Change in Australia

[Edward Campbell]

ER . .  I think the Australian Labour Party would be a bit miffed  being equated to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The ALP is owned and operated by organized labour and are much closer, but even more hard core than our NDP.


Agreed the Liberals are close kin to our Conservatives and Abbot is as personality challenged as PM Harper.  Both are peas in a pod when it comes to political philosophy.

Grand day for Australia.  No longer held hostage to the mimilast Green Party support in a minority government situation.

Yes, good point. Labour, even "modern" Labour is, indeed, an amalgam of our NDP and the left wing of our Liberals.

 

[mad dog 2020]

CREATING A GREEN ARMY

INTRODUCTION

The Howard Government implemented the Green Corps programme in 1996 to employ young people in environmental projects to preserve and restore our natural and cultural environment.
The Green Corps provided young people with improved career and employment prospects through accredited training, on-the-project training and personal development while participating in environmental and heritage projects.
Over the life of the Green Corps programme under the Howard Government, participants delivered the following outcomes:
propagated and planted over 14 million trees;
erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing;
cleared over 50,000 hectares of weeds;
constructed or maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking track or boardwalks.
Specific projects funded under the former Coalition Government’s Green Corps programme included:
the Peel Waterways Foreshore Protection and Rehabilitation Project, which focussed on improving the waterway health of the Peel-Yalgorup Wetlands system; and
he Jarrahdale Heritage Park project, which focussed on implementing revegetation works to the Gooralong Brooke Foreshore.
Under the Rudd-Gillard Government, the successful Green Corps programme was replaced with the National Green Jobs Corps, which effectively re-classified unemployed people who continued to receive an income support payment, and was then abolished altogether.
A cleaner environment is an essential part of restoring hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians because we should leave our country in better shape than we found it.
The Coalition will create a standing ‘Green Army’ that will gradually build to a 15,000 strong environmental workforce. We will create and properly resource the Green Army, as a larger and more lasting version of the former Green Corps. It will be Australia’s largest-ever environmental deployment.
It will mark the first time that Australia has approached environmental remediation with the same seriousness and level of organisation that we have long brought to bushfire preparedness and other local and regional priorities.
Australia’s unique landscape instils in us a deep appreciation of the fragility of the natural environment and the requirement to protect it.
The Green Army complements our ‘Direct Action’ approach to climate change.
Direct Action provides Australians with the opportunity for individuals, communities, organisations and companies to help address our environmental challenges.
Our Direct Action policy will ensure reductions in carbon emissions take place within Australia without slugging families, businesses and the economy with a great big carbon tax.
Our policies will make a real difference to improving the environment in our own backyard and addressing climate change.
Our vision for Australia is a country where, individually and collectively, we can more often be our best selves.
Australians are generous, decent, optimistic and committed people who want to do the right thing by those around them.
THE PLAN

