Politics of Australia and Canada compared
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are a great many similarities between the countries of Canada and Australia. They are both fully-independent former settler colonies of Britain from which they have inherited their political traditions. Both nations are large, relatively isolated, and sparsely inhabited. Australia has no landlocked states, whereas Canada has several landlocked provinces.
Canada, being the first of the colonies to peacefully gain independence, became a model that was followed by Australia and the other Dominions. Both were also affected by the same events in Britain and around the world: World War I, the creation of the shared monarchy in 1927, the Statute of Westminster in 1931, WWII, and the Cold War had similar effects on both nations.
Contents |
[edit] Federalism
Unlike the United Kingdom, both Australia and Canada cover huge and sparsely populated territories. This made some sort of federalism a necessity. A previous history of division into separate colonies also created long-standing divisions. In Canada, the British North America Act of 1867 thus created strong provincial governments that are in no practical way subservient to the federal government. The Australian constitution of 1901 divided the new nation into several states with similar constitutionally-enshrined powers. Neither country had a bill of rights at first, although Canada adopted a statutory charter of rights in 1960 and a constitutional charter, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982.
Both nations also have territories; these are areas with smaller populations whose governments have almost all of the responsibilities of state/provincial governments, but are fully under the control of the federal government.
Both have internal territories, but Australia, unlike Canada, has a number of external territories, small islands in the Pacific, Indian and Southern Oceans.
[edit] States and Provinces
The Crown is represented in Australian states by a Governor, and in Canadian provinces by a Lieutenant Governor. The elected head of government in both is called the Premier. In all Australian states except Queensland, the state parliament is bicameral with a lower and upper house. The self-governing territories, like Queensland, are also unicameral. All of the Canadian provinces' parliaments are now unicameral, Quebec being the last province to abolish its upper house in 1968.
The Governors of the Australian states are appointed directly by the Sovereign, on the advice of the Premier of that state. By contrast, the Lieutenant-Governor of a Canadian province is appointed by the Governor-General of Canada, acting on the advice of the federal Prime Minister; his or her salary is paid by the federal government. By loose convention, the Canadian Prime Minister is expected to consult with the respective provincial Premier prior to selecting a Lieutenant Governor, but he or she is under no obligation to do so. The Canadian Prime Minister could also advise the dismissal of a Lieutenant Governor at any time. These distinctions are significant, as they effectively leave the considerable vice-regal reserve powers over the Canadian provinces in the hands of the federal government. In the early years of Confederation, these powers were used on five occasions to dismiss provincial governments outright, although the last such use of the vice-regal reserve powers was in 1904.
Under the Constitution of Australia, any residual powers are left to the states, while the Constitution of Canada leaves residual powers in the hands of the federal government. The reason for this discrepancy has its origins in the differing circumstances of Confederation (Canada) and Federation (Australia). In 1867 Canada faced a significant military threat from the United States, and many British and Canadian politicians blamed the concept of states rights for helping to trigger the then-recent American Civil War. Australia in 1901 did not face a similar military threat and its politicians were thus more comfortable in leaving residual powers with the states. Furthermore, rivalry existed between the states of Victoria and New South Wales, and the less populous states feared that a strong central Government would see too much power and influence wielded by Sydney and Melbourne. So the Australian states wanted to be explicitly granted wide powers in their own right.
Yet despite these constitutional differences, or perhaps because of them, the powers of Australian state governments are now far weaker than provincial governments in Canada, which still have considerable powers over both income and sales taxes. Australian state governments receive the vast majority of their income through block grants from the federal government in Canberra, and this lack of financial independence has led to a gradual erosion of state power. This situation has led to a claim that Australia is "over-governed", and some politicians have called for the outright abolition of the states, with powers to be instead divided between national and local tiers of government. However, the states retain considerable power and influence and there is no practical likelihood of their abolition. Proposals to abolish the Canadian provinces, although not non-existent, are very unusual.
Many areas of responsibility that are jointly exercised by federal and state governments in Australia, such as education, are the sole responsibility of provincial governments in Canada. Australian states do have some powers that that the Canadian provinces do not - most notably, each Australian state enacts and amends its own criminal code while Canada has a uniform Criminal Code under federal jurisdiction.
