Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
In the second of his series on creating a better Australia, Dr Klaas Woldring casts a critical eye over our outmoded and inadequate Westminster system of government.
A citizen’s choices under the Westminster System.
Australian Reconstructed (Part 2)
The Westminster System
[Read Part One: The Australian party system and proportional representation]
IT IS A STRANGE IRONY, that questioning the Westminster System is more controversial in Australia than in the UK. The two Yes Minister series on television were British products.
The Westminster system originated in the UK and only exists in that country and in some of the British Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries. Many of the positive values of that system exist in most indirect democracies, but there are at least two major differences. In the Westminster system:
(a) there is a very limited choice of competent cabinet ministers;
(b) there is a fusion between the government and the principal legislature.
Both problems diminish the quality of both the government and the legislature. There is no reason at all that Australia should continue with these negative features.
The Westminster System is defined as a representative parliamentary system, in which the ministers are “in and of the parliament”. Citizens cannot be ministers unless they are elected as Members of Parliament (MPs). This virtually ensures that most Ministers are functional amateurs. In the UK, the choice is from 600 MPs, minus the Opposition MPs. In Australia’s Federal Parliament, it is 150 MPs, minus the Opposition MPs.
In the states of the Australian Federation, the number is often much smaller. Sometimes, as in Tasmania, there are not enough Government MPs to fill the portfolios.
The fusion problem is equally problematical. As a result the Government and the front bench of the Opposition dominate the legislature. There is no separation of powers between the Government and Legislature. This has long been seen as undesirable.
If governments were not compelled to have their leaders (and ministers) elected to Parliament, we might not have the problems at Federal level we have right now. That is, recruiting a new leader from outside would be a possible compromise solution for the ALP to restore electoral stocks. People like Beazley could even be recalled from New York and drafted straight into Parliament. In Queensland, the new leader of the LNP, Campbell Newman might not have been the Premier if he had not won his seat; plainly ridiculous.
Not surprisingly the competence of Ministers, both at the Federal and State levels, often leaves much to be desired in a Westminster system. Amazingly, Ministers are even frequently moved from one portfolio to another, after every “reshuffle”. Some have several portfolios.
Should it not be a prime objective of reformers to improve the quality of governments and political leadership? It would be much better for the party executives to be able to choose from the entire society. There are a huge number of outstanding potential candidates out there but they would not want to bother to go through the tedious party pre-selection process and then be involved in election campaigns. The Westminster system rules such people out to serve the nation. As party membership is now below 0.5 per cent in total, this is a very serious situation indeed.
Separation of powers is desirable
Why should the Government have to be “in and of the Parliament”? Ministers may have to be called to the legislature to explain government policy or to answer questions — but why should they have to be “of the Parliament”? The system surely affects the independence of the legislature, especially in a two-party system. So-called “extra-parliamentary” executives are the rule in all non-Westminster systems, both in the US and all European, collegiate parliamentary systems. Australia could adopt this as well. Especially the European collegiate system, based on proportional electoral systems, would seem to be very suitable for Australia. Even more undesirable is the endless adversarial parliamentary discourse, also inherent in the Westminster system, whereby the Government is constantly being attacked by the front bench of the Opposition, presumably the alternative Government. Australians may believe that it is “natural” for politics to be conducted in this fashion. This is not the case.
Other reflections on the Westminster system
The theory is that the (single) Westminster type Parliament has unlimited authority. However, in Australia, the federal structure as well as the different electoral systems for lower and upper houses detract from the pure form considerably. Moreover, it also creates checks, which are usually resented by governments but have often proved to be redeeming factors preventing the worst consequences. Overall, the combination of these systems has created an unwieldy hybrid political system in Australia that has never worked particularly well, although some would claim it does, at least adequately, in practice. Particularly after 1949, when the Senate was elected on the basis of P. R. and gradually became a more democratic, powerful, and useful Upper House, conflicts about mandates ensued frequently. The Senate‘s record since that year, although especially since the late 1960s, has been good. One could say that its role has been to prevent the worst effects of the inadequacies of the Westminster system, especially when combined with a federal structure.
Critics of abolishing Westminster
Critics have argued that the Westminster system has performed adequately, when compared with what some regard as its principal rival — the US Presidential system. However, the US system is only one and not its main rival. All extra-parliamentary executive systems are separate from the legislature.
Other critics say that the Westminster system was formed before the party system took hold, roughly around 1900, and was meant to operate for a parliament of Independents as a check on the monarchy. May be so, but this confirms even more how completely outmoded it is now.