The Coalition’s Green Army will build to 15,000 young people, the largest standing environmental workforce in Australia’s history. The objective of the Green Army is to combat land degradation, clean up our waterways, provide real and practical solutions to cleaning up riverbanks and creek beds, re-vegetate sand dunes, re-vegetate mangrove habitat and a host of other environmental conservation projects.
The Coalition believes in encouraging hands-on, practical, grassroots environmental action as a means of fixing environmental problems, as well as tapping into the knowledge of local communities, encouraging them to identify and fix their own local problems.
This approach fosters teamwork, local ownership and community spirit.
The Green Army will provide funding to work with, and complement the work undertaken by, local land care groups, bush care groups, foreshore communities, Natural Resource Management (NRM) Groups, local catchment authorities and councils in their work remediating the local environment.
Importantly, the scheme will provide on the job training for young people.
Participants will receive a training allowance, as well as gaining valuable work skills and potential qualifications in different areas of environmental remediation.
Each project will be unique in its focus, with training tailored to specific local environmental priorities including:
propagation and planting of native seedlings;
weed control;
re-vegetation and regeneration of local parks;
habitat protection and restoration;
improving water quality by cleaning up waterways;
re-vegetation of sand dunes and mangroves;
creek bank regeneration;
foreshore and beach restoration;
construction of boardwalks and walking tracks to protect local wildlife; and
cultural heritage restoration.
There are a range of potential projects that have already been submitted for consideration to the Coalition including:
Weed eradication
Undertaking weed eradication and fuel reduction activities in natural bushland reserves to improve native vegetation and reduce bushfire risk to homes close to bush areas on the fringe of metropolitan areas.
Coastal
Protecting beaches from further erosion through the construction of sea walls and coastal stabilisation works.
River clearing
Remediation projects along rivers by rehabilitating foreshores, stabilising riverbanks, reducing weed density to improve water flow and improving water quality.
Indigenous focused
Local Indigenous communities working to maintain and protect local significant sites through weed management, cleaning up of local creeks,re- vegetation and regeneration of local parks.
Rural projects
Restoration plans to link up old walking tracks through weed eradication, vegetation management, bush regeneration, protecting cultural sites and historic places, through activities including erosion control, fencing and revegetation works.
The work a person undertakes as part of a Green Army programme would normally be counted toward the requirements of a training course such as a Certificate 1 or 2 in land management, park management, landscaping or horticulture.
Green Army projects will run for up to 26 weeks (full-time). Projects will deploy nine participants led by a supervisor who will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the project.
Funding will be provided to each Green Army team for materials and equipment to allow participants to carry out their work.
The scheme is an opt-in programme initially for 17-24 year olds.
Participants can apply as school leavers and gap year students and the unemployed can also opt to join the Green Army as an alternative to Work for the Dole programmes.
Upon completion, there will be opportunities for participants to undertake further education and training or potential employment with councils, state and national parks, as well as undertake careers in the thousands of environmental businesses across Australia.
The Green Army programme will be managed by the Environment Department.
To streamline application processes for both potential projects and Green Army applicants, the Department will conduct project assessments once every six months.
Projects will be assessed on a merit basis against their environmental benefits, their contribution to the local community and their potential to enhance skills training for participants.
Participants will be assessed on a merit basis against their employment status, location relative to approved projects, commitment to skills training, and contribution to the community.
This workforce will be capable of supplying the skilled, motivated and sustained attention that large-scale environmental remediation needs.
The Green Army will be available on an ongoing basis (over and above the existing efforts of councils, farmers, volunteers and national parks personnel) to tackle the environmental tasks that most urgently need willing hands to do the job.
There are hundreds of organisations and local environmental groups across Australia that are already doing some of this work, mostly on a volunteer basis, and they deserve our recognition for making this country a better, cleaner and safer place. These groups, plus local councils, could submit conservation projects that require a significant labour force.
The Green Army will renew the type of work done through the Natural Heritage Trust under the former Coalition Government. Between 1997 and 2007, $5.1 billion was invested to help more than 800,000 volunteers to support threatened species in over 1.4 million hectares of habitat; reduce pests and weeds across over 15 million hectares and help protect eight million hectares of wetlands.
Our Green Army will deliver tangible benefits for the environment, skills development for thousands of young Australians, and will strengthen local community involvement.
THE CHOICE

The Coalition’s Green Army will be Australia’s biggest deployment of personnel for environmental restoration.
It will be the first time that we have approached environmental remediation with the same seriousness and level of organisation that we have brought to bushfire preparedness or other local and regional priorities.
The Coalition previously rolled out the successful Green Corps programme that saw over 17,000 young Australians participate in over 1,700 projects – projects that provided real benefits for the environment, tangible skills training for participants and strengthened local communities.
The Labor Government, by contrast, stripped the former Green Corps programme and transformed it into a programme where young long-term unemployed Australians were re- classified and continued to receive an income support payment, but with very little done to help the environment.
Labor’s programme did little to motivate the long-term unemployed to move into employment. The programme was not designed to assist those specifically interested in conservation of our natural environment to participate.
Labor’s approach to the environment is to hit families, businesses and the economy with a great big new tax that not only increases the cost of living, but according to the Government’s own forecasting, will actually see an increase in Australia’s carbon emissions by 2020.
The Coalition’s Green Army programme will encourage hands-on, practical, grassroots environmental action as a means of fixing environmental problems, as well as tapping into the knowledge of local communities, encouraging them to identify and fix their own local problems.
COST

The Coalition’s Green Army will begin with 250 projects in 2014-15, building up to 1,500 projects in 2018-19.
By 2018-19, it is estimated that there will be a standing force of 15,000 people who will be taking part in the Green Army each year.
The Coalition’s Green Army will cost up to $50 million in the first year starting on 1 July 2014 and $300 million over the forward estimates period (with total costs capped at a maximum of $300 million).
It is expected that this will provide for over 1,500 Green Army projects over the forward estimates period.

