Another Question for the Aussies

Published on June 13, 2006 By Dr Guy In Current Events

I am linking the article, but not to discuss it. I figure it will get enough discussion over there. But as I was reading it, I started to wonder about something:

last month became the first of Australia's six states and two territories

Ok, I know what the difference is here in the USA. Territories get appointed leadership, and cannot vote in national elections. But what is the difference in Oz? And could Howard have done what he did in a state vs a Territory?

And come to think of it, our Cousins to the North have some Territories as well. What is the difference up there? I am not talking about the google explanation, I would prefer to know how it affects every day life for a state vs a territory.

Inquiring minds want to know!

Comments

cactoblasta

on Jun 13, 2006

How much understanding of the Westminster political system do you have? If you can't follow let me know and I'll explain the very basics.

Australia is based on a combination of the US federal model and the British parliamentary system. Every state has a degree of legislative independence which is derived from the very birth of the nation, when the seven major colonies banded together.

As a result states are free to legislate on a lot of issues including health and education. Territories are not. They are essentially land gifted to the Federal government by one of the states. Each state contributes 7 senators to the federal system. Each territory contributes two.

This non-state nature means that they can more or less be ruled by federal decree, usually through the Territories Minister, and indeed up until the late 80s this was how the ACT was run. But in the early 90s a Legislative Assembly was elected and given the task of the day-to-day running of the ACT. Constitutionally the federal government retained the authority to decree changes in ACT laws where they contradicted or were otherwise opposed to federal law. This is the key to the civil unions debate.

What should be noted first though is that the ACT is an extremely unconservative area. It's a middle class city with very low rates of poverty, the most educated workforce in the country and the best rates of health. This is partly because it's a government city with an often changing population as people come and go as their government work demands.

So of all the regions in Australia (bar Tasmania, which already has a civil unions register protecting the same rights the ACT LA was fighting for) it was the most likely to legislate civil unions. Note they didn't try to do anything about marriage; marriage has been federally decided as being between a man and a woman, so states and territories can only offer civil unions (which are legally the same but don't bear the same name).

However the relationship between the federal government and the legislative assembly is often tense; they clash regularly over land sales, government appropriations, planning and rest, which isn't that surprising given that both occupy the same city.

This move was simply a return to the decree-based rule of earlier years. But it's a move that's quite unpopular amongst the gay movement and the local civil rights movements. It remains to be seen whether there'll be a High Court challenge to overturn the federal government's meddling, and how readily the HIgh Court - with only one gay/Labor-appointed member will respond to the Liberal federal government's authority.

Dr Guy

on Jun 13, 2006

I think I follow you Cacto. ACT has something to do with Australian C Teritories? (the C I do not know). SO in essence they are a Washington DC. Do they get to vote for PM and such? They do appear to have more representation than our Territories. But not by a lot.

Can they petition to become a state? Is there a process? And why just 2? Again, I am curious. And thank you for the explanation.

Besides, it may be a trivia question! (J/K)

Bunnahabhain

on Jun 13, 2006

I am partly ashamed to admit it, but really I don't know as much about the Canadian system of government as I would like. You see, I spent grades 5 - 8, and a part of 9 in the Minnesota school system, so I missed a lot of the Canadian history that I would have learned. On the other hand, I really enjoyed my American history and American goverment classes that I took - so I guess that I am even.

Anyway, from what I understand, the difference between a province and a territory is that the Constitution (otherwise known as the British North America Act of 1867 or the BNA Act for short) for grants provinces certain powers, whereas a territory's powers are delegated to them by the federal government. While the federal government does a greater share of the actual taxation, it is the provinces which spend the majority of the monies implementing programs which are mandated by the federal government. The provinces receive "transfer payments" to cover much of the cost.

These transfer payments can be witheld if the given province does not meet the federal guidelines for the given program, or can be increased in order to achieve a specific goal of the federal government.

Citizens of the territories have the same rights as other Canadians, including voting priviledges. Each territory gets to elect one Member of Parliament (MP). However, it is my understanding that decisions made by the Legislative Assemblies of the three territories are subject to the review of the federal government. So, as in Australia's case, what occurred there could have occurred here. In reality, I don't think that it happens very often.

Honestly, the real differnce between the territories and the provinces is probably a much lower population (100k or so), a much lower density, and a different racial/ethnicity mix. I'm sure that they consider themselves as much a part of Canada as the rest of us do, but being so remote and so sparse they probably have at least a slightly different way of life

I'd like to take a road trip across this huge country some day; that is before the price of gas makes it impossible.

cactoblasta

on Jun 13, 2006

ACT has something to do with Australian C Teritories? (the C I do not know).

ACT stands for Australian Capital Territory. It's the territory which houses the seat of government, Canberra with practically no land to spare. The words ACT and Canberra are used more or less interchangeably, although in political commentary Canberra usually means federal government and ACT means territorial government. The ACT nominally includes a coastal spot in NSW calls Jervis Bay, but that is almost entirely under the control of the military, so doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the ACT LA.

The other territory is the Northern Territory, the region at the top of Australia between the states of Western Australia and Queensland which contains Darwin, Alice Springs and Uluru (Ayers Rock).

Do they get to vote for PM and such?

The Prime Minister is not directly elected. Instead Australia has a parliamentary system with 2 houses of government. States have 7 senatorial seats, Territories have 2 senatorial seats. A preferential or Hare-Clark voting system is in full force here, so most territories will return one Liberal and one Labor candidate in every election, which cripples their senatorial power. The Senate is the House of review; its purpose is to examine the legislation of the lower house and make sure it conforms to constitution and the desires of the states. It can refuse to pass legislation from the lower house or make recommendations for changes. At the moment the Liberal Party holds a majority in the Senate, and thus controls the passage of legislation through that house.

The lower house, or house of representatives, is the house of governance. A party must control the lower house to rule. Seats in the lower house are divided geographically on the basis of population. So New South Wales, a state with around 7 or 8 million citizens, has many more representatives than the ACT, which has 300 thousand people and 2 seats. The party with the most seats in the lower house forms government and is allowed to select a prime minister and cabinet from amongst their elected ranks. In general though these positions are decided well before the election and parties increasingly campaign on the star power of their PM candidate. The Liberal and National party Coalition controls the House of Representatives.

Can they petition to become a state? Is there a process? And why just 2?

They could petition to become a state, but it would require a constitutional amendment and a constitutional referendum. Both territories have populations below a million people; I seriously doubt the other states would tolerate their emergence as states, particularly states with 7 senators. Australia has territorial possessions in the Pacific but I'm not sure exactly how they relate to Australia proper; I know they have elected representation but I think their votes are counted as part of a different state or territory. If you want more information you could check out wikipedia because that's about the sum of my knowledge.

Dr Guy

on Jun 14, 2006

Reply By: Bunnahabhain

Thanks for the explanation. It seems very familiar to US Territories (there are a few like Guam and the Virgin Islands), except with more representation. And in the old days before there was 50 of them, Statehood did have a population requirement. But the big differenence is that they are not self governing, nor can they vote in federal elections.

Dr Guy

on Jun 14, 2006

They could petition to become a state, but it would require a constitutional amendment and a constitutional referendum.

So very much like Canada except for the requirements for state (or province)-Hood. The District of Columbia is not really a Territory, as it would require the same kind of stuff as yours to become one. But the other territories (Like Guam and the US Virgin Islands) could become a state if they fulfilled the requirements. One being Population (but that I think is easily passed by both).

The Prime Minister is not directly elected.

I realized in reading your response that my question was stupid. I am aware of how the PM is picked. Thanks. Just call that a brain fart when I made that statement.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!