly the public.
The Westminster idea that Governments should be continually at the mercy of a sceptical Parliament (accountable) has been largely abandoned, if not rejected. Instead the Presidential model of fixed terms, albeit with caveats, has been widely adopted.
For a number of years elections have been Presidential and accepted as such. The local candidate has decreasing prominence as publicity material, media coverage and increasingly election rules direct concentration on party Leaders. Often they are reported as “races”, an American term which seems to deny any element of conscious voter consideration and choice.
The problem is not so much that the Westminster system of Parliamentary dominance is being replaced by a Presidential model. If that was the issue, it is something that could be debated and designed.
What is happening is that we have a Westminster system which is morphing into a Presidential system by default and with our tacit consent.
We have the the structure, the bones of a parliamentary system but the clothing of a presidential system; neither one nor the other. While we have such a confused system, no-one (not even the Prime Minister) knows how it works. Consequently it is destined to change in ways that are totally undesigned.
*Brian Austen started his working life with the PMG/Telecom as a Telephone Technician which included a short period in Papua New Guinea. He dropped that to go to University to do Social Work but found Political Science more interesting. After 6 years he had an MA in Political Science but needed a proper job and after scraping through a Commonwealth selection test he joined the Australian Bureau of Statistics in their Hobart Office. He was hired because his membership with the Australian Democrats, which had just formed, indicated he might have a different perspective on life and some of the issues which the ABS tried to address. He became increasingly involved with the Democrats at both State and Federal level, including a period as a paid staff member to Senator Robert Bell. Complementing his academic background in politics he acquired a first-hand experience of real politics where often the two are at odds. Perhaps this was why he saw things differently and said so when Premier Groom invited submissions to a Board of Enquiry set up to look at ways that the Tasmanian Parliament might be reconstituted. Consequently his submission had no traction. He is retired, dismayed at the lack of real in-depth political inquiry, but enjoys the company of his new grandson who he hopes will one day wear the black and red, and be calling the shots politically.
• Guardian: Senior ministers rally around Tony Abbott after more damaging leaks
• Guardian: Tony Abbott on national security: plenty of flags and rhetoric, but not much detail
TUESDAY …
• SMH: Seven ministers put Tony Abbott on notice
• Guardian:Coalition recovers ground in latest poll, but still trails Labor by wide margin