 

[The Bread Guy]

CREATING A GREEN ARMY ....

1)  How about sharing a link for this?
http://www.liberal.org.au/creating-green-army

2)  Moving this to the appropriate thread.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[RDBZ]

ER . .  I think the Australian Labour Party would be a bit miffed  being equated to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The ALP is owned and operated by organized labour and are much closer, but even more hard core than our NDP.


Agreed the Liberals are close kin to our Conservatives and Abbot is as personality challenged as PM Harper.  Both are peas in a pod when it comes to political philosophy.

Grand day for Australia.  No longer held hostage to the mimilast Green Party support in a minority government situation.

I agree with your sentiments regarding the Greens. It was an alliance that doomed Labor right form the start. 

But the days of the Australian Labor Party being "hard core" are long gone.  When only 13% of the work force are members of a union, you can't sustain a polticlal party on "hard core" poltics.  The National Broadband Network is far from "hard core", similarly a broad range of programs targeted at industry, and industry competitiveness.  Historically, it was Labor in the 1980s who reversed Australia's till then drift towards a protectionsit economic stance, and started shifting responsibility for funding issues like teriary education and retirement firmly back onto the individual.  It was also Labor that started to dismantel the conditions of employment of federal employees.

The carbon tax; yes that was "hard core" in some respects, but it was very much a reluctant product of their doomed alliance with the Greens.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Interesting, maybe: two days after the polls closed it appears, from ABC's "live results," that 22+% of the vote is still not counted or, at least, is not reported, and that 16 of 150 seats are, therefore, still in doubt.

Can anyone explain, please?

 

[RDBZ]

Interesting, maybe: two days after the polls closed it appears, from ABC's "live results," that 22+% of the vote is still not counted or, at least, is not reported, and that 16 of 150 seats are, therefore, still in doubt.

Can anyone explain, please?

I suspect its simply due to Australia's use of preferential ballots rather than a simple "first past the post" system.  In short, it complicates counting when no candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote on first preferences.  Its also the reason why it takes so long for the outcomes of the Senate ballot to be determined, as its essentially a proportional representation system.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, for that ... is it still, as I assume guess, a manual counting system?


ff topic:
(Some Canadian jurisdictions, Ottawa being one, use various sorts of electronic voting. Here in Ottawa, in the most recent municipal elections, we used the "mark sense" system which uses a paper ballot and electronic counting. It speeds up the counting and reporting processes and still allows for physical recounts. The technology would, I am fairly certain, be easily adapted to preferential ballot systems.)

 

[Lightguns]

I outcomes of the Senate ballot to be determined, as its essentially a proportional representation system.

Such dirty words....senate and proportional representation system in the da same sentence.  Ya trying to start a yawn in Canada?

 

[RDBZ]

Thanks, for that ... is it still, as I assume guess, a manual counting system?


ff topic:
(Some Canadian jurisdictions, Ottawa being one, use various sorts of electronic voting. Here in Ottawa, in the most recent municipal elections, we used the "mark sense" system which uses a paper ballot and electronic counting. It speeds up the counting and reporting processes and still allows for physical recounts. The technology would, I am fairly certain, be easily adapted to preferential ballot systems.)

Yes , they are manual systems.  The ACT trialled the use of electronic systems in Territory elections, but I'm not sure how extensive that was nor the results.  Another significant factor in causing delays is the almost automatic application of recounts when margins are small.

 

[RDBZ]

Such dirty words....senate and proportional representation system in the da same sentence.  Ya trying to start a yawn in Canada?

