Right: The headline announcing the ALP's victory in 1993 is misleading. Australian voters do not elect a Prime Minister, but, instead, elect a local member of Parliament. It is the party with most representatives in that parliament that forms government. Their leader - elected by the party members - becomes Prime Minister.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of a prime minister being removed from office without a general election
1. Constitutionally, the electorate votes for neither parties, party leaders nor prime ministers
The Australian Constitution makes no mention of the position of Prime Minister, of the Cabinet, or of political parties. A literal reading of the Constitution suggests that the Governor-General runs the government.
The operation of the Australian government is in fact determined by a mix of Constitutional regulation and convention. A convention is a long-established practice that has become an accepted part of the Westminster system of government on which the Australian system of government is modelled.
Section 64 of the Australian Constitution states: "The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth."
In practice, under established conventions, the Prime Minister is the person who leads the party with a majority in the House of Representatives. The ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister who advises the Governor General of the names and portfolios to be allocated to them.
When the Australian electorate votes it is not electing a Party or a Prime Minister, but a set of local representatives. In practice the elected representatives are generally formed into parties and it is the party with the majority in the House of Representatives that forms government. The members of this party elect their leader who is then the Prime Minister.
Therefore, those who defend a party's right to change the Prime Minister, point out that this has never been a popularly elected position, guaranteed under the Australian Constitution.
In an opinion piece published in The Goulburn Post on September 15, 2015, Chris Gordon stated, 'Each spill (and as a point of comparison, we've had five prime ministers in Canberra in the time that there's been two Doctor Whos in the TARDIS) there are the usual howls of outrage from large sectors of the community, including some woefully uninformed members of the media, that we didn't vote for this new prime minister.'
Gordon goes on to remind his readers that in fact the Prime Ministership has never been a popularly elected position, 'But of course we never do and never have. In Australia, we vote for a local member and those local members get together and elect the prime minister. The recent Spill Syndrome hasn't changed that.'
In an opinion piece published in The Age on September 22, 2015, Dr Joff Lelliott?, lecturer in political science at the University of Queensland, similarly stated, 'Of all 34 prime ministerial terms only four have begun with an election victory and then ended with the voters turfing the prime minister out again...
The reason for all this uncertainty and instability is the system itself. The Westminster system does not give prime ministers the direct mandate and fixed term that US presidents get.
Instead prime ministers are chosen indirectly, via the parliament (which means by the governing party). Parties can replace leaders at whim, without consulting the voters. Similarly prime ministers can hand to successors comfortable that the electorate is held at bay.'
2. Parties should be able to remove Prime Ministers they believe are dysfunctional
It has been claimed that it is in the interests of the best functioning of a democracy that parties be able to remove Prime Ministers who have demonstrated that they are incapable of properly performing their function.
Those who present this argument claim that a prime minister's fellow ministers and elected members of parliament are in a better position to gauge his or her effectiveness than the general public is. It has been suggested that a dysfunctional prime minister represents a threat to the proper administration of the country. This was the argument presented by the Labor Party in 2010 when it deposed Kevin Rudd and replaced him as Prime Minister with Julia Gillard.
On August 23, 2014, The Australian's editor-at-large, Paul Kelly, offered the following explanation of Rudd's removal from office. 'The Rudd prime ministership is a truly tragic tale of a leader with the potential to become a great prime minister brought undone by his flaws. The explanation lies in Rudd's complex personality. Kevin was a brilliant solo player but not an effective team leader. This was the heart of the problem. It is the best explanation for the extraordinary saga that saw Kevin transition in just 21/2 years from Labor hero to repudiated prime minister.'
In the immediate aftermath of Rudd's removal Julia Gillard stated, 'I know the Rudd government did not do all it said it would do and at times it went off track.' She further stated that she had taken over the leadership 'because I believed that a good government was losing its way'.
Commentators later suggested that these explanations were understated because Gillard and her supporters were afraid of doing their party electoral damage by admitting how bad the situation had become and that they believed Rudd to be a dysfunctional leader. Gillard did make comments of this nature some years later. 'Kevin's operating style was dysfunctional... Kevin's fatal flaw was that he couldn't delegate, he couldn't manage his time, he couldn't plan strategically as opposed to plan tactically.'
Gillard elaborated, 'Under pressure he was a great prevaricator. His reaction to not being able to decide was to ask for more and more briefs and more and more paperwork that would never get read. Then he felt the pressure more and more; there was more paper and more chaos. It would get worse, not better.'
When Opposition leader Malcolm Fraser blocked supply in the Senate in 1975 triggering the removal of not merely a prime minister but an elected government, he did so because he stated the national interest demanded such action in response to 'most extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances'.
3. Parties should be able to remove Prime Ministers they believe are political liabilities
It has been argued that the positions of party leader and prime minister are political gifts bestowed by the party upon the person it believes best placed to implement its platform and ensure its re-election. Thus any party leader and prime minister who becomes a serious political liability can expect to be removed by his or her party.
In July 2006, when party polling was poor, then Prime Minister John Howard wrote a letter to his fellow Liberal members of Parliament stating, 'Leadership of the party is a great honour, of which I remain profoundly conscious. It is, moreover, the unique gift of the party room. Just as the party now wants me to continue as leader I accept that it has a perfect right to change its mind if it judges that to be to the party's benefit.'
