Change Of Prime Ministers In Australia Since 2010

The Role of Prime Minister in Australia

Question:

Discuss about the Effects of the Changes on Prime Minister Position.

The change of the Prime Minister in Australia has occurred drastically since the year 2010 where changes have occurred from time to time. Australia is not a republic as in the case of other nations and thus does not have all powers vested on the presidency but rather spread among the persons elected and other government officials (Hazan, Rahat & Kenig, 2018). In Australia, the position can be compared to that of a board chairman where changes can be made by the officials electing one to the position.

Thus, a vote by the members can lead to a replacement of the incumbent member. While changing of prime ministers maybe considered a challenge, it causes little disruption to the it may be perceived as a challenge having different prime minister in a record of five years, little or no problems arises in relation to the nation’s stability.

Prime ministers in Australia have changed over time as individuals drew preference on different political paths. Since 2007, the nation has experienced a radical change in its prime minister position with a popular vote leading to the changes present in the nation. From the perceived conditions in the political patterns in the nation, the change of prime ministers due to different reasons affected little operations. However, each of them had their reason for the occurrence due to acts and decision that did not please the members and the general public. Much of the reasons related to politics and handling of foreign affairs by the prime minister.

The prime minister changes since 2010 have occurred unexpectedly and further complicated the situation in the nation. Each prime minister ousted had their own and unique reason for the action by members. Since the members have the power and mandate to vote out and initiate a new one, it becomes possible for the case of five prime ministers in barely six years. The unique reasons are presented below through an analysis of each party.

The prime minister experienced controversy in his decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and further signing a climate pact. The decision did not go down well with some of the officials thus leading to dissatisfaction cases among the party members. The prime minister was ousted based on the shelving of the emission trading scheme central to his strategy in environment coupled by his decision on high tax in the mining sector.  Consequently, deputy prime minister at the time Julia Gillard challenged the leadership leading to the Rudd’s stepping down in the position.

As the first women prime minister, her leadership was under scrutiny and went down due to her speech that busted the opposition thus gaining global attention. Under her leadership, tax on mining was passed as well as the law on emission-trading scheme. However, individuals were opposed to on her policy focusing on the processing asylum seekers offshore leading to the labor’s decline in the polls continued to decline leading to a re-election where she was defeated by Rudd.

The Change of Prime Ministers

Rudd resigned from his position as the foreign minister thus being termed as dysfunctional by the prime minister. He further overhauled the law on climate policy and asylum with a high record in the appointment of highest number of females as ministers (Widmaier & Grube, 2015). His popularity fell when the voters changed loyalty towards the Liberal coalition thus leading to the replacement due to growing levels of criticisms.

The prime minister is known for taking hard stance on the threat by Isis taking part in the air strikes in Syria and Iraq and termed the insurgent groups as worse than the Nazis as they openly boasted about their actions. During his tenure in office, several controversies arose in the military border patrol coupled by the criticism on his plans to make cuts to the healthcare as well as the education systems (Widmaier & Grube, 2015). As a result, the minister of communications at the time, Malcolm Turnbull overthrew him through a popular vote.

The prime minister was a supporter of climatic change policy as well as gay marriage despite being termed as an effective leader of the nation. He focused on policies that united and build the nation thus experiencing a long term tenure and leadership enjoyed by both members of the political divide.

Thus, it is evident that the members had the ultimate power to oust individuals and replace them accordingly based on their desire and preference of policies. Each of the prime ministers was ousted based on the policy and decision making that did not favor the members or received an outcry from the public (Tiernan, 2006). As such, the term in office became temporary with people being replaced at the slightest provocation.

 Definitely, the aspect left a negative image on the side of the nation as the world viewed the disorganization and political situation the country faced. However, it is considered as the path towards searching for an effective prime minister who had the best interest of the nation at hand. 

Prime ministers in Australia come from the party with the largest members on the houses and carry out a representational and policy implementation role on behalf of the rest. Thus, their role remains advisory and implementation of the deliberations arrived at by the members. Consequently, changes in the position lead to a little disruption in the advisory capabilities and the power and the will to carry out strategic changes.

 The change in prime minister occurs whenever a modification of direction is conducted by the ruling party with the most members of parliament in the House of Representatives. The changes do not affect the rest of the parliamentary formations but rather focus on the prime minister position only. The reality that makes the situation possible is that the public service in place maintains the stability of the government with the prime minister acting as a ceremonial figure with some little powers attached to one.

The recent shuffle in the prime minister position left the government fairly operational and consistent as the same ministers, government officials, and policies remain in place with only the face of the government undergoing change. The shift from Abbott to Turnbull was an example of change that occurred within the same government and the similar operational policies. As such, the stability of the government continues to grow and operate given the fact that the incoming prime minister is expected to further promote the policies while making improvement where the latter messed and experienced pressure points.   

