Shaded​ by eucalyptus and dotted with masticating kangaroos, Canberra is an unlikely contender for ‘coup capital of the world’. But the Australian capital has seen five prime ministers in the past six years, the result of uprisings within the alternately governing Liberal and Labor Parties. No prime minister has served a full electoral term since 2007.

Malcolm Turnbull, the sitting prime minister and leader of the centre-right Liberal Party, succumbed to an insurrection from his party’s conservative fringe late last month. The facts are straightforward: after a series of poor polls and by-election defeats, he appeared vulnerable. Conservative members hated him for his support of the (successful) same-sex marriage plebiscite in 2017, his long-term involvement in the Australian Republican Movement and his belief in human-induced climate change. The fact that Turnbull had done little to support most of these causes since he became leader, ceding considerable ground to the right to shore up support for his economic agenda, didn’t mollify his critics.

Led by Peter Dutton, the anti-immigration minister for home affairs, the insurgents insisted that, with Turnbull as leader, the party would haemorrhage votes to smaller right-wing parties. In particular, the nativist One Nation Party (similar to Ukip) had been making significant gains in Queensland, Dutton’s home state. On 21 August Turnbull called the rebels’ bluff and declared the leadership of the party (and, by default, the country) vacant. The Liberal MPs and senators who gathered in the party room were faced with a choice between Turnbull and Dutton, and backed the former by 48 votes to 35. But Turnbull was far from secure. Three days later, MPs backed another spill – the term used for the declaration that the leadership is vacant – and this time Turnbull declined to stand. He initially supported the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, in a three-way contest with Dutton and Scott Morrison, the treasurer. Bishop bowed out after receiving only 11 votes, despite having served as deputy leader of the party for 11 years. At press conferences following the coup, she described the bullying she and other female Liberal MPs had experienced from the rebels. Morrison emerged as the compromise candidate, and became prime minister on 24 August. It may not have been an outright victory for Dutton, but it was certainly a failure for the moderate wing of the party: Morrison campaigned for a ‘No’ vote in the same-sex marriage referendum and, as immigration minister, launched a militarised campaign, known as Operation Sovereign Borders, to intercept and imprison refugees in defiance of international law.

The roots of the current turmoil are deep. Turnbull himself deposed the previous prime minister, Tony Abbott, in a spill in September 2015. Abbott remained in Parliament as the not so secret ringleader of the conservative faction, openly plotting revenge. Before Turnbull and Abbott, the Labor prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard had repeatedly moved through the revolving doors of leadership, deposing each other with increasing bitterness. And on top of this, since mid-2017 Australian politics has been convulsed by a series of scandals related to Section 44 of the constitution, which disqualifies citizens with dual nationality from standing for Parliament. Persistent digging by political rivals revealed almost twenty sitting members who were, in some cases unknowingly, still citizens of Canada, New Zealand, Italy or Britain. In a country where more than a quarter of all citizens were born overseas, it was striking to be reminded that a sizeable proportion of Australians could be constitutionally excluded from political power. One way and another, it isn’t surprising that public dissatisfaction with the ‘pollies’ in Canberra is at a record high.

Why the radical instability? Domestic commentators generally point to the particularities of the Australian political system. Voting is compulsory; failing to vote earns you a fine. Governmental terms last only three years – the shortest of any established democracy. These brief parliaments mean politicians keep a constant eye on the polls, and take swift and often brutal action to hold onto power beyond the next election. If the polls look bad, it is tempting to overthrow the current leader. The rules governing leadership ballots encourage factionalism. Most party leaders are elected by sitting members of Parliament, with no input from the party membership and with only a simple majority needed to ‘roll’ a prime minister. Following its own spills in 2010 and 2013, the Labor Party, now the main opposition, has changed its bylaws to give rank and file members a say in leadership decisions. But these rules have yet to be tested, and those watching the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn are nervous of a similar split between the parliamentary party and the members.

The two houses of the Australian government are modelled on the Westminster system: the majority party in the House of Representatives forms the government and introduces new legislation. There is a leader of the opposition, usually the leader of the largest party outside the government, and a shadow cabinet. There is an upper house, the Senate, which resembles an elected House of Lords, but has more powers. And, of course, the queen is the head of state. The six states – the former autonomous British colonies – have their own constitutions and parliaments; functions are divided between them and the federal government. Seats in the House of Representatives are proportional to population and the 150 MPs are elected by full preferential voting: you have to list all the candidates on your ballot paper in order of preference. This system, in place since 1919, means that a coalition (like the Liberal-National coalition currently in government) can contest the same seats without dividing votes.

