Australian Electoral Imbalance

HueyLong

Banned
Now I am unsure about the numbers involved, but a recent discussion said 75+% of the population is all concentrated in the E of Australia, thereby making outlying regions unimportant politically.

My question then, is this: Would the addition of New Zealand (probably as two provinces) and Fiji (as one) help to weigh this out? And how about E. New Guinea, eventually, if that is not enough? (The Indonesians haven't had much of a problem with ethnic cleansing in the West, why should uber-Australia?)

And what are the effects of electoral fracturing (if this even achieves that)?
 
Although it maybe true that a large number of Australians live in the South-East corner of the country, the Senate isn't organised along population density ratios, but rather every state gets the exact same number of senators as the others. Only the territories get fewer senators, but that only includes the Northern Territory & the ACT anyway. So whatever advantage the combined population of New South Wales & Victoria may enjoy numbers wise, thus reflected in the House of Representatives, they'll never gain a majority in the Senate. So, in truth, they won't necessarily gain any advantage in the end.

As for including more numbers from elsewhere - depends on the date I guess. If we take the here & now, we are talking about 15 million people living in the South East region of Australia. Now if you add the populations of Fiji, NZ, & PNG, together we only get to something like 11 million. So SE Australia will still outnumber the new comers. And this is despite the fact that, in modern day politics, it's all about political parties anyways, not really geographical locations, so political parties will come into play, meaning the Labo(u)r Party will benefit most of all, considering both NZ & Fiji have large Labour Parties, so the merged & enlarged Australian et al Labor Party will probably be in power indefinitely.
 
Would have to agree with basically most of what DMA said. Nowadays due to party discipline the parties would get by far the most say. Unless a regionalist party were to spring up in NZ or one of the other new areas.

An interesting sideline to this ATL, is the question of 'asymetrical federalism'. I've always wondered whether if New Zealand were to unite with Australia you would see a form of 'asymetric federalism' develop in Australia, whereby the State/s of NZ would get more powers vis-a-vis the original states. This is like how in Canada, Quebec has a greater degree of independence than the other provinces.
 
Would have to agree with basically most of what DMA said. Nowadays due to party discipline the parties would get by far the most say. Unless a regionalist party were to spring up in NZ or one of the other new areas.

An interesting sideline to this ATL, is the question of 'asymetrical federalism'. I've always wondered whether if New Zealand were to unite with Australia you would see a form of 'asymetric federalism' develop in Australia, whereby the State/s of NZ would get more powers vis-a-vis the original states. This is like how in Canada, Quebec has a greater degree of independence than the other provinces.


Good point about this 'asymetric federalism'. It would, though, have to depend upon when NZ joined. If it was with everyone else, back in 1901, then it's pretty clear in the Constitution that NZ would have no more rights than any of the other states.

Today, though, it maybe a different matter, but that would require Constitutional change in Australia as the Constitution states the relationship of powers between the federal & states governments including the addition of new states. If so that means a referendum & I'd doubt that'd take place: or, if it does, it'll probably fail. In fact, as Australian federalism has developed over the last few decades, there's a been a move away from state rights towards a more centralised federal system.
 
Good point about this 'asymetric federalism'. It would, though, have to depend upon when NZ joined. If it was with everyone else, back in 1901, then it's pretty clear in the Constitution that NZ would have no more rights than any of the other states.

Today, though, it maybe a different matter, but that would require Constitutional change in Australia as the Constitution states the relationship of powers between the federal & states governments including the addition of new states. If so that means a referendum & I'd doubt that'd take place: or, if it does, it'll probably fail. In fact, as Australian federalism has developed over the last few decades, there's a been a move away from state rights towards a more centralised federal system.

I agree with what you say in regards to this. The notion of 'asymetric federalism' also raises the 'West Lothian Question'. This is a controversy in the UK about the fact that Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster are able to vote on issues affecting only England (as many matters pertaining to Scotland and Wales are dealt with by the devolved authorities.

There are 2 solutions to this. One is to have (in the Australian case I'm talking about now) the NZ MPs not be able to vote on matters only affecting Australia. So for instance if NZ kept its own social welfare system and pensions etc a NZ MP would not be able to vote in the Aust parliament on the Australian welfare system.

The other solution is to have NZ MPs able to vote on all issues but to have a lower amount of them than their population warrants. This was the solutions devised in the UK between the 1920's and the 1970's in regard to Northern Ireland's devolved parliament at Stormont. N Ireland was only allocated half the seats its poulation warranted.

However, I will also agree that the notion of 'asymetric federalism' tends to be better suited to more decentralised federalisms than Australia's. For instance I think in Australia something like 85% of revenue is collected by the fed govt whereas in Canada its is 55% (each province has its own income tax etc). It is therefore easier to have this sort of variable federalism in place when there is already an existing decentralised structure I would think.
 
I agree with what you say in regards to this. The notion of 'asymetric federalism' also raises the 'West Lothian Question'. This is a controversy in the UK about the fact that Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster are able to vote on issues affecting only England (as many matters pertaining to Scotland and Wales are dealt with by the devolved authorities.

There are 2 solutions to this. One is to have (in the Australian case I'm talking about now) the NZ MPs not be able to vote on matters only affecting Australia. So for instance if NZ kept its own social welfare system and pensions etc a NZ MP would not be able to vote in the Aust parliament on the Australian welfare system.

The other solution is to have NZ MPs able to vote on all issues but to have a lower amount of them than their population warrants. This was the solutions devised in the UK between the 1920's and the 1970's in regard to Northern Ireland's devolved parliament at Stormont. N Ireland was only allocated half the seats its poulation warranted.