In terms of power and its role in the political system, the Australian Senate is much more comparable to the US Senate than it is to the UK or Canadian equivalents.  In fact, on balance it has more power than its US equivalent.  The only time an Australian government has been sacked by the Governor General, and new elections called both houses,  was due to an obstructionist Senate and the fiscal gridlock it caused.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We will soon know which party Australians have picked, but, in the interim, Prof Hugh White offers a look at the foreign policy tug-of-war in which Australians must compete in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Foreign Affairs:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139902/hugh-white/australias-choice?cid=nlc-this_week_on_foreign_affairs-090513-australias_choice_4-090513&sp_mid=42509875&sp_rid=Y29sb25lbHRlZGNhbXBiZWxsQGdtYWlsLmNvbQS2

The key is, I think, "Canberra is simply doing what smaller powers usually do when they are caught between rival giants: they try to tell both what they want to hear."

Prof White suggests that neither Washington nor Beijing misunderstands Canberra's signals, but he hints, and I agree, that Washington's understanding of its own policies towards China and he whole Pacific region is confused: "... the United States’ whole approach to China is indeed based on a lingering hope that Beijing fundamentally accepts U.S. primacy ... [but] ... this hope is false. China is challenging the U.S.-led order in Asia; it seeks to replace it with “a new model of great-power relations.”"

But Australia is not the only country caught between a confused America and a rising, (mostly) focused China ~ so is Canada, although geography makes our choice simpler, if not always easier.

And here is more from Hugh White, reproduced again under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Foreign Affairs:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139914/hugh-white/will-abbott-choose-china

Will Abbott Choose China?
Australia Out to Sea

High White

September 9, 2013

Australian voters were not thinking much about foreign policy when they voted last weekend to dismiss the Labor government of Kevin Rudd and install a conservative government under Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition Liberal Party. Instead, the election hinged on sharp domestic debates and on personality questions. Both sides tacitly agreed to ignore the huge foreign policy question that looms over the country: How should Australia position itself between its traditional ally, the United States, and its major trading partner, China, as their strategic rivalry grows?

That question cannot be dodged for long, and it will now fall to Abbott to find an answer. Like most Australian politicians, Abbott has little experience in foreign affairs and apparently little interest in it. There is no evidence that he has thought much about what is happening in Asia or what it means for Australia. So it would be a big surprise if he came to office with any fully formed plans. What he brings instead is a rather typically Australian mix of conservatism and pragmatism, and the example of his model, mentor, and predecessor: the last Liberal prime minister, John Howard.

As a classic Australian conservative, Abbott puts great store in Australia’s traditional alliances -- not just with the United States but also with the United Kingdom, to which he retains a much deeper sentimental attachment than do most Australians today. He talks a lot about the “Anglosphere,” which seems to occupy a central place in his worldview. That means that his first instinct will always be to support the United States in whatever it is trying to do. In one of the few campaign remarks that he made about foreign policy on issues other than Syria, Abbott said that he would always be inclined to offer the United States whatever support it asked for.

Abbott’s conservatism also inclines him to be uneasy about modern China. Like many people in the West -- and not just conservatives -- he finds it uncomfortable that China could grow so quickly and become so powerful despite its authoritarian one-party political system. That challenges his deeply held ideas about the ascendency of democratic principles, which had seemed so decisively validated by the collapse of communism elsewhere in the world.

But to assume that Abbott will always side with the United States over China overlooks the other side of his political creed. Abbott prides himself on being a pragmatic politician who deals with issues on their merits. And the biggest reality for Australia today is that China’s rise offers incredible economic opportunities in the region. Abbott will soon find that Beijing does not allow Canberra to take these opportunities for granted. The Chinese are quite willing and able to threaten Australia’s economic prospects when they think that Canberra is adopting policies contrary to their interests. Despite his conservative instincts, Abbott’s pragmatic concern for Australia’s prosperity and his own political interests ensures that he will respond to this kind of pressure. And that means that his support for the United States in Asia will often be less forthcoming than Washington hopes and expects.

As Abbott walks this careful line between Washington and Beijing, he will, indeed, be following in Howard’s footsteps. Howard is commonly assumed to have repositioned Australia away from Asia and even closer to the United States. In reality, though, he went a long way to court Beijing, doing whatever it took to build the economic relationship that has served Australia so well, while still appearing to draw closer to Washington. Abbott no doubt hopes that he can do the same. But ties have changed since Howard left office in 2007. The strategic rivalry between the United States and China is much more overt now, and is only likely to intensify. Canberra now faces more pressure from both sides, which gives Abbott much less room for maneuvering and obfuscation than Howard had.