Reasons behind Change of Prime Ministers

The situation occurs due to the composition of the parties and their nature where they mostly agree on most agendas unlike in the situation of America where each party holds tight to their differing agenda on critical issues. In Australia, the parties share common ideas on issues of defense, social conditions, foreign policy, and priorities in government leadership direction. For instance in the case of abortion, both leading parties registered their support towards women’s right to choose the life options to undergo despite their little differences on views of operation as opposed to other nations that remain of different opinion on the matter.

Moreover, both parties are in agreement on the issue of US alliance and only discuss on the operandi mode in getting the most out of the alliance. The fact brings the difference and the ability to oust a prime minister who does not go along their respective promise of a great Australian nation. The kind of agreement experienced in the case makes the ousting of a prime minister a non-critical issue as it does cause critical disruption as it would have done in other countries with different political ideologies.

 For instance, the change of presidents in a country such as Russia or the United States would cause much disruption and instability compared to the case in Australia that has survived 5 prime ministers change in five years. The presence of power and the roles allocated to the presidency or the prime minister in this case brings out the difference and thus justifies the fact that the changing of prime ministers does not cause much disruption to the nation (Weller, 2017). Change in power holders would have caused disruption as individuals strive to retain power. On the contrary, the situation does not raise any alarm in the leadership scenario in the nation thus justifying the changes occurring in the prime minister position.   

Moreover, the prime minister position in Australia represents a figurehead with no real powers and thus acts as the spokesperson for parliament where the issues discussed are channeled for expedition (Weller, 2017). As such, one does not have powers more than the members of parliament but rather enjoys privileges superseding those of the latter. They are tasked with the creation of agendas and electing cabinet ministers of like mind. However, the case in Australia is different as the role of the prime minister differs from the rest of nations. Breaking of a promise or acting contrary to the deliberations of members leads to ousting. The ceremonial figure makes it easy for one to be replaced and thus does not cause much disruption on the democracy of a nation.

The situation in Australia occurred easily since the prime minister acts simply as a leader of the party with the most elected members. As such, a party can use the opportunity to distance themselves from a policy fostered by the prime minister with much ease. The incoming prime minister would then initiate changes expected by the members thus distancing one from the previous promises made during the electioneering period (Hazan, Rahat & Kenig, 2018). The ability allows a party to change its tact without locking the country into a quagmire or long and unpopular legislations.

Stability of Government amidst Prime Minister Changes

At one time, there was a window period of about an hour where the nation didn’t have a prime minister. Little or no disruption was experienced in the region as the parliament was stronger and acted its part in maintaining normalcy. As such, it dictates that the nation can operate for some time without the presence of the prime minister despite the roles played and the symbolic figure one holds in the nation (Woodhouse, 2017). Since the same party and the senate continue to run, everything is expected to run at optimum level despite the challenges of having 5 prime ministers.

The source of power in a nation determines the disruption factor that cannot be changed from time to time unless through an electioneering process. The prime minister in Australia is not the source of all the power in the nation but rather is an individual responsible for making decisions on policy directions in the government (Woodhouse, 2017). Changing the decision makers in the government would cause a difference but never destabilize a nation. Excess power remains preserved among government officials and members of parliament who then have to be voted in by the general public.

Conclusively, it is evident from the case that the changes in the prime minister’s office have not caused a ripple to the leadership of the nation. Power vested across individuals in the government and other systems continue to handle and sustain the nation in times fof critical political changes. Australia remains a unique nation given the manner and roles in which the prime minister operates. As opposed to other government formations in the region, the nation uses the post for implementation and representational purposes where one can be ousted through a vote by the members. However, the changes do not result in a disruption in the government operations as systems remain in place and running. The fact justifies the lack of disruption experienced in the nation. Little difficulty has been experienced in the implementation and decision making skills amongst the prime ministers most of which has led to their removal.   

References

Hazan, R. Y., Rahat, G., & Kenig, O. (2018). The political consequences of the introduction and the repeal of the direct elections for the prime minister. In The elections in Israel 2003 (pp. 33-62). Routledge.

O'Brien, D. Z., Mendez, M., Peterson, J. C., & Shin, J. (2015). Letting down the ladder or shutting the door: Female prime ministers, party leaders, and cabinet ministers. Politics & Gender, 11(4), 689-717.

Tiernan, A. (2006). Advising Howard: Interpreting changes in advisory and support structures for the Prime Minister of Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 309-324.

Weller, P. (2017). Ministerial codes, cabinet rules and the power of prime ministers. In Motivating Ministers to Morality (pp. 65-76). Routledge.

Widmaier, W., & Grube, D. (2015). Presidents, Prime Ministers and Policy Rhetoric: The ‘Credibility Gaps’ of Woodrow Wilson and Kevin Rudd in the League of Nations and Climate Change Debates. Political Studies, 63(2), 336-352.

Woodhouse, D. (2017). The role of ministerial responsibility in motivating ministers to morality. In Motivating Ministers to Morality (pp. 53-64). Routledge.