However, I will also agree that the notion of 'asymetric federalism' tends to be better suited to more decentralised federalisms than Australia's. For instance I think in Australia something like 85% of revenue is collected by the fed govt whereas in Canada its is 55% (each province has its own income tax etc). It is therefore easier to have this sort of variable federalism in place when there is already an existing decentralised structure I would think.


Well the problem here, as I said before, is a Constitutional one for Australia. Chapter V of our Constitution is pretty specific what a state can or cannot do to a certain degree. This would also include issues such as welfare programs as this is solely a Commonwealth power granted under Section 51 Para xxiii & xxiiiA. Having said that Section 121 could be very loosely interpreted as an anything goes kind of Section for new states, but I'd bet good money that if that is the case it'll be immediately challenged by the current states & the High Court would more than likely agree with the challenge.

Of course the easiest way around all this is to create a South Pacific Union modelled on the EU. That'd solve all these contitutional matters, & state-federal powers business, by merely having a new higher authority which the two national governments of Australia & NZ co-ordinate with in introducing necessary legislation.
 

HueyLong

Banned
The basic idea was federation at the beginning.

As for the party discipline idea, it doesn't necessarily have to form. In the US, regionalism was able to hold sway over party identification for as long time, because the differences in development prevented any rigid party from achieving electoral victory. Without the moral issue of slavery or the sectional conflict of the civil war, I think that party discipline could take a longer time to form (if the senators use their powers well). Especially with the gulf between Fiji and Australia or even New Zealand and Australia. Just because regionalism failed in Australia in OTL doesn't mean it couldn't hold sway in this one.
 
The basic idea was federation at the beginning.

As for the party discipline idea, it doesn't necessarily have to form. In the US, regionalism was able to hold sway over party identification for as long time, because the differences in development prevented any rigid party from achieving electoral victory. Without the moral issue of slavery or the sectional conflict of the civil war, I think that party discipline could take a longer time to form (if the senators use their powers well). Especially with the gulf between Fiji and Australia or even New Zealand and Australia. Just because regionalism failed in Australia in OTL doesn't mean it couldn't hold sway in this one.


Well a couple of things. If we're talking 1901, then there are a lot of things running against trying to equal up the population numbers. In New Zealand, for instance, their population at the time was only about 900 000. What's worse is the Fijian population, which was a mere 120 000. Meanwhile the population of south-east Australia was about 3 million out of about 4 million. Furthermore, at this point in time, I think it's safe to say New Guinea won't be a state as we're only talking the south-east quarter of the island & that part was Queensland territory for just around 10 years. Not only would Queensland object to its "colony" being granted statehood, but I'd dare say all the other potential states would as well.

The next issue, I'm sad to say, is race. Not only were the Australian Aboriginals treated as tenth class citizens in their own country, but those natives of New Guinea & elsewhere, including Fiji, were looked upon as a lower class of humanity as well. In fact a perfect example of this treatment of South Pacific Islanders is the case of the Kanakas (see this Wiki article for details). So Australia's racist attitudes of the period is going to ensure that it's highly unlikely that neither New Guinea nor Fiji are going to be offered statehood, but them becoming an occupied territory or a protectorate territory maybe a different story. In this instance you can probably add in the Solomon Islands as well. Mind you Britain would have to go along with such measures & they were far from happy when Queensland grabbed New Guinea when they did. Having said that, about possible objections from Britian, if New Guinea, Fiji, & the Solomons did become territories of one kind or another, then there is the potential that they could be granted statehood sometime in the future - say from 1945 onwards.

So that leaves New Zealand which was an actual OTL candidate for statehood. In fact they're mentioned in the Australian Constitution as such. So we could mingle a little with New Zealand's domestic politics & give them a PM who is prepared to join Australia unlike the OTL PM who had visions of grandeur about a NZ Pacific empire. Having said that, however, the south-eastern region of Australia will still have the numbers as they'll outnumber everyone else by about 1 million people. So they'll still have the majority in the House of Representatives.

The other main issue here is party discipline. Unlike the US, Australia followed a different path thanks to major political influcences coming from being a member of the British Empire (essentially the Westminster System). So we didn't really get the chance to develop an independent system where there's a seperate President/Executive from the Legislature/Congress. Instead in our system, it's vital to control a majority in the House of Representatives in order to form executive government. Furthermore, thanks to the development of the Labo(u)r Parties, here & there, & most certainly in Australia, means to say that ideology becomes more important for political parties, & their members, than regional politics at a nation level.

So when one party decides to get its act together, in regards to party discipline, the others will follow suit not long afterwards as it'll be soon realised that gaining, & far more importantly keeping, government is made far more easier. And considering the members of the Australian Labor Party all came from a unionist working class background, at a time when there where cries of Workers Unite!, that party discipline will develop very early in the peice, yet not through any enforced party authority at first, but through an agreed mutual consensus. Once that happens with the Labor Party, then, as I said, the anti-Labor Parties will either follow suit or fall apart. Mind you it took about a decade for this to happen, as is evident by the rollercoster ride early Australian governments had as they came & went about as fast as they could print the new letterheads on the stationary. Consequentially, I'm affraid, in the Australian context, party discipline will pretty much repeat its development in this AH Australia, so there'll be little change overall on this issue, especially considering the experience of the New Zealand Labour Party pretty much repeated the Australian Labor Party experience on such issues.
 
Last edited:
Top