It will be tempting for Abbott to just cross his fingers and hope for the best, but that is not his only option. The statesmanlike thing would be to try to reduce the risk of escalating the U.S.-China rivalry by urging both sides to settle their differences and to agree to share power in Asia. This would be a very radical and unexpected thing for any Australian leader to do, and nobody looking at Abbott’s conservative record would imagine that he might be the one to do it. But of course that is Abbott’s trump card. In 1972, only someone with President Richard Nixon’s record could afford to visit Beijing. By the same token, Abbott might just be the one who could revolutionize Australia’s foreign policy to address the new realities of the Asian century.

Remember, please, that, back in 2006, 07 and 08 people like me were complaining, at the time, that Stephen Harper's "conservatism also inclines him to be uneasy about modern China. Like many people in the West -- and not just conservatives -- he finds it uncomfortable that China could grow so quickly and become so powerful despite its authoritarian one-party political system. That challenges his deeply held ideas about the ascendency of democratic principles, which had seemed so decisively validated by the collapse of communism elsewhere in the world." I expect Prime Minister Abbott will respond to China, and America, much as Prime Minister Harper has and for precisely the same reasons.

 

[RDBZ]

Julia Gillard, one of Australia’s most left wing politicians of the post WWII era, welcomed the basing of US marines in the Northern Territory with open arms.  To a degree that was not about how much Australians generally fear an emerging China, but how much Australia values its ties to its culturally and socially close ally across the Pacific.

The rise of China is far more likely to pose deep questions and debate for US allies like Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan (of course).  Even New Zealand, a country that walked out of the ANZUS alliance in the 1980s and has since not made any significant efforts to maintain a comprehensive alliance relationship even with Australia, may pose a challenge for the US.

 

[CougarKing]

We'll see.

link

New Australian Leadership Pledges to Boost Defense Spending

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA — Now that the Australian Liberal-National Party Coalition led by Tony Abbott has won an emphatic victory over the Australian Labor Party, attention will turn to choosing a defense minister and following through on a pledge to return defense spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the next 10 years.

Prior to the Sept. 9 election, shadow Defense Minister David Johnston had reaffirmed the coalition’s commitment to the US alliance, the acquisition of major capabilities such as F-35 joint strike fighters and future submarines.
Vote counting is underway in several marginal seats and Prime Minister-elect Abbott had not named his new cabinet as of Sept. 13, but it is almost certain that Johnston will be sworn in as the new defense minister, possibly early in the week.

During the campaign, both sides made the pledge to boost defense spending. The only major difference on defense matters between the two parties was then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s announcement that a re-elected Labor Government would relocate the Navy’s main base north from Sydney to a range of proposed locations in Queensland.

The Aug. 27 announcement, made two weeks before the ballot, took many by surprise and, according to the opposition, contradicted the findings of the government’s defense white paper released in May, which discounted the move on cost grounds.

Speaking to media after the announcement, Johnston said, “Almost all of these options are not suitable for a new base and would require billions of dollars to redevelop them for such a purpose.”

In the week following the debate, the coalition released its own defense policy, which although light on detail, reaffirmed Australia’s position on strategy and capability and promised its own white paper.

It its policy statement, the coalition listed its priorities as the defense of Australia and its direct approaches, fostering security in the region, supporting strategic stability in the wider Asia-Pacific region and supporting global security.

“The coalition is unequivocally committed to the strong and enduring alliance with the United States of America. We will look at areas where it would be in the mutual interest of Australia and the United States to deepen our longstanding alliance relationship building on the recent announcement to rotate a Marine brigade through Darwin,” the report noted of the coalition’s relationship with the US. “Such initiatives will be in Australia’s security interests and will assist the United States in its broader objectives of remaining forward-deployed in the Asia-Pacific region and of dispersing its military forces within the region.”

With regard to the restoration of defense spending to 2 percent of GDP however, Mark Thompson of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute notes that Australia will have at least three more federal elections in the next 10 years and estimates that around 5.3 percent of real growth per year will be required to achieve the goal.