Perhaps the most frequent criticism is based on the notion that (senior) public servants are competent, ideologically neutral, independent and professional advisers to (amateur) Ministers regardless of what party is in power. That, of course, was the objective of public service legislation from the second half of the 19th century onwards. Sadly, the reality of the situation, now, is that this is no longer the case. For the last 20 years at least, the public services have been politicized in several ways, largely on economic rationalist grounds.
(Klaas Woldring is a (now retired) Associate Professor at Southern Cross University, as well as the convenor of the Republic Now!)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
3 Comments
i’d like to see representation more proportionally spread between greens, labor, coalition and say katters party with a double handful of independants so that every government from now on is an alliance of many and far more representative than black or white (which has become a bit grey and dark grey).
i can imagine different times/personalities leading to interesting combinations like green/labor, green/liberal, katter/conservative, katter/labor or even green/katter (lil bit of protectionism!). i stress leadership personality because someone like turnbull/milne could work with any of the above. the rest are too pig headed imo.
as i understand (very roughly) the current british government, is made of 2 parties in temporary coalition, another opposing and that other radical right wing one that is mostly hidden like a mad uncle. maybe the westminster system isn’t the problem, but rather the polarity driven by media (who largely ignore the greens, independants and other parties) that’s the problem. after all the media is how we find stuff out.
i love the internet because it’s a great equaliser. people can find out what they want for themselves, rather than rely on spin depending on who you read. i think what we need is maybe a site that lists all parties and independants running and their agendas, widely publicised so interested voters can inform themselves of the choices. this might help but there’s still a large amount of voter apathy in the country leading to people being rusted on, or more likely: fooled by propaganda.
Time to start looking at a Republic and do away with these costly state Govts there not required.
It’s time for our Freedom!
The present corruptions of our system were worked hard and long at to achieve by intent and idiocy. Since 1975 we have been a republic in conversion to American system. The heights of which are dominance and freedom by the health and legal trades as principals of corporate and the other powers to indulge on the people’s and systems wealth by way of elite power and economic freedom profiteering on them. A republic living in a Westminster suit since 75 pretending it’s something else.
That is the root of the problem on representative quality. It is that the bounds of their powers and intervention capability for the people has changed and a purpose built chain of command set in. A lot of it for good with our lot but no other help or comeback structure in place.
All tuned to suit health and legal and cohorts, insurance etc, etc as lord and master. The cunning conquerors of the Monarch for unfettered access to the people’s pains and profits.
Where the trouble is with that, is that to pull the management off and to maintain their self comforting in excess as happens by slothenly public directed (dis)interest, elitist gang, over empowerment, vision of self worth and overindulgence, there must be a power sharing arrangement with other forces and buy off’s and trade off’s. This is where the many complaints of our system that even this site reports, that are blamed on Monarchy and Westminster for Republic cause in cunning, are born and repeatedly build up to public intolerable heights that are never addressed.
The whole matter turns to elitist corruption and crony trade off’s above and system arranged against the people to defend it by cutting off comeback and laws and rights and services. The pricing of justice ,social justice and access and quality of it also coming into the picture of entrapment. A republic seals the heights structures onto the populace entrapping in servitude.
Their are many ills and unwarranted practices and allowances in our system for powers and heights survival and freedoms and overindulgences that being a Republic will not tend or solve. Contrary, they are part and parcel of a republic and especially at present.
This is also exemplified in the manner, salesmanship, education of and presentation of a republic onto the Australian people by a large propaganda and feel good force and especially in the media as a whole by forcing’s from the top of the food chain and elitist monetary corporate heights.
Problems today that could be addressed by Monarchy and should by all selling points and propaganda forces of Republic, will not be addressed. The only way they will be addressed is by the heights holding their breath for a while and addressing them for the sake of an enticed Republic vote. And with the present -still booming for some pig greed and self interest high in fumes, the dear’s can’t organise or hold their breaths long enough to pull the fraud off. Let alone cement the good in system cement.
Especially when they would rather apply it by force as is the geno and phenotype of the force and species. It cannot change it’s colours for long enough and cannot permanently for public whole benefit. Lying does well for the cause as does stigmatizing the people that Republic ills are Monarchist caused and that a Republic cures all their ills from personal traits,cellulite, haemoroids to the common cold.
There are matters in this country that need addressing and cemented in system before stepping into a Republic and though our pigs do fly, they don’t do underwater ballet for very long.
Matters need to be addressed and the country must hold off the manipulations and assaults from outside to do it for the right internals for public whole. Our system is set at present with the doors open to receive those manipulations and to make and play far too much on them.
The ill forces of our systems and republic are trying to conquer the globe. I drew a line in the sand behind me on these matters a long time ago and demand their addressing before change.
I call these forces out.