The go-to defence of pretty much everyone who is entangled in the scandal of former Australian prime minister Scott Morrison’s self-appointment to five ministerial portfolios other than his own is that no laws were broken.

But this alleged legality — which remains unclear — is barely relevant to any judgement that might be offered on the affair.

Australia’s system of government would cease to function without its actors being willing to observe conventions that do not have the status of law. It is no defence of one’s behaviour to say that no law was broken as a result of it.

• READ MORE: View from The Hill: The Liberals would be better off with Morrison out of Parliament
• Parliament must act to ensure Australia never has ‘secret ministers’ again

Australia has a written constitution, but any casual reader of its text would gain little idea of how the political system actually works. Ministers hold office “during the pleasure of the Governor-General”.

The document does not mention the office of prime minister. It does not speak of a cabinet.

The lifeblood of the system is convention and practice. They are not to be found in the ink of the Constitution. Many of these conventions and practices were inherited, and then adapted, from Britain.

In Australia, following developments in Canada in the late 1830s and 1840s, this agreed practice was sometimes called “responsible government”.

‘Westminister system’
“Responsible government” was a colonial adaptation of a model that was also evolving in Britain. That is why we use the term “Westminster system” as a catch-all for Australia’s system of parliamentary government.

The most famous and influential account of the Westminster system appears in Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution (1867). Its central feature, he said, distinguishing it from the more drastic separation of powers and antagonism between branches of government characteristic of the presidential system of the United States, was “the close union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers”.

The lower house of a Parliament, ostensibly elected to make laws, would in practice find “its principal business in making and in keeping an executive” that “should be chosen by the legislature out of persons agreeable to and trusted by the legislature”.

Under Westminster convention, a cabinet required the confidence of the popularly elected chamber which, in turn, was the mechanism for the government’s accountability to the nation.

Morrison did not apparently see that in secretly having himself sworn into a range of portfolios, he was misleading Parliament and preventing the accountability that Bagehot saw as the essence of the system.

Instead, in seeking to justify his behaviour, he used a phrase that US President Harry S. Truman had as a sign on his desk: “The buck stops here”.

In this vein, during his press conference yesterday, Morrison referred multiple times to the popular expectations of him. He was responsible for “every drop of rain”. Morrison seems to imagine the public believed government started and ended with him.

No apology to Parliament
Morrison has since apologised to cabinet colleagues for not having told them he signed up to their portfolios in secret. But it is telling that he has not apologised to the Parliament for misleading it, nor to the Australian people for misleading them.

There was a time, not all that long ago, when phrases such as “individual ministerial responsibility” and “collective ministerial responsibility” were meaningful. The first was the principle that ministers were responsible to Parliament and therefore to the people for what went on in their portfolios.

They could not pass the buck to advisers or public servants, even if an error or misdeed had occurred in those quarters.

Collective ministerial responsibility referred to cabinet’s responsibility as a body for its own decisions. If a minister felt so strongly opposed to a decision agreed by cabinet that they could not publicly support it, the solution was clear. They would need to resign.

These were textbook concepts in high school Australian politics classes. It was widely understood that they were ideals and theories, that they would be applied differently according to context.

But they were understood as Westminster conventions with genuine force and importance, even if an abrogation of convention did not carry the same consequence as a breach of law.

In contrast, we now seem to have a system in which it is considered a legitimate defence of one’s highly unconventional behaviour to say that no law was broken. But this is not a legitimate defence in a system of parliamentary government that rests substantially on convention.

People who claim that Morrison’s multiple portfolios were not illegal miss the point.

As @fbongiornoanu (@ANUmedia) + @EmilyMillane (@MelbLawSchool) write, the conventions in the Westminster system can’t be set aside without serious effects. #auspol https://t.co/QaLbSw9AOG

— The Conversation (@ConversationEDU) August 18, 2022

Menace to democracy
It is rather a serious menace to democracy.

The electorate’s concerns with institutional integrity were manifested in this year’s federal election result. But Morrison’s highly secretive, underhanded accumulation of power would likely not be the fodder of a federal anti-corruption commission.

This is all the more reason to be concerned at his “nothing to see here” attitude.

When the agreed way in which our politics is conducted is eroded, what happens then? Conventions are enforced by their usage. As the parliamentary practice guide notes, “conventions are subject to change by way of (political) interpretation or (political) circumstances and may in some instances be broken”.

But they cannot simply be set aside without serious and detrimental effects on the way we are governed.

Dr Frank Bongiorno is professor of history, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University and Dr Emily Millane is a senior fellow, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The Morrison government has been resoundingly defeated in the Australian federal election, with Labor headed for office, although whether in a minority or majority was unclear late last night.

Anthony Albanese becomes Australia’s 31st prime minister.

Labor had 73 seats at the end of Saturday night, with 76 needed for majority government. A number of seats remain in doubt.

• READ MORE: Australians face their starkest choice at the ballot box in 50 years. Here’s why
• Other federal election reports
• The Junction student journalism on the election

The election has been a triumph for the “teal” independents, with up to six new teals set to join a record crossbench.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is set to lose his seat of Kooyong to teal independent Monique Ryan.

According to the ABC, Labor has won the Liberal seats of Chisholm and Higgins in Victoria, Robertson and Reid in NSW, Boothby in South Australia, and in Western Australia Swan, Pearce, Hasluck, held by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, and Tangney held by Special Minister of State, Ben Morton.

But Labor frontbencher Kristina Keneally is expected to be defeated in her bid to win the Sydney seat of Fowler. The seat is likely to be taken by independent Dai Le.

Other teal successes
Apart from Kooyong, teal independents have defeated Liberals in Goldstein in Victoria, and North Sydney, Mackellar and Wentworth in NSW. Kate Chaney appears likely to win Curtin in WA.

Frydenberg told supporters on Saturday night that while mathematically it was still possible to win his seat, it was definitely difficult.

The election has also been a big victory for the Greens, who have won Ryan from the Liberals in Queensland. The Greens may also pick up the Queensland Labor seat of Griffith.

The Liberal seat of Brisbane is in play between Greens and Labor. In the previous parliament, the Greens have only had the seat of Melbourne held by their leader Adam Bandt.

Scott Morrison conceded defeat shortly before 11pm. He announced to supporters that he would quit the leadership.

“I will be handing over the leadership at the next party room meeting to ensure the party can be taken forward under new leadership, which is the appropriate thing to do,” Morrison said.

‘Hold their heads high’
“Tonight, it’s a night of disappointment for the Liberals and Nationals, but it’s also a time for Coalition and members and supporters all across the country to hold their heads high.

“We have been a strong government, we have been a good government. Australia is stronger as a result of our effort over these last three terms.”

“We hand over this country as a government in a stronger position than we inherited it when we came to government those years ago under Tony Abbott,” he said.

Thank you Australia. pic.twitter.com/58ZHJCRIlO

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) May 21, 2022

Albanese said: “Tonight the Australian people have voted for change.

“My Labor team will work every day to bring Australians together and I will lead a government worthy of the people of Australia”.

“I think people want to come together, look for our common interest, look towards that sense of common purpose.

“I think people have had enough of division. What they want is to see us come together as a nation and I intend to lead that,” he said.

‘Common ground for dreams’
“I want to find that common ground where we can plant our dreams,” he told supporters.

He said: “Together we can end the climate wars”.

“I hope that my journey in life inspires Australians to reach for the stars.”

The loss of Frydenberg leaves Peter Dutton as the favourite to become leader of the opposition.

The Coalition and Labor both have very low primary votes, an indication of the disillusionment of voters with both sides.

The national swing to Labor was about 3% on the latest figures. The Coalition primary vote was about 36%, Labor’s vote about 32% and the Greens 12%.

In Western Australia, where Morrison campaigned on Friday, the Liberal vote collapsed, with a swing against them of more than 10%.

‘Sends message … [about] respect, diversity’
Finance Minister and senior moderate Simon Birmingham, speaking about Warringah, where independent Zali Steggall has retained her seat against controversial Liberal candidate Katherine Deves, said: “I think it sends a message about what Australians believe when it comes to issues of respect, of inclusion, of diversit”.

Birmingham suggested there had been a “contagion effect” from Warringah that punished Liberals in neighbouring seats.

Teal independent Zoe Daniel, who has won Goldstein, named after suffragette Vida Goldstein, who failed in her effort to enter federal parliament, said: “Today I take her rightful place”.

Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow, University of Canberra. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

You first have to lose an election on principle if you want to win one on principle.

This was how Labor rationalised the miscalculations that led to its “Don’s Party” disappointment in 1969, followed by the 1972 triumph of the “It’s Time” campaign.

Half a century later, the idea of sticking with unpopular policy seems romantic, unthinkable. Principles are not just old-hat in an era of professionalised politics, but absurd.

• READ MORE: Canberra must stop wasting time – and urgently support ABC in the Pacific
• Other Australian election reports

Swamped by voter-attitude metrics, modern democratic leaders are not leaders in the traditional sense. Rather, they are followers.

Followers of market researchers and media proprietors who disabuse them of ambitious conceits like national leadership, or anything that might tempt them to make changes based on electoral judgment, the national interest, or even ideology.

Still, a few months ago, one starry-eyed fool (to wit, this author) described the looming 2022 federal election as the most important national choice to be put before voters since that 1972 hinge-point.

If it was an invitation to Labor leader Anthony Albanese to paint in bold brushstrokes, he didn’t receive it.

Instead, Labor’s risk-averse policy presentation has largely mirrored the reform-shy government it seeks to replace. This makes for the least policy-divergent choice in the 50 years since 1972.

The 2022 election more closely resembles a velodrome match-sprint where the two riders have almost stopped on the banked section, each terrified of leading off and being overtaken in the final dash for the line.

Whitlam’s re-imagining
The 1972 comparison gets even harder when you look at former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s first month in office.

He promised to establish diplomatic relations with Peking (now Beijing), following his audacious trip to “Red China” in 1971. Imagine this (or any) opposition making a play of similar foreign policy gravity today.

Whitlam’s bold Australian re-imagining, which historian Stuart McIntyre later characterised as “a nationalism attuned to internationalism”, kick-started a lucrative economic co-dependency that has propelled Australian prosperity to this day. Hungry for commodities and services imports, China’s staggering growth has also insulated Australia through global shocks like the Asian Financial Crisis, Global Financial Crisis, and the covid-19 pandemic.

While the Coalition would no doubt have come to it eventually, Whitlam acted without hesitation or American permission. Crucially, he backed his capacity to explain it to the country, despite the danger of being tagged as soft on communism.

Again, leaders taking decisions and then relying on their persuasive powers to win arguments seems fanciful amid the timidity of contemporary politics.

A shot of adrenaline
In those first days, Whitlam also ended conscription, withdrew from Vietnam, granted independence to Papua New Guinea, and set about ratifying long-deferred international conventions on basic labour conditions, racial non-discrimination, and nuclear weapons proliferation.

With his pared back, don’t-frighten-the-horses agenda, Albanese might have less to do over a whole term, and Whitlam was only getting started.

Before his government crashed, Whitlam would end the White Australia Policy, scrap royal honours, appoint the first women’s adviser, reform draconian divorce laws, champion multiculturalism, dramatically ratchet up funding for the arts and humanities, abolish university fees, revive urban development, and more.

To a slumbering post-war Australia, it was a shot of late 20th Century adrenaline and the results were startling. Australian historian Manning Clark described it as the “end of the Ice Age”.

But in 1975, it ended in ignominy. As McIntyre later observed, “the golden age was over”.

History rhyming, not repeating
So far, the case for equivalence between 1972 and 2022 is not obvious, right?

But what if it is not Labor that now represents the radical option but the status quo? What if changing governments offers the safer, more conventional course for nervous voters? As Mark Twain noted, history doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.

Labor’s 1972 manifesto was inspiring, but it was the urgency with which its modernising promise was articulated after 23 years of Coalition rule that had impatient voters energised. The McMahon Coalition government was a no ideas factory in the lead-up to the 1972 election, although it did not exhibit the insidious corrosive streak of its modern-day equivalent.

This is the rhyme. While the 2022 election is not about the magisterial reform possibilities of an incoming government, it is about the urgent need to rescue longstanding governing norms around transparency, accountability, ministerial standards, trust and the honesty, and of course, the viability of the public service.

It is in this critical sense that the two elections might be compared.

Divide and dither
The radicalism absent from Labor’s 2022 manifesto is made up for in the unspoken but no-less transformative erosion of standards by the government. The Coalition is primarily intent on the political dividends of division, on courting the applause of media vassals, religious conservatives, and a populist Nationals rump.

Morrison’s approach can be described as divide and dither.

It finds its expression in the Coalition’s reflexive recourse to politics over policy — frequently at the direct expense of the national interest such as in the weaponisation of climate change and more recently, the attempts to weaken the outward presentation of domestic bipartisanship on national security.

The former is a classic of the genre. Morrison’s hollow embrace of net zero by 2050 ahead of Glasgow last year was greeted by political insiders as a triumph of prime ministerial skill, when all it really did was expose how utterly pointless the Coalition’s decade-long negation had been.

Moreover, it brought no revision to interim targets nor adjusted any other policy architecture.

Its real aim — in which it was successful — was the neutralisation of a Coalition stance that had morphed into a clear electoral negative.

The latter, national security, was tickled along last Friday in Defence Minister Peter Dutton’s ultra-earnest press conference transparently called to (re)frighten voters about a Chinese “warship” that was “hugging” Australia’s north-western coast at a distance of 400 kilometres.

Manufactured wars and textimonials
Divide and dither revels in manufactured culture wars over transgender teens and identity politics, fumes about supposed attacks on faith, and white-ants efforts to build support for a First Nations Voice in the Constitution.

Witness the government’s pillorying responses to anti-discrimination campaigners with dismissive throw-aways like “all lives matter”.

Divide and dither’s existence was spectacularly laid bare in a series of explosive “textimonials” regarding Morrison’s character from his own colleagues — people much closer to him than voters, including Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. These described him variously as a “hypocrite and a liar”. A New South Wales Liberal senator called him a “bully with no moral compass”.

It’s there, too, in the vicious campaigns against “fake” independent women – simply for standing for office. In a democracy.

The Liberals’ refusal to acknowledge and address female under-representation has invited the very rebellion it now faces from high-calibre female candidates in safe Liberal seats.

The overall impression is of a government shamelessly enabled by a pseudo-independent media that makes no serious attempt to govern for all Australians.

No change means no consequences
In light of these multiple failures, in opting for no change, Australian voters would be saying there is no cost for governing like this.

The Coalition’s take-out would be — keep misleading and pork-barrelling and fomenting useless culture wars.

Keep stacking boards and cutting taxes for the rich and emaciating the public service. Keep denying an anti-corruption commission even as its need becomes ever-more pressing.

Psychologists would call such a verdict “learned helplessness” — an acceptance that such corruptions are inevitable, and no more than we deserve.

Accountable government, national unity, evidence-based policy, and democratic accountability are all on the ballot at this election.

It is not 1972, but the choice might be equally stark, despite Labor’s timidity.

Dr Mark Kenny, is professor at the Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

When Australians go to the polls on Saturday to elect a new government, the vast continent which was stolen from the indigenous people in 1788 and annexed to the British crown may have its “independent day” — not one that would declare itself a republic, but a day when independent members of Parliament may hold the balance of power in the lower house in Canberra.

In February this year, the founder of Climate 200 Simon Holmes à Court — son of Australia’s first billionaire Robert Holmes à Court — in an address to the Canberra Press Club said that independents hold considerable sway in some seats, and they will provide a tough challenge to the two major parties in Australian politics — Labour (ALP) and Liberal-National (LNP) — in the forthcoming federal elections.

He added that they have gathered a $7 million (US$4.9 million) war chest to fix Australia’s “broken” political system.

• READ MORE: Other reports on the Australian federal elections

“As we approach this upcoming election, the Australian political system is broken. That’s the problem. That’s why we are here today,” he told a packed press club in the national capital adding that Australians have had a “gutful” of politics.

“Engaged Australians are deeply frustrated that we are not making progress on the issues that matter … We are frustrated that so often our government is found to be either lying or incompetent, sometimes both,” he said.

“We have a government more interested in winning elections than improving our great nation. A government that seeks power, without purpose.

“We are frustrated about climate and action. We are frustrated about corruption in politics. We are frustrated about the treatment and safety of women.”

Looking over their shoulders
As the election campaign approaches its final stretch, politicians from both parties are looking over their shoulders at independent candidates who are challenging them in some crucial seats.

The Liberal Party of Prime Minister Scott Morrison is more worried than his opposition counterpart, the Australian Labor Party (ALP). Polling indicates that some blue-ribbon Liberal (governing LNP is a coalition of Liberal and National parties) seats could fall to popular local independent candidates and may result in a hung Parliament when the results of the elections are out by the early morning of May 22.

Liberals got a taste of things to come at a New South Wales (NSW) state byelection in February when voters in the heart of Sydney Northshore (which is a bastion of conservative politics) seat of Willoughby chose a replacement for the former Premier of the state, the hugely popular Gladys Berejiklian, who was forced to resign under corruption allegations.

She last won the seat with a hefty margin of 21 percent but there was a swing of 19 percent against the Liberal candidate who very narrowly won the seat via postal votes. The unsuccessful Independent candidate Larrisa Penn ran her campaign with very little funding.

Holmes à Court’s environmental organisation has been providing funds to a chain of candidates around the country, but he says that Climate 200 is not a political party and the candidates they give money to do not have a common political platform.

He also added that they give them money if they ask for it and give them advice on campaign tactics if they seek it. However, most independents are funded with donations from ordinary Australians who want to see systematic political change in Australia.

“These candidates don’t need to go into politics to be successful because they are already successful,” he told the press gallery.

“They are business owners, doctors, lawyers, journalists, and athletes. They are in it for the right reasons.”

Community advocacy group
In the Melbourne seat of Kooyong, held by Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, local independent Professor Monique Ryan, the head of neurology at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, who was endorsed by the community advocacy group Voices of Kooyong to stand in the seat is being given a good chance of unseating the government heavyweight.

“A genuine contest between two smart people to represent a smart, engaged electorate should make for good politics. Instead, the Kooyong campaign has turned rancid, as Ryan and her principal backer, Simon Holmes à Court, can almost touch an unlikely prize and Frydenberg, a potential future prime minister, can see his political career fading to black” observed Melbourne Age’s chief political reporter Chip Le Grand.

Professor Ryan is one of 21 “Voices of” candidates to have announced their run for a lower house seat for the 2022 federal election, and political analysts believe that in at least 5 Liberal-held seats in Victoria and NSW they stand a good chance of toppling the sitting candidate.

“The grassroots campaigns have attracted tens of thousands of people across Australia, many of whom have never volunteered for a political cause before,” noted Guardian Australia’s Calla Wahlquist. “Government MPs are feeling the pressure.”

The Seven Network claimed last week that PM Morrison had become “hysterical” about the independent challenge. It pointed out that he had started to hammer out a key campaign theme in media interviews and speeches claiming that independents in Parliament would threaten Australia’s economic stability and national security.

“The allegation by the prime minister … that independent parliamentarians and candidates are a threat to Australia’s security is a shameful slur on decent people exercising their democratic right to stand for election,” Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie said in a statement broadcast on Seven Network.

“It’s also symptomatic of a government becoming increasingly hysterical at the realisation it’s out of step with a great many Australians.” Wilkie pointed out that some crossbenchers, such as himself, had served in the defence and intelligence services and it was “outrageous” for the prime minister to criticise them.

Encouraged voting for independents
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who was toppled in a party-room coup by Morrison in 2018 is encouraging Australians to vote for independents whom he calls “small-l Liberals” that are trying to save the liberal values he once espoused.

He says the party is now being taken over by climatic change deniers supported by Rupert Murdoch’s media in Australia such as Sky News, which has given ample coverage to Morrison’s “independents being a national security threat’’ argument.

Well-known election analyst Malcolm Mackerras predicts that the May 21 elections would result in a hung Parliament with both ALP and LNP dependent on 6-8 independent MPs to form a government.

The preferential voting system in the lower house of the Australian Parliament has resulted in favouring a two-party system, but he believes it is due for reform and voters would deliver it. It is compulsory for Australians to vote in elections.

Independents supported by Climate 200 are called “teal candidates” because they use colour in their campaign material which is a merger between green and blue.

“The teal independents are speaking directly to moderate Liberal constituents who are frustrated with the (blue) Liberal Party’s positioning on social and environmental issues” argues Amy Nethery, senior lecturer in politics and policy studies at Deakin University.

“While these same voters may never vote Labour or Greens, many are alienated by Morrison and his government, particularly on climate change and women’s issues.”

Many candidates are women
She points out that it is significant that 19 of the 22 Climate 200 supported candidates are women.

“All of whom have had highly successful careers in their own right. High-profile candidates include Ryan (Kooyong), a professor and head of neurology at the Royal Children’s Hospital, Zoe Daniel (Goldstein) a former ABC foreign correspondent, and Allegra Spender (Wentworth) the chief executive of the Australian Business and Community Network,” noted Nethery writing in The Conversation.

“The teal independents are not political staffers taking the next step towards inevitable political careers. These are professional women making a radical sideways leap because, they say, this is what the times require. It’s a compelling story.”

Dr Kalinga Seneviratne is a Sydney-based IDP-InDepth News Southeast Asia director, the flagship agency of the nonprofit International Press Syndicate. He is currently in Suva. This article is republished with permission.

The bell has been rung, the shadow campaign is now official, and Australia heads to the polls on May 21. As the government enters caretaker mode, Australia enters a highly consequential period of democratic deliberation, but not for the reasons you might think.

It suits politicians — and many in the media — to portray a federal election as a grand job application process in which voters comprise the selection panel. But that’s really only half the story.

Political commentator Sean Kelly has written a convincing book on how Scott Morrison turned the 2019 election into a choice between him and the then Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

• READ MORE: Other The Conversation articles on Asia Pacific Report

Morrison won when Australians were more attracted to his persona than that of his opponent. Policy played a small part, notably when bold proposals on the Labor side became a lightening rod for fear.

This time around we are again likely to see a focus on leadership eclipse policy debate. Morrison enters this campaign behind in the polls and as an unusually unpopular prime minister, but with an unshakeable faith he can turn it around.

Labor knows Morrison is on the nose, and will be perfectly happy to cast the election to a referendum on their leader Anthony Albanese versus an unpopular PM.

If we let this happen it will be a poor outcome, no matter who wins. The great drawback of democracy is that while voters get to decide who forms government, we have little power to set the agenda.

Wasting a precious chance
Yet if we can’t have a proper policy debate during a campaign, we waste a precious chance to talk about the things that matter most to us.

The US journalism academic Jay Rosen takes a keen interest in Australian media. For for many years, he has been critical of Australian media’s over-reliance on polls and tendency to treat covering politics like calling a horse race.

Rosen says this means the media allows the politicians to decide what gets talked about. Important topics get neglected as the spin-doctors steer the discussion to narrow areas where they think their party might have an advantage.

With this in mind, The Conversation is determined to cover this election differently. We are going to talk about what what matters most to us — the policies that affect our lives and the future of the planet.

As a first step, we are going to set our own citizens’ policy agenda in collaboration with our readers. Please help us by filling out our #SetTheAgenda poll.

Once we know more about what you’d like to see on the agenda, we will report back on what you’ve said and tap into the deep expertise of the thousands of academic experts who write for The Conversation.

We will bring you coverage with a clear focus on the major problems we face as a society, and try to provide evidence-based solutions that the experts think could actually work.

Final ingredient
The final ingredient is the best coverage of the politics of the campaign from one of Australia’s most respected political correspondents, Michelle Grattan, backed up by the economic nous and insight of Peter Martin.

Michelle will be writing regularly throughout the campaign and you can subscribe to her politics podcast for in-depth interviews and informed commentary

We’re also bringing back the much-loved ABC radio presenter Jon Faine for Below the Line, an election podcast with political scientists Anika Gauja and Simon Jackman from the University of Sydney and La Trobe University’s Andrea Carson.

As always, we will do everything in our power to be evidence-led and non-partisan. In a media environment manipulated by vested interests and saturated with opinions, we are committed to covering issues chosen by you and hosting a genuine debate that focuses on the public interest.

Please take advantage of this opportunity to have your say and contribute to our efforts to ensure the democratic discussion is calm, compassionate, accountable and fair.

Misha Ketchell is editor and and executive director, The Conversation. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

It feels like every day brings more harrowing claims of harassment, bullying and abuse of women in Australia’s community.

In the space of just two months, we have seen Brittany Higgins’ claims she was raped at parliament, historical rape allegations against Christian Porter (which he denies), staffers performing sex acts on the desks of female MPs, MP Andrew Laming’s harassment of women and Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s “bullying” of Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate.

Last week, senior Indigenous academics authored an open letter, decrying the lack of public concern and national planning about the violence against First Nations women. Indigenous people are 32 times more likely to be hospitalised for family violence than a non-Indigenous adult.

• READ MORE: No public outrage, no vigils: Australia’s silence at violence against Indigenous women
  

And as Australia marks 30 years since the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, the massive over-representation of Indigenous women in the prison population remains a “national shame”.

There is hope
Many women are understandably feeling traumatised, triggered, overwhelmed and exhausted. And it would be easy to think it is all bad news and nothing is changing.

But there is hope. As a result of what has emerged, we have seen an outpouring of rage from people around Australia who are fed up with the way we treat women and victim-survivors.

As an organiser of the recent March 4 Justice rally in Canberra, I saw firsthand the collective anger and frustration directed at federal parliament and wider society and the thirst for change.

I’m also taking heart from the many Australians — some household names, some less well-known — who are fighting for change and making a difference to gender equality. Here are just nine.

1. Grace Tame
Grace Tame is the 2021 Australian of the Year for her advocacy for survivors of sexual assault. She is a prime example of how one person can make concrete change.

As a teenager, Tame was groomed and sexually abused by her school teacher. But despite his conviction and jailing, she was unable to publicly share her story because of Tasmania’s sexual assault victim gag laws.

Almost a decade later, her experience was a catalyst for the creation of the #LetHerSpeak campaign , which reformed these laws.

Tame is now redefining what it means to be a survivor of abuse. Her focus is on empowering survivors and using education as the primary method of prevention. As she says,

Change is happening and it’s happening right now.

2. Brittany Higgins
Brittany Higgins can arguably be credited as prompting Australia’s second #MeToo wave.

A former Liberal staffer, Higgins came forward in February with allegations she was raped in parliament house by a male colleague. In part, she was inspired by Tame’s call to arms a month earlier.

Higgins’ claims have rocked Australian politics, sparking a fresh focus into its toxic culture. In the weeks since, more allegations of sexism and assault in politics have emerged, with an independent inquiry into parliament house culture now underway.

But Higgins has also ignited the anger of many around Australia, resulting in nationwide protests against sexism and gendered violence. In her speech at the March 4 Justice rally in Canberra, she said,

I came forward with my story to hopefully protect other women.

3. Latoya Aroha Rule
Aroha Rule, a Wiradjuri and Māori Takatāpui person, is an activist and writer.

After their brother Wayne Fella Morrison died in custody, Aroha Rule created the #JusticeforFella campaign and helped organise nationwide protests calling for justice for the hundreds of Aboriginal people who have died in custody.

Around the recent March 4 Justice rallies, Aroha Rule played a pivotal role, drawing attention to the experiences of First Nations women.

As they wrote in The Guardian:

Women’s liberation marches have been growing since the 1960s in Australia, just as the incarceration rates and deaths of Aboriginal women in custody have steadily increased.

They also point out the complexity of experiences and perspectives when it comes to equality, race, gender and sexuality.

4. Stella Donnelly
Stella Donnelly is a singer-songwriter who writes music that critiques rape culture, the patriarchy and Australian politics.

Her first song, “Boys Will Be Boys”, was written about a friend’s sexual assault and released in 2017 during the “first wave” of the #MeToo movement in Australia. It was quickly adopted as an anthem by victim-survivors.

Why was she all alone

Wearing her shirt that low

They said, ‘boys will be boys’

Deaf to the word no

Through a “reel-‘em-in, knock-’em-out” comedic style of lyrics and indie-pop tunes, Donnelly sparks awareness of issues like sexism and sexual assault for a wide audience.

5. Amy McQuire
Amy McQuire, a Darumbal and South Sea Islander woman from Rockhampton, is a journalist, writer and PhD candidate, researching media representations of violence against Aboriginal women.

She is one of a number of younger Indigenous voices who are helping to put First Nations women at the centre of conversations about violence against women and equality.

McQuire has written extensively on Aboriginal deaths in custody and the erasure of Aboriginal women from the mainstream feminist movement and discussions about domestic violence.

If you think Aboriginal women have been silent, it’s only because you haven’t heard us, our voices now hoarse after decades of screaming into the abyss of Australia’s apathy.

She also writes about the racism inherent in violence against Indigenous women.

In Australia, violence was not just used as a tool of patriarchy – it was and is used as a tool of colonialism.

When we talk about eliminating violence against Aboriginal women, we aren’t just talking about individual acts, or solely interpersonal violence. Sexual violence was and is used as a strategy to mark our bodies as acceptable for violation, not just by individuals, but by the forces of the state.

6. Saxon Mullins
In a 2018 Four Corners episode, Mullins told the story of her 2013 sexual assault and the widely publicised trials and appeals that followed.

This generated debate about sexual consent laws and how they differ around the country. The NSW Law Reform Commission then reviewed the section of the Crimes Act that deals with sexual assault and consent (the final report was a disappointment to those wanting comprehensive reforms).

Mullins recently founded the Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy Centre. It aims to prevent sexual violence through reforming consent laws and raising public understanding of consent, healthy relationships and sex education.

As she recently told the ABC’s 7.30 programme:

I have moved into an advocacy position […] this feels like my resolution. This feels like me being able to finish this story how I think it should be finished with real change.

7. Yasmin Poole
Yasmin Poole is a speaker, writer and youth advocate who champions the inclusion of young women, particularly women of colour, in political conversations.

In 2019, she was listed in both the 40 Under 40 Most Influential Asian Australians and the Australian Financial Review’s 100 Women of Influence. She was also named The Martin Luther King Jr Center’s 2021 Youth Influencer of the Year.

After the March 4 Justice, Poole criticised Morrison’s comments about the rally — he said protesters in other countries are often “met with bullets” — and the inadequate handling of Higgins’ allegations by the government.

I’m not thankful for not being shot. I’m furious. I am angry that any young woman that desires or aspires to go into politics now will have to think twice.

Poole clearly demonstrates that young women need not wait to speak up about political issues and create societal change. They aren’t simply “future leaders” but, like Poole, are already leading the way.

8. Nicole Lee
Nicole Lee is a family violence and disability activist. As a woman with disability and a survivor of family violence, Lee fights for the rights of survivors who are often excluded from this conversation altogether.

As a member of Victoria’s Victims Survivors Advisory Council, Lee has helped shaped the state’s response to family violence.

We can’t get away from the fact that women with disabilities are vulnerable. Society is slowly changing, but as much as people hate hearing it women are already on the back foot and then you add a disability […] we’re so much further behind.

9. Caitlin Figueiredo
Caitlin Figueiredo is an Anglo-Indian woman, internationally recognised activist and social entrepreneur.

She is the founder and CEO of Jasiri Australia, a youth-led movement that encourages girls to be leaders in their communities, and fights for the increased representation of women in politics through leading the Girls Takeover Parliament program.

As Figueiredo said in 2017:

I want to accelerate change.

Dr Blair Williams, a research fellow, Global Institute for Women’s Leadership (GIWL), Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has lashed out at Australia for dumping responsibility for a woman and two young children detained at the Turkish border on New Zealand.

The 26-year-old detainee – described by the Turkish government as an Islamic State terrorist – was caught trying to enter Turkey illegally from Syria.

Ardern said the woman, who had dual citizenship, left for Australia when she was six and travelled to Syria from Australia on an Australian passport.

• READ MORE: ‘Difficult conversations’: Alleged Kiwi terrorist’s arrest in Turkey poses dilemma for NZ authorities – expert

Ardern said she directly raised the matter with the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and asked that they work together to resolve the issue.

“I was then informed in the following year that Australia had unilaterally revoked the citizenship of the individual involved. You can imagine my response,” she said.

“Since then we have continually raised with Australia our view that their decision was wrong, we continue to raise that view.

“My concern however, now, is that we have a situation where someone is now detained with two small children,” she said.

Citizenship lies with NZ
Legally the woman’s citizenship now only lies with New Zealand.

“I never believed that the right response was to simply have a race to revoke people’s citizenship, that is just not the right thing to do.”

“We will put our hands up when we need to own the situation. We expected the same of Australia, they did not act in good faith.”

“If the shoe was on the other foot we would take responsibility, that would be the right thing to do, and I ask of Australia that they do the same,” she said.

She said New Zealand officials would be working to do welfare checks of those involved, and would be engaging with Turkish authorities.

“Regardless of their circumstances, regardless of whether have committed offences and particularly we have obligations when they have children involved.

“I would argue Australia holds those obligations too.”

Welfare of children at forefront
The welfare of the children also needed to be at the forefront in this situation, she said.

“These children were born in a conflict zone through no fault of their own.”

Ardern argued that coming to New Zealand, where they have no immediate family, would not be in the children’s best interests.

“We know that young children thrive best when surrounded by people who love them. We will be raising these points with the Australian government,” she said.

“New Zealand frankly is tired of having Australia export its problems, but now there are two children involved.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Acting editor of the Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Journalism Review Dr Philip Cass has cast doubt on the success of Australia’s plans to export TV shows to the Pacific.

In November last year, the Scott Morrison government announced a $17 million deal to share 1000 hours of top-rating Australian content a year with the Pacific in an effort to improve connections in the region.

Dr Cass told SBS News that while several New Zealand shows had proved popular in Polynesia and the Central Pacific, the reality-TV shows that Australia was planning to share might not be as relevant.

READ MORE: Australia needs a Media Freedom Act – here’s how it could work

“Given the size of the Pacific diaspora in New Zealand, and the close links and travel with the home countries, there is a strong familiarity with New Zealand drama and news in the islands,” Dr Cass said.

“Shows like Shortland Street have been popular because of the Pasifika and Maori characters and have at times been a way for people to discuss culturally sensitive issues through story lines.”

According to SBS News, Free TV, which represents Australian commercial channels, was tasked with negotiating with Pacific broadcasters on the types of programs to be made available.

Twelve months after the deal was announced, Free TV hadn’t begun discussions with Pacific stations, a communications department spokesperson revealed.

“Free TV will soon commence work to consult with Pacific broadcasters that will inform a selection of Australian content that is suitable for each Pacific broadcaster,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

The government expected the first Australian shows to air under the deal next year, but would not say which month.

Free TV chief executive Bridget Fair defended its progress.

“We are well advanced in planning for the Pacific TV project,” Fair said in a statement.

“We expect to commence providing content to our Pacific partners in 2020, but we are not in a position to provide further details of the project at this time.”

In February, the Communications Department said the full-suite of programs would be on offer, ranging from drama, documentary and reality television shows such as The Bachelor.

The Bachelor could be part of Australia’s offering to Pacific broadcasters next year.

Jemima Garrett, co-convenor of the Supporters of Australian Broadcasting in Asia and the Pacific, urged the government to pursue more innovative approaches to building connections, rather than an “old-style” strategy of sending existing programs created for Australian audiences.

“Reruns of Love Island or Border Security are not going to help Australia’s standing in the region in the same way that a more interesting project could,” Garrett told SBS News.

Garrett, a former ABC Pacific correspondent, said Australia has had a “tin ear” and any new broadcasting deals should focus on collaboration.

‘Part of the same Pacific family’: Fiji PM visits Australia, despite scathing climate attack

Supporters of Australian Broadcasting in Asia and the Pacific is lobbying the government to invest in a broader, long term strategy of partnering with local media to produce original content.

“Then Australians will see a new range of really exciting, interesting stories that we’re not getting to hear at the moment because we just haven’t got enough of a media presence in the region and we’re not listening to the people of the region who have got a lot to offer us,” Garrett said.

Otherwise, Australia risks losing more ground to China which is increasing its media presence in the area, Garrett warned.

While Chinese government media agency Xinhua has a correspondent based in Fiji’s capital Suva, there is no Australian reporter there.

“For Australia, the closest neighbour to the Pacific, not to have a voice of any significance is a terrible oversight,” Garrett said.

International Development and the Pacific Minister Alex Hawke referred questions to the department which did not respond to questions about longer-term plans to support media in the Pacific.

Tuvalu’s Prime Minister has condemned the Australian Prime Minister’s conduct at last week’s Pacific Islands Forum, calling Scott Morrison’s attitude “unfortunate” and “neo-colonial,” and questioning Australia’s future in the 18-member body.

In an interview with RNZ on Sunday, Enele Sopoaga also threatened to pull Tuvaluan labour from Australia’s seasonal worker programme in light of comments by Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, who was recorded saying people from Pacific countries threatened by climate change – like Tuvalu – would survive because “many of their workers come here and pick our fruit”.

Australia’s High Commissioner to Tuvalu would be summoned to explain the comments on Monday, Sopoaga said, and he would cancel the programme if he wasn’t satisfied. He would also encourage the leaders of the other Pacific countries – including Kiribati, Samoa and Tonga – to do the same.

READ MORE: ‘Bullying’ Australia disregards Pacific over climate crisis, says 350 Pacific

“I thought the Australian labour scheme was determined on mutual respect, that Australia was also benefiting,” said Sopoaga. “We are not crawling below that. If that’s the view of the government, then I would have no hesitation in pulling back the Tuvaluan people as from tomorrow.”

“I don’t think the Tuvaluan people are paupers to come crawling under that type of very abusive and offensive language,” he said. “If New Zealand is thinking the same way, we’ll have no other option but to do that [there too].”

McCormack’s comments came after the region’s leaders – including Sopoaga, Morrison and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern – met for a marathon 12 hours on Tuvalu’s main island, Funafuti, on Thursday with Australia, the region’s largest economy and emitter, pitted against the Pacific.

The Pacific countries wanted strict commitments to cutting down greenhouse gas emissions, a phase out of coal power stations, support in replenishing the UN’s Green Climate Fund and a strong and united communique that they could take to international climate talks at the UN next month.

But Australia refused to budge on certain red lines, which included insisting on the removal of mentions of coal, a commitment to limit global warming to under 1.5C and drafting a plan for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

It succeeded. Late on Thursday night, a watered-down communique was released, although some are now questioning at what cost.

Australia is meant to be in the midst of a so-called “step-up” in the Pacific, and Morrison came to the meeting stressing the vuvale (family links) between Australia and the region as Canberra gets increasingly jittery about China’s presence.

Pacific trip-up
But if the reaction from the region’s leaders in the past few days has been anything to go by, the step-up has tripped and tumbled some way down the stairs.

Vanuatu’s foreign minister, Ralph Regenvanu, described the meeting as “tense” and “very frank,” revealing that the talks almost broke down twice.

Marshall Islands Foreign Minister David Paul tweeted “Stepping-up means showing up. It means showing you are willing to play your own part in fighting the greatest threat to the Pacific and to the world.” That was later followed by: “The Pacific’s survival – and the Australian fruit industry – requires leadership on the greatest threat to our region and to the world.”

But the most cutting criticism was from Fiji’s Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama, who said on Saturday that Australia had taken a “big step backwards” in its relationship with the Pacific. That came after he told The Guardian on Friday that Morrison’s approach during Thursday’s meeting was “very insulting and condescending.”

‘Insulting’ statements
“I thought Morrison was a good friend of mine; apparently not,” said Bainimarama, who was attending his first forum in more than a decade, after being suspended in 2009.

“The Prime Minister at one stage, because he was apparently [backed] into a corner by the leaders, came up with how much money Australia have been giving to the Pacific. He said ‘I want that stated. I want that on the record’. Very insulting.”

After playing it diplomatically in a news conference on Friday morning, where he was seated side-by-side with Morrison, Sopoaga didn’t hold back on Sunday, backing Bainimarama’s comments.

“We were overwhelmed by the promises of the step-up policy by Australia,” Sopoaga said. “Very un-Pacific, it was. I certainly hoped the leaders would come together and recognise the culture, the Pacific way of life.”

Words ignored
Referring to a speech by two youth leaders who called for action to save their homeland, Sopoaga said: “One leader was … shedding tears, he told me, ‘the words of those girls are cutting through my heart.’ Unfortunately one didn’t hear these words, and pretended not to hear these words. One guy, one guy deliberately decided to ignore these words.”

“If that is the case one has to ask if there is any place for them to be in the forum. If there is any place for them to be in this grouping, in this collectivity.”

Sopoaga told the story of his days as a young diplomat in the early 1970s, in what was then the South Pacific Commission. The commission evolved into the forum as many countries became independent from colonisation. In those days, he said, independence leaders were frustrated that they couldn’t talk about their issues like environment, decolonisation or nuclear testing because “these colonial masters were pushing us down.”

“And I see now after so many years of us coming away to set up the Pacific Island Leaders Forum, we are still seeing reflections and manifestations of this neo-colonialist approach to what the leaders are talking about,” Sopoaga said.

Pacific not understood
“The spirit of the Pacific way is not understood by these guys. I don’t think they understand anything about [it]. And if that is the case, what is the point of these guys remaining in the Pacific Island Leaders Forum? I don’t see any merit in that.”

Scott Morrison left Tuvalu asserting that the Australian government was committed to helping the region in its fight against climate change, and that there were efforts being made in Australia to curb emissions. He also announced an A$500m fund to help fund climate adaptation in Pacific countries.

And Australia did make some concessions in the communique. It backed a separate climate change statement committing countries to working in solidarity to combat it.

It also signed on to address climate financing, a commitment to phase out reliance on fossil fuels, and pledged to try to meet a target of 1.5 degrees. However, the wording is vague, and all references to coal have been scrubbed. And a “climate crisis” is only referred to for the small island states, not the whole region, which would include Australia.

Sopoaga said that despite the setbacks, he was still happy with what came from the forum. “It’s not perfect, but it is good,” he said. “I certainly believe we could have done much better.”

“We really need to step-up our game.”

• This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand

Wording has played a crucial role in a reportedly “fierce” Pacific Islands Forum in Tuvalu with Australia allegedly managing to alter documental terms to downplay its commitment to climate change mitigation.

According to RNZ Pacific, a communiqué and separate statement on climate change was released after a 12-hour meeting between the leaders yesterday.

The document, released after midnight, included what’s titled the ‘Funafuti Declaration for Urgent Climate Change Action Now”.

READ MORE: Tongan PM blasts Pacific regionalism ‘myth’ and silence over West Papua

The main communiqué endorsed a declaration from the small island states calling for a commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius, an immediate phase out of coal, and contributions to the UN Green Climate Fund.

While Australia was a qualification and did not endorse the main communiqué it did endorse the separate statement which committed countries to work in solidarity to combat climate change, reports RNZ.

However, Australia which is the largest coal exporter in the world managed to have all references to coal removed from the documentation.

While the Guardian had reported that Scott Morrison’s government was pushing for the words climate change “crisis” to be changed to “reality” in the draft communiqué, it remained in the final document.

Nevertheless, Australia’s Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, said Scott Morrison was undermining vital relationships in the Pacific.

“The reality is that Pacific Island nations, Pacific leaders have made it clear they don’t trust the Morrison government when it comes to climate change. They don’t trust them because the Morrison government has failed to act on climate change.”

Fiji’s Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama was not happy with the result of the forum, saying the leaders had settled for the status quo.

“Watered-down climate language has real consequences — like water-logged homes, schools, communities, and ancestral burial grounds,” he said.

Opposition leader of the Solomon Islands, Matthew Wale, said the forum was a missed opportunity to really “step up”.

“‘Family’, has been exploited for domestic Australian politics,” he said, referencing the term Scott Morrison had used in his speech at the forum.

Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga was more diplomatic, saying: “I think the outcome is a very good outcome, it’s probably the best outcome given the context and circumstances.”

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been praised for her commitment to climate change at the forum.

This week she announced $150 million Pacific climate funding and reiterating New Zealand’s commitment to reducing emissions, citing the goal of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2035.

While she has said Scott Morrison’s government “has to answer on the Pacific”, she stopped short of calling for Australia to transition out of coal, reports The Guardian.

“Issues around Australia’s domestic policy are issues for Australia,” she said, when asked about Australia’s coal use.

Both the Australian and New Zealand governments have pledged to continue and increase financial aid to the Solomon Islands.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that Australia will pledge A$250 million in aid.

He made the announcement in Honiara during his first post-election overseas trip.

READ MORE: Chinese influence in the Pacific prompts high-level meetings

The money will finance a range of projects over 10 years and will complement the A$2 billion infrastructure fund Morrison has established for the Pacific, reports the Solomon Times.

The funding will also be used to develop new government buildings including the Prime Minister’s office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Australian government will provide loans worth almost A$3 million to temporary workers from Solomon Islands who want to come to Australia under labour mobility schemes, reports ABC News.

New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters has renewed his government’s continuous aid to the Solomon Islands.

New Zealand aid
During a visit to meet with Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, Winston Peters reiterated the New Zealand government’s support to the country’s economy in sectors like aviation, tourism, fisheries, agriculture and labour mobility, reports RNZ Pacific.

However, there have been suggestions that the moves from both Australia and New Zealand are motivated by China’s increasing influence in the region.

Last week the Solomon Times reported that China was attempting to persuade the Solomon Islands government to cuts ties to traditional ally Taiwan and sign up to China’s multibillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative.

However, according to SBS news, Scott Morrison has downplayed China as a reason for closer ties with the Solomon Islands.

“We have got to be careful not to see what are ongoing and upgrading relationships here for Australia and the Pacific through those binary terms of the United States and China,” Morrison said.

“They have their interests in the region, as do others.

“Our relationship with the Solomon Islands, our relationship with the Pacific, transcends all of that.”

Diplomatic relations
This was echoed by Winston Peters who said it was up to the Solomon Islands to decide on its foreign diplomatic relations.

He hoped that any decision would reflect the long term interests of the Solomon Islands’ values and Pacific values, reports RNZ Pacific.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare made similar comments.

“Diplomatic relations are a sovereign decision,” Sogavare said.

“Solomon Islands foreign policy has always been premised on the principle of ‘friend to all and enemy to none.”

Solomon Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Jeremiah Manele said that his government felt no pressure to switch allegiances and would make a “comprehensive assessment of the issue,” reports RNZ Pacific.

Manele said a decision would be made in the next 100 days.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has arrived in Solomon Islands on a two-day state visit.

His trip to Honiara marks his first overseas trip since being elected in the May 18 federal election.

For Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, Morrison is his first overseas counterpart to officially visit him.

READ MORE: Morrison receives warm welcome in Solomons as he pushes Pacific ‘step-up’

The last Australian Prime Minister to visit Honiara was Kevin Rudd in 2008.

Morrison touched down at the Honiara International Airport at 5.20pm yesterday to a colourful welcome.

His party was greeted on arrival by Prime Minister Sogavare, his wife Madam Emmy Sogavare, Foreign Affairs Minister Jeremiah Manele and other top government officials.

After being welcomed and garlanded, Morrison then inspected a guard of honour on the tarmac.

Bilateral talks
Both prime ministers will hold bilateral talks later today.

A highlight is expected to be discuss about China’s presence in the region.

Other issues at the top of agenda will be climate change, labour mobility and ongoing Australian support to Solomon Islands.

Morrison has also announced a financial package to support Solomon Islands workers getting employment in Australia over three years.

Prime Minister Morrison will also meet with the Solomon Islands Football Federation (SIFF) president William Lai today to look at ways that Australia can assist the country in football.

It is understood Morrison will also meet with former Prime Minister Rick Hou today.

One of the major projects being supported by the Australian government is the the undersea cable which is set to be completed and is due to be launched September.

• Ian Kaukui  is a reporter with the Solomon Star newspaper.
  
• RNZ Pacific on the visit
• More Solomons stories

The man that has “always believed in miracles” has just delivered one for the Liberal party.

It’s not clear at the time of writing if the government will have minority or a narrow majority. But it is a deafening defeat for Labor.

This election result is an extraordinary achievement by a man that has doggedly presented himself as the ordinary, suburban dad.

READ MORE: The Junction student journalism coverage of the Australian federal election

Morrison — a man we are still just getting to know — was triumphant as he addressed a rapturous crowd.

It was an uncomplicated victory speech. He told us that Australia was a great country, thanked his family and — finally — his party for their roles in running a ruthlessly disciplined campaign and, promised to get back to work for the “quiet Australians”.

This is the most presidential campaign run by a single party in Australian history, pitted against the biggest policy target since John Hewson’s Fightback!. What really made this election singular was the impact of a quarter of voters preferring minor parties as their first preference.

At the beginning of the campaign, the task of defending so many safe seats from an insurgence of would-be liberal independents seemed overwhelmingly difficult. It would leave too many marginal seats under resourced to defend what has been an unpopular government, riven by infighting.

Negative campaign
Voters always say that they hate negative campaigns. But they work. Morrison deftly crafted his negative message around the unpopularity of Bill Shorten and the risk he posed to the “promise of Australia”.

Morrison has a gift for easy simplification. To give just one example, he framed the complex franking credits issue into the “retirement tax” scare.

At the same time, Morrison smoothed out this overwhelmingly negative campaign, and rounded out his previous public image as aggressive and shouty, by showing himself to be just another dad in the suburbs.

This is Morrison’s victory, and he will forever be a Liberal hero.

What do the Liberals want to do with three more years of power? By the campaign’s end, it remained a question without a detailed answer. And it is still the most important question.

By delivering a result most thought improbable, Morrison’s personal authority will be titanic within the Liberal party. It is not clear what the government’s agenda is beyond their tax plan. There remain several pressing policy questions particularly around climate and energy.

The government does not have a mandate to act in these policy domains and these are issues that are difficult internally for the Coalition.

Competing political traditions
Much is made of ideology within the Liberal Party. It is often presented as the factor that explains the party’s internal woes — and for good reason. The fusion of Australia’s Liberal and Conservative forces in 1909 mashed together what were previously two competing political traditions. They’ve had to co-exist ever since.

But ideological conflict within the liberal party is the symptom. The cause is that the party lacks effective institutional mechanisms to safely and semi-publicly debate ideas.

This also applies to how debates are undertaken. What are the formal rules about who, where and when party members can speak? Just as important are the informal norms around what can be said and in what context.

The Liberal party has traditionally relied on strong leaders to embody and articulate what it stands for. Successful leaders in the Liberal Party (like other conservative parties in Westminster systems) are dominant, but also deft enough to allow sufficient breathing room for their factional rivals.

More importantly, being a proven winner counts for a lot. With this victory, Morrison now has the opportunity to transform himself into precisely this kind of leader.

Liberal leaders’ dominance is reinforced by the way the party machine (but less so its members) has contented itself with setting out broad policy principles. This leaves the parliamentary Liberal party plenty of scope to interpret the political landscape and best position the party for electoral victory.

In the past, the Liberal Party’s links with civil society were strong. It had a healthy branch structure and was embedded in the lives of its core constituents. Today, the average age of its members is around 70, and the decline in party membership means that parties are no longer a key democratic link between representatives and voters.

More independent
This ultimately makes leaders more independent of their parties. We’ve seen this trend borne out in Australian parties over many decades, and particularly in Morrison’s campaign.

Finally, the Liberals have famously rejected formally recognised and organised factions. But in doing so, the party has also given up a tool for organising ideological interests and debates.

It’s hard to have both open and robust debate, and a dominant leader. Open debate is very quickly interpreted as dissent or “open revolt” by outside observers. It is even more challenging in government when discipline matters more and dissent is reported by the media as a failure of leadership.

As the party room has declined as a site of robust debate, the Liberal party’s primary mechanism for dealing with difficult ideological debates is leadership change. It is no accident that this party has been unable to resolve its internal debate on climate change, and has had six leaders in 12 years.

Climate change is so potent a debate within the coalition because it is really about changing the relationship between government, economy and citizens. How this ought – whether it ought – to be accomplished calls into question core assumptions about the role of the state and Australia’s sources of prosperity that have traditionally bound together the “broad church” of the Liberal party.

To be clear, the Liberal party has governed successfully under multiple leaders over decades by putting their faith in the leader to listen, but to ultimately set the course. This formula works when leaders’ authority is high. We should also never underestimate that simply keeping Labor out is sufficient reason for government for the conservative side of politics. At its simplest, their politics is one of incremental change, sound finance and fending off the “radicalism” of Labor.

Proven winner
Morrison is a proven winner and now has the chance to exercise his personal authority. He will need to address climate policy, because business wants a price signal for carbon emissions. He may follow in the footsteps of another giant of the Liberal Party, Robert Menzies, and poach some of Labor’s more compelling ideas, refashioning them through a Liberal lens.

While questions of the party’s ideology are important, the truth is, the party has always had to navigate tensions between its Liberal and Conservative traditions. This debate has never been settled and it is foolish to suggest that it ever would be.

The more pressing questions relate to how it will govern and win the next election. Over the long term, the party should really be asking how it will seek to renew itself, both in terms of ideas and candidates.

This win should not be an excuse for ongoing organisational drift and complacency.

Marija Taflaga, Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.