“If the government is going to make good on its promise of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense within a decade, they can’t afford to skip a year or two and then try to play catch up. Resisting the urge to do so in a couple of years’ time when a [budget] surplus is within reach will be the test of how seriously their promise can be taken,” he said.

Three capabilities were specifically mentioned in the coalition’s policy: the Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter, a broad area maritime surveillance UAV such as Northrop Grumman’s MQ-4C Triton and Australia’s Future Submarine program.

The coalition said it remains committed to the joint strike fighter and, subject to advice from the service chiefs, will proceed with the initial purchase of up to 72 aircraft. Australia’s requirement for up to 100 aircraft will be considered in the light of the previous government’s decision to acquire a dozen Boeing E/A-18G Growlers and decision around the future of the Super Hornet fleet, which essentially maintains the status quo.

Prior to the election campaign, the coalition had said it would acquire broad area maritime UAVs for border surveillance as a matter of priority, but the policy statement reflects a more circumspect approach. “The acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles will be dependent on the advice of the chief of the Defence Force and service chiefs, as well as a clear cost-benefit assessment that demonstrates the value of these aircraft,” it stated, adding that the coalition saw merit in acquiring new state-of-the-art UAVs.

“They have softened their policy on Triton, their policy 12 months ago was to go ‘hell for leather,’ but they’ve decided to have a more measured look at it,” said Andrew Davies, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s senior analyst for military capability. “I think that’s a fair reading; they have realized it is a really complex business.”

Finally, the coalition says it will ensure the existing Collins-class submarines will have a service-life extension to ensure they remain a viable capability ahead of the Future Submarine project. It has also pledged to make decisions to ensure Australia has no gap in submarine capability within 18 months of the election.
Johnston has previously ruled out nuclear propulsion as an option for the Future Submarine program, telling ABC radio last November that, “Nuclear submarines are not a coalition policy and they are not on the table for us to be examining.”

If this policy holds true, it aligns with that of the previous government and would appear to rule out the possibility of the Virginia-class nuclear submarine being acquired from the US.

“I would doubt that the nuclear option would be on the table,” Davies said. “I don’t think the money will be there for it. But there are worse things than designing and building your own giant conventional submarine.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was unprepared for this: "Malcolm Turnbull topples Tony Abbott in Liberal leadership ballot. [size=12pt]Malcolm Turnbull has defeated Tony Abbott 54-44 in a Liberal Party leadership ballot and will become the nation's 29th prime minister." I knew Prime Minister Abbott was embroiled in a leadership battle, I didn't see a defeat coming.

 

[dimsum]

I was unprepared for this: "Malcolm Turnbull topples Tony Abbott in Liberal leadership ballot. [size=12pt]Malcolm Turnbull has defeated Tony Abbott 54-44 in a Liberal Party leadership ballot and will become the nation's 29th prime minister." I knew Prime Minister Abbott was embroiled in a leadership battle, I didn't see a defeat coming.

I don't think anyone was, given that Mr. Turnbull resigned from Cabinet after Question Time, challenged that afternoon/evening and won, all in the space of 5 or so hours. 

There were rumblings about him being asked to challenge the leadership about a year ago, but no one thought anything would actually come about.  A side effect may be that Australia will finally have their referendum on same-sex marriage, as it seemed that its main stumbling block was Mr. Abbott himself. 

Side note:  With this event, Wiki says no Australian PM has lasted his/her full term since John Howard's in 2007. 

Also mods, feel free to merge http://army.ca/forums/threads/120512/post-1389021/topicseen.html#new with this one - forgot there was one going already  :-[

 

[dimsum]

The Atlantic has a good primer on the last few coups/elections in Australia, and what parallels (if any) there are between US politicians and Mr. Abbott/Mr. Turnbull.  For the record, below are the ones that have happened in the past 5 years:

    2010, June: PM Kevin Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard 
    2013, June: PM Gillard was replaced by ex-PM Rudd 
    2013, September: PM-again Rudd was replaced by Tony Abbott 
    2015, September: PM Abbott was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull—whom, it happens, Abbott had unseated as party leader back in 2009.

I, for one, am surprised the country even functioned during the time of The Killing Field, as the ABC documentary of the first 4 coups was titled.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/what-just-happened-in-australian-politics/405187/?utm_source=SFFB

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting look at this from The American Interest. WRM also makes some observations about how economic chance induces political changes with a side reference to Canada. An interesting angle which was partially described in the book "The Big Shift", and related to my hypothesis that changes in demographics, technology and social conditions makes current political and social structures ill suited for the new challenges of today. Politicla parties self destructing has happened in the past (ask the Whigs and Federalists, or the Progressive Conservatives), especially when they no longer have any answers or responses to the issues of the day:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/14/tory-coup-in-australia/

Tory Coup in Australia

An internal challenge from the centrist wing of his own party has overthrown the Prime Minister of Australia. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Malcolm Turnbull will succeed Tony Abbott as Australia’s prime minister after a party rebellion that may moderate the country’s stance on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to climate change and economic policy.

Mr. Turnbull called for a leadership ballot earlier Monday as voter surveys pointed to defeat for the ruling Liberal-National conservative coalition at federal elections due next year. The 60-year-old former investment banker defeated Mr. Abbott by 54 votes to 44.

Australia can’t be a banana republic, because its voters have never agreed to replace Queen Elizabeth with an elected President. But otherwise, after generations of a fairly stable political environment, it seems to be moving to a much more volatile system.
The last Labour government had as much plot as Macbeth, with backstabbings, palace coups, and intrigues galore. Prime Ministers came and went until the voters swept out the whole pack—despite a solid economy.

Now the Coalition, a center right group, is going through the same kind of tumult. Abbot became leader of the Tories by staging his own intra-party coup against Turnbull while both were in the Opposition; he was then elected Prime Minister in 2010. Abbott has had a turbulent run in office (not helped by China’s economic troubles, and the fact that Australia may be facing its first recession in 24 years), and he already survived one formal challenge to his leadership in February. Now, Abbott is back out of office and Turnbull in—but today’s events hardly seem a recipe for long-term stability in the ruling party.

What happens to Australia matters more to the world than it used to. Like Canada, it is a rising power. It has a sophisticated economy, strong educational system, growing population, good record with assimilating immigrants, and an extraordinary resource base. Both Australia and Canada seem to be encountering some political turbulence as they rise; that’s not unusual. In rising powers with rapidly developing economies and evolving societies, political institutions and parties have a hard time keeping up with the changes in the wider society. And as countries become stronger economically and more important politically, their global interests become more complicated, and domestic struggles over foreign policy can become harder to resolve.

One of those struggles will likely affect Australia’s relations with the United States. Turnbull is a member of the Australian school that believes the country needs to balance more effectively between the U.S.—Australia’s main security partner—and China, its main economic partner.

Australians who take this view are liable to misunderstand the nature of China’s rise, and to underestimate the importance (economically as well as strategically) of the network of powers from Japan and Korea to India that are creating a new Asian alignment. As a result, the China School could end up weakening Australian ties with the U.S. and other important states in Asia without gaining anything from China.

Australian foreign policy shouldn’t consist simply of saying “Yes, sir!” and saluting every time Washington makes a proposal. There are ways that Australia’s location and interests give it important insights into common problems, and if Washington is smart it will listen closely to what Canberra has to say. But the China School seems to misunderstand the nature of the impact of the rise of China on regional politics, overestimating what China is capable of doing and underestimating the determination and capability of states like India, Korea, Vietnam, and Japan to balance China’s rise. A rising China makes alliance politics more complicated and more important for Australia as well as for other countries in the Pacific—that much the China school gets right. But the answer isn’t to distance oneself from allies and partners; it’s to engage more deeply and thoughtfully in order to develop effective ways to promote peaceful Asian integration.

At the end of the day, though, these domestic struggles and foreign quibbles are mostly the growing pains that come from Australia’s increasingly important role on the global scene. In the 19th century, the UK dominated the Anglosphere. In the 20th century, it was the U.S., with Britain reduced to second fiddle. The U.S. won’t be fading away in the 21st century, but the Anglosphere may start looking like a string quartet, in which four distinct but connected fiddles make music that intrigues (and sometimes infuriates) the whole world.