This factor seemed to be a major reason behind the growing pressure within the Liberal Party to remove Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. As early as November 2014, political commentator Graham Richardson, noted, 'The latest Newspoll should give Tony Abbott and his team plenty to think about. Despite the performance of the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in belting Vladimir Putin over the downing of flight MH17 and standing up to the threat posed by Islamic extremists, to find themselves trailing a lacklustre opposition 54-46 is a problem not easily dismissed. No amount of the usual "the only poll that counts is on election day" or "we don't govern by the opinion polls" will clear the fetid air.'
One of the primary reasons Malcolm Turnbull gave for challenging Tony Abbott for the Liberal Party leadership and the Prime Ministership was that Tony Abbott was likely to lose the next election. Mr Abbott stated, 'Now if we continue with Mr Abbott as Prime Minister, it is clear enough what will happen. He will cease to be Prime Minister and he'll be succeeded by Mr Shorten [the leader of the Opposition]...
The one thing that is clear about our current situation is the trajectory. We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row. It is clear that the people have made up their mind about Mr Abbott's leadership.'
In response to the removal of Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard claimed that it was Tony Abbott's persistent inability to generate good numbers in public opinion polls that led to his being deposed. Mr Howard stated, 'I think the major reason why the Liberal party made the change was because of the polls. Politics is governed by the laws of arithmetic, and I do think if the polls had been different, even to a modest but measurable degree, then there may not have been a change.'
Public opinion polls are used by political parties as an indication of how likely the different parties are to be successful at the next election. Persistently poor polling is seen as an indication of a probable loss at the ballot box and thus can be a trigger for the removal of a Prime Minister.
4. The next election either validates or repudiates the new leader
It has been claimed that the electorate has the opportunity to endorse or reject any decision a political party takes about its leadership or about the prime ministership at the next election.
This point was made by former Prime Minister John Howard when he gave his qualified support to the new, party-appointed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
When asked whether the Liberal party room had made the right decision in deposing Mr Abbott, Mr Howard stated, 'The Australian people will decide that, but the important thing is they made a decision with a clear margin. In the end though the voters have a say in their judgment at the next election and I hope it is very favourable to the government.'
After she had deposed the elected incumbent, Kevin Rudd, Ms Gillard stated, 'I also certainly acknowledge that I have not been elected Prime Minister by the Australian people. And in the coming months I will ask the Governor-General to call for a general election so that the Australian people can exercise their birthright to choose their Prime Minister.'
In the most significant power shift in Australian politics, the 1975 removal of an elected Labor government in favour of a caretaker Coalition government led by Malcolm Fraser, one of the terms under which the Governor General had agreed to revoke Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's commission and appoint Malcolm Fraser in his place was that an election be held shortly after.
Gough Whitlam saw the election as an opportunity for the electorate to repudiate the undemocratic government that had been foisted upon it. He declared, 'A great wrong must be set right. Only the people of Australia can do it, and they will. The shame must be wiped away...Parliamentary democracy as we know it must be saved...'
Malcolm Fraser saw the election as an opportunity for the electorate to endorse his Party's style of government and reject that of his immediate predecessor. He stated, 'This election is about the way Labor has been destroying our way of life. We sought the election so you could choose the way of life you want.'
Both men saw the election as either an endorsement of the dismissal or a rejection of it. Supporters of parties' rights to change their leaders similarly see elections as the people's opportunity to validate or reject the parties' decision.
5. Internationally Australia is viewed as a strong, stable democracy whose foreign policy positions remain relatively constant
Those who support the right of elected governments in Australia to change their leader and thus the country's prime minister argue that it does no harm to international relations.
It has been reported that most international leaders with whom Australia has close relations approached the leadership change with equanimity. On September 16, the White House Office of the Press Secretary issued the following release: 'President Obama called Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull of Australia yesterday. President Obama thanked Tony Abbott for his strong support and contribution to the U.S.-Australia bilateral relationship and for his partnership on a number of issues of mutual concern. He also wished Mr. Abbott well on his next endeavor.'
The release continued, 'President Obama congratulated Malcolm Turnbull on his selection as Prime Minister. The President said he looked forward to working with Prime Minister Turnbull on the range of issues that are of mutual interest, including regional security, the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the continuing effort to address national security concerns such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.'
It has been claimed that the United States recognises that a change of leadership within the Liberal Party is unlikely to affect the fundamental foreign policy settings of a stable democracy such as Australia.
It has also been suggested that despite Mr Turnbull's previous support for an emissions-trading-scheme as part of Australia's contribution to the combating of climate change, there is little likelihood that Australia's international position on the question will change in the short-term.
In a report broadcast on Radio New Zealand International on September 17, 2015, Jonathan Pryke stated, 'The leaders of the Pacific Island countries have stated in the [Pacific Islands] Forum communiqu that they really want to ramp up their target going into [climate change negotiations] in Paris at the end of the year. Prime Minister Turnbull has already made it clear that there will be no changing of Australia's policy with regards to what targets we will be taking to those negotiations.'
Thus it is assumed that despite the changes in Prime Minister, Australia's foreign policy settings can be expected to remain fundamentally the same and not disturb international relations.