The cascading coups have eroded voters’ faith, with critics calling for direct accountability. Opinion polling, which is increasingly fetishised, gives mixed messages. Turnbull justified his successful spill against Abbott in 2015 by pointing to thirty polls showing the ruling Liberal-National coalition well behind the Labor opposition. This year Turnbull’s opponents used this metric to justify their challenge when under his leadership the party suffered a similar fate. Although politicians publicly call for surveys capturing a broad cross-section of the population, privately they are more interested in gauging the strength of their own base support. In the case of the Liberal Party, disproportionate weight was given to the views of a small section of the electorate: those voters thought to be at risk of jumping ship to the far right and voting for One Nation.

Australia is not alone in its current unease about the nature of representative democracy, or in its politicians’ anxious concessions to the right. Dutton’s ability to challenge Turnbull rested on his claim that his social conservativism would prevent similarly minded voters from turning to extremists. This strategy might have benefited Dutton in the short term, but it distorts the political field. Parliamentarians, insecure about their legitimacy, are behaving increasingly undemocratically. The Liberal Party’s conservative faction has little appeal to the almost 50 per cent of Australians who were born, or have a parent who was born, outside Australia, and against whom the Anglophone, nationalist rhetoric of One Nation is directed. But Canberra’s political elite seems unable to decide how much the opinion of this segment of the population matters. Until it does so, the bloodletting looks set to continue.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 40 No. 19 · 11 October 2018

Philippa Hetherington may ‘still call Canberra home’, as I once called London home (LRB, 27 September). But it helps to live at the coal face. The ‘particularities of the Australian political system’ long preceded the recent ‘radical instability’ represented by our having had five prime ministers in six years. Certainly these particularities have contributed to the instability, not least by facilitating the rise of ‘Nativist’ populism, which has boosted the vote of the minority One Nation Party, mainly at the expense of the conservative Liberal-National Party coalition.

But arguably the main reason has been an unfortunate sequence of prime ministers, especially Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. All three had powerful, even narcissistic egos, and arrogant know-it-all dispositions. None of them could run governments. All of them were finally voted out by parliamentary colleagues worried about their jobs. Turnbull was a great disappointment, particularly in his political ineptness, right down to calling a spill that fateful recent Tuesday morning when he didn’t have to. He failed to call an election in late 2015 to capitalise on his then huge poll lead. Instead he stumbled badly in the 2016 election, emerged clinging to office, all the better to be picked off by opponents inside and outside his party.

Where now? Well, Scott Morrison has shown early signs that he has an ear sensitive to the middle ground. He may well prove a much tougher opponent for Labor at next year’s federal election than his predecessors were.

William Etheridge

For readers who aren’t accustomed to seeing the word ‘spill’ in a political context, Philippa Hetherington explains that it’s ‘the term used in Australia for the declaration that the leadership is vacant’.

The Editors

Vol. 40 No. 21 · 8 November 2018

In her report on the ‘radical instability’ of Australian politics, Philippa Hetherington refers to the 2017 ‘same-sex marriage plebiscite’ and also to ‘the same-sex marriage referendum’ (LRB, 27 September). It was neither. Today the term ‘referendum’ is confined to a poll seeking to amend the constitution. The government in fact wanted to hold a plebiscite on the issue but the legislation enabling it was rejected by the senate. The government then came up with the strange idea of a postal survey to be conducted by the Bureau of Statistics. This did not require legislation and would only be advisory – voting would not be compulsory, as it is in elections and referendums.

Supporters of marriage equality were at first hostile to the proposal, seeing it as a delaying tactic, but the Bureau took its responsibility seriously, widely publicising the poll and encouraging people not on the electoral roll to add their names in time. The Bureau’s meticulous preparation of the survey encouraged supporters of marriage equality to launch a vigorous campaign. Then a remarkable thing happened. Voters were, it seemed, eager to respond. In the end an impressive 79.5 per cent responded, with 61 per cent voting ‘Yes’. Every state and territory voted ‘Yes’ by a large margin. Conservative opponents were shattered. Parliamentary opposition withered away, and in the end only four members of the House of Representatives were prepared to vote against the required legislation.

The emphatic result of the postal survey can, in some measure, be seen as a censure directed at our parliamentarians, who had evaded their responsibility for resolving the issue. But, alas, after that brief glimpse of something resembling bipartisanship, we are back with the politics of vengeance and policy paralysis.

John Rickard

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences