A Comparison of the Australian and Canadian Political Systems

John Kilcullen

Australians are no longer conscious of any particular relation to Canada, but during in its political and constitutional development during the 19th century Australia followed in the footsteps of the Canadian colonies. It was in Canada that the British government learned how to manage relations with British colonists successfully. The conflict that had led to the American War of Independence seemed likely to be repeated with the same result in the remaining British North American colonies, but it was averted by the grant to the Canadian colonies of "responsible government" in 1848. (See Dawson, The Government of Canada, chapter 1. See also documents on Canada, in particular the Durham Report. On "responsible government" see here). A similar grant of responsible government was made to New South Wales in 1856 and to the other Australian colonies at various dates. The Canadian colonies federated in 1867, the Australian colonies federated in 1900. Some provisions of the Australian federal constitution were borrowed from the Canadian constitution, the British North America Act.

Some differences

1. The British North America Act (now called the Constitution Act 1867) sections 91 and 92, gave specific powers to the Provinces (equivalent to our States) and gave the residue of government power to the Dominion (equivalent to our Commonwealth), whereas the Australian Constitution (Sections 51, 52) lists the powers of the Commonwealth and tacitly leaves the residue with the States.

(The framers of the Australian Constitution thought that the Canadian constitution's grant of the residue of power to the centre meant that the Dominion government would over time gain too much in power in comparison with the Provinces; see Helen Irving, To Constitute a Nation, pp. 64-6. This did not in fact happen in Canada, but in Australia the federal government has been able to extend its powers considerably, especially by use of Sections 51(xxix) and 96.)

2. The British North America Act, an act of the British Parliament, did not originally provide any method of amendment. It had to be amended in the way it was made, by the British Parliament. The Australian Constitution (also enacted by the British Parliament, after the draft had been accepted in a referendum in Australia) provided that future amendments would be made in Australia by referendum (Section 128), without further British intervention.

In the Canada Act of 1982 (also an Act of the British Parliament) provision was made for amendment in Canada, without recourse to Britain. (Canadians refer to this as the "patriation" of their constitution.) For the amendment process see Schedule B, Part V. The provisions are complex and restrictive. For an summary see the relevant section of E. Forsey, How Canadians Govern Themselves, pp.12-15. Amendment requires concurrence of Federal and Provincial Parliaments. In some cases all the Provinces must agree (e.g. to abolish the monarchy -- like Australia, Canada still has the British monarch as head of state). In some other cases there must be agreement of two-thirds of the Provinces including Provinces containing at least 50% of the population. There is no requirement for a referendum. (However, a referendum may be held, and some Provinces have legislated to require the Provincial government to hold a Provincial referendum before supporting or rejecting a proposed amendment to the Canadian constitution.)

3. Members of the Canadian Senate are appointed, when vacancies occur, by the federal Government of the day, and they hold office until age 75 -- i.e. they are never elected and do not come up for re-appointment. Normally the Canadian Senate does not persist in rejecting legislation approved by the Canadian House of Commons, though it has done so on some important occasions. The Australian Senate is an elected body which has often been in conflict with the House of Representatives.

4. When conflict occurs between the Canadian Senate and the lower house (the "House of Commons"), the only provision for breaking the deadlock is for the Government to appoint up to eight additional Senators. As far as I know, this has never been done. The Australian Constitution (Section 57) provides for double dissolution and a joint sitting.

5. The two countries' voting systems differ. In Canada the dominion and provincial lower houses are elected by "first past the post" voting in single-member constituencies. This encourages "tactical voting": for example, when the Conservatives look like winning, the NDP vote collapses because NDP voters vote tactically for the Liberals--though afterwards support for the NDP may recover, until the next crisis. This makes it hard for minor parties to grow their vote. Australian lower-house elections are by preferential voting, and in Tasmania and the ACT by Hare-Clark-Robson in multi-member constituencies.

Australia can still learn from Canada

Canada has always had many language groups and cultures -- First Nations, French, English, Ukrainian. In the 1960s there was a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which led to policies of multiculturalism (see "Canadian multiculturalism"), which have been imitated in Australia (see "Multiculturalism in Australia"). On multiculturalism and its opposite, viz. nationalism, see my comments here.

Canada pioneered a way of constitutionally safeguarding human rights while preserving the sovereignty of Parliament (the "notwithstanding" clause). See Forsey, pp.15-17. See my note, "An Australian Bill of Rights".

Return to A Comparison of the Australian, British and American Political Systems

Return to The Australian Constitution: A First Reading.

Return to Teaching Materials on Politics