Canadian Fathers of Confederation such as Sir John A. Macdonald did not intend to have provinces that were nearly as powerful as they have become. Strong provincial governments would only become entrenched when Britain's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled jurisdictional disputes consistently in favour of the provinces starting in the 1870s. Another complicating factor in Canada is that the government of Quebec has gained control over immigration and other matters, which are not the responsibility of provinces in the rest of Canada. The existence of a powerful independence movement in Quebec has also been cited as a reason why the provinces in Canada have gained and maintained more jurisdiction than they were intended to have at Confederation.
[edit] Parliament
The executive is all but identical with the British heritage of cabinet government kept intact, with the Prime Minister being the leader of the largest party in the Australian House of Representatives or Canadian House of Commons. In both countries, MPs represent single member constituencies, known as divisions in Australia and ridings in Canada.
Unlike Canada, which uses the first past the post voting system, Australia uses instant runoff voting (known in Australia as preferential voting) for almost all lower house elections and proportional representation for almost all upper house elections.
Australia has also introduced compulsory voting, something Canada has not done. There is no pressure to introduce such a measure in Canada, although poor electoral turnouts in the past two elections are beginning to make Canadians seriously consider some sort of electoral reform (while no major party wants mandatory voting, the New Democratic Party's platform indicates that they wish to lower the voting age to 16, something that reduced voter apathy in Brazil).
Canada and Australia both have strong multiparty systems with many parties represented in their legislatures as opposed to two (as in the United States). At the federal level, however, Canada's House of Commons tends to be more diverse than the Senate, while in Australia the reverse situation applies. This reflects the different means by which Members of Parliament are selected.
While both Canada and Australia have bicameral parliamentary systems, the composition of the upper house or Senate differs in each country. The Australian Senate is elected by single transferable vote, while the Canadian Senate is appointed by the Prime Minister. In Australia, each state has equal representation in the Senate, while in Canada, Senate seats are distributed between the regions of the country, not provinces. The Australian Senate also has great power to block money bills, unlike the weaker Canadian Senate.
Many Canadians want some kind of reform of the Senate. Many advocate an Australian style, or 'Triple-E' Senate — elected, equal, and effective, while others, such as the NDP and the Bloc Québécois call for outright abolition. By contrast, while certain Australian politicians (particularly the Australian Labor Party) have criticised upper houses including the Senate as being undemocratic, for example former Prime Minister Paul Keating's description of it as an 'unrepresentative swill', there is little popular dissatisfaction with its existence or composition.
[edit] Judiciary
The nations share a very similar judicial system based on British common law (except for Quebec which uses the French civil code). The highest courts of both nations are now domestic, with Canada doing away with appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1949 and Australia doing the same in 1986.
However, the use by the Canadian federal courts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has begun to impact Canadian society in such matters as same-sex marriages and abortion. Australia has yet to enshrine similar rights and freedoms.
[edit] Monarchy
 |
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of both Australia and Canada. Both nations have a Governor-General who acts as a vice-regal representative. In 1931, Australia appointed the first Australian as Governor-General; Canada did not do so until 1953.
Canada discontinued the awarding of British honours to its citizens, establishing the Order of Canada, earlier than Australia, which introduced its own Order of Australia in 1975, and did not end the awarding of British honours until 1993.
An important difference between the political cultures of the two nations is that Australians tend to be far more republican than Canadians. In some polls, the majority of Australians wish to cut ties with the monarchy, and only the issue of which model to replace it caused the referendum on the republic to fail in 1999. By contrast, a slight majority of Canadians have been shown to support continuing the monarchy. Recent polls have given the republican side a small majority. However, some Canadian republicans have contended that the attitude toward the monarchy is actually indifference as opposed to support, based on widespread ignorance about its role, and a common misconception that the Prime Minister or Governor General is the head of state. In any case, the monarchy is not a notable political issue in Canada.
Some commentators ascribe alleged Canadian support for the monarchy to the habit of glorifying anything that distinguishes them from the United States, but there are other reasons, namely that Canada has been divided by far more pressing political issues than Australia, including the possible separation of Quebec, the patriation of the Constitution from the UK in 1982, and wide-reaching constitutional reforms proposed in the Charlottetown Accord in 1992.
Unlike Australia, which still uses a British Blue Ensign as the basis of its national flag, Canada replaced its Red Ensign based flag with a distinctive Maple Leaf flag in 1965. Both countries have gone through emotive debates on the issue.
[edit] Aboriginal peoples
Both Canada and Australia were inhabited long before European colonizers arrived. The First Nations of Canada and the Aborigines of Australia were both devastated by European disease and other factors. In both areas, the Europeans went on to cruelly mistreat the native inhabitants. Conditions have improved, but in both countries the natives tend to be poorer and have shorter life expectancies than the national average. Australian treatment of Aborigines in the past was generally more systematically cruel than in Canada, but some now argue that Australian Aborigines are better off and better treated than Canada's First Nations.
In recent years Canada has accomplished a great deal in recognising land rights and the poverty gap between aboriginal Canadians and the rest of the population. Australia under the Bob Hawke and Paul Keating governments during the 1980's and early 1990's showed similar signs of reform. But more recently, Australia under the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard, has reversed this trend. The current Liberal government has abolished the self-governing panel ran by Aboriginals (ATSIC) citing corruption, not necessarily improving the quality of life for Australian Aboriginals, and empathises a desire that Aboriginal communities should be self-sufficient and maintain social standards on an individual basis. The Howard government also reversed some Native Title decisions, greatly reducing the impact of the scheme.
Many isolated Aboriginal communities in both Canada and Australia are characterised by near complete unemployment, multigenerational welfare dependence, domestic and social violence, drug and alcohol abuse including petrol sniffing or methamphetamine use, high crime rates and depression.
[edit] Immigration
Both Australia and Canada are nations built by immigrants, and they are both among the nations that receive the most immigrants per year. Attitudes differ substantially, however. In Canada, over 70% of the population is still in favour of high levels of immigration; in Australia, less than half the population is. [citation needed] Australia, like much of Europe, has seen an anti-immigration party, the One Nation Party, briefly gain broad support in some areas — something which has never happened in Canada. While One Nation's power quickly dissipated, it's immigration policies were broadly copied by the federal Liberal-National Coalition which assisted its hold on power.
[edit] Welfare State
Australia and Canada both tend to fall somewhere in the middle between the United States and Europe in terms of how extensive a welfare state they have. Australia has a somewhat greater involvement of the private sector with the privatization of many government enterprises, and increasing emphasis on private education and health care systems with Australia having a two-tier healthcare system.
Canada on the other hand has a purely public system, where almost all basic health costs are covered by the government without any private involvement, or user fees (except through taxation). In fact, Canada is the only industrialized democracy in the world that flatly prohibits private health insurance for essential medical care.
[edit] War and Peace
Neither Canada nor Australia have been to war on their own; rather, they have fought under the leadership of first Britain and then the United States and United Nations. The two nations are the most-commonly-cited examples of middle powers — states that try to pursue their interests through multilateralism and collective security because they are not large enough to act unilaterally.
Canada was founded because of threats of American invasion. The war of 1812, where Canada successfully defended itself against American aggression and was successful in burning Detroit and Washington. This war was a strong uniting force in Canada and sparked the creation of an independent Canada.
Both Australia and Canada were immediately and enthusiastically called to the defence of Britain in World War I. While Australia suffered larger per capita casualties, the armies from the two dominions were acknowledged as the best of the British army, and both nations won prestige and greater independence in the war in Europe. Both Australia and Canada emerged divided from the war because of similar crises concerning conscription, which in Australia set Anglo-Saxon Protestants against Catholics of Irish stock, and in Canada French-Canadians against English Canadians.
The Second World War was similar in regard to both nations again springing to the defence of Britain. Unlike Australia, Canada's political fabric was divided by the war — again for similar reasons in the Conscription Crisis of 1944. Conscription was not a major issue in Australia as the country was directly attacked by Japanese bombers. Although a Japanese invasion of North America was feared by many, Australia faced what was perceived to be a far more dire threat from the Japanese Empire. While Quebec emerged from the troubles as a more distinct entity from the rest of Canada, the government handled this crisis in an astute fashion, cooling off tensions in months and years instead of generations.
The beginning of the Cold War saw both sides align with the United States: Canada being a founding member of NATO, and Australia signing the ANZUS treaty. Both nations sent troops to the Korean War on the UN side.
From that point on, however, the pattern seems to have diverged as Australia joined the United States in Vietnam and in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq—two conflicts Canada stayed away from. Much of this can be accredited to differing strategic dilemmas and to which governments were in power at the time the conflicts began. If the Conservatives had been in power in Canada in 2003, that nation may have joined the war in Iraq. If the Australian Labor Party had been in office, that country may very well have not gone to war, although this remains inconclusive considering the involvement of the British centre-left party and comments made by Labor leader Kim Beazley.
