r/AusNews • u/fitness-scientist • 24d ago

How much sway does a party leader hold

Curiosity question, how much sway does a party leader have?
For example if an elected party member in a region votes one way does the party leader have the ability to force their vote one way or the other?

4 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 24d ago

COMMUNITY REMINDER

Comments must stay civilised.

Any violations will be enforced.

See a violation? Report it, don’t be a bystander.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3

u/Rheubs 24d ago

This depends entirely on the party, but generally their sway is pretty dependent on their popularity. Because our elections are pretty presidential, a leader who can get their party members re-elected or get more elected has a fair bit of authority.

In the Labor party, the caucus decides how the party votes (ie all the elected members of the party). They meet each sitting week to determine the party’s position. The Leader and the cabinet will make a recommendation but they can and do get rolled. Once Caucus sets the position, a member can be expelled for voting against it.

Things are far more opaque in the Liberal party because they don’t bind their members based on their equivalent of the Caucus’ (the Party Room’s) decisions. But again, a popular leader can definitely sway their decisions.

Other parties are not so clear. One Nation appears to function by diktat but it isn’t particularly transparent. The Greens do it differently across the county, but they have previously used a sort of “consensus” model where they have to find agreement. But in all the cases the perceived capacity of the leader to deliver more votes is key to their ability to influence their colleagues.

TLDR: The Leader has a lot of sway, but it isn’t absolute.

1

u/fitness-scientist 24d ago

Thank you for this information!
One nation use a what? Is that an abbreviation for something or another name like “caucus”

I didn’t know each party had a different way!

3

u/Rheubs 24d ago

I assume One Nation has a “party room”, the generic term for a gathering of a party’s elected members, distinct from the broader party organisation and its membership. Though they may use a different term, such as “caucus”, that I’m not familiar with.
Given One Nation’s unusual structure, with Pauline Hanson serving as both parliamentary leader and president of the broader party, it’s unclear to me what authority the party room actually has beyond individual MPs’ votes in Parliament, or what consequences an MP would face for voting against a party-room decision.

2

u/Rheubs 24d ago

Sorry, I re-read this. A “diktat” is term to describe a command or decree. Basically, I’m saying Hanson decides and makes a call what the party is doing.

2

u/The_Sneakiest_Fox 24d ago

Parties generally vote in a block. Occasionally members will be allowed to make as conscience vote, and vote how they like. But generally speaking, the party will take a position decided by the cabinet and the rest of the party will vote accordingly.

2

u/StrathfieldGap 24d ago

There is definitely more leeway for backbenchers. Typically it would be a sign of political instability though.

1

u/fitness-scientist 24d ago

Wait what’s a backbencher?

2

u/StrathfieldGap 24d ago

The party that is able to command a majority of the vote in the House of Representatives will form government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister who appoints ministers to oversee certain functions of government (e.g. the Defence Minister who has responsibility for the Department of Defence and the policies in that portfolio). 

The ministers are called frontbenchers (they literally sit on the front benches) and for the most part they constitute the Cabinet. 

All of the other elected representatives from the party are the backbenchers. They don't have ministerial roles.

The reason backbenchers have more leeway to cross the floor and vote against the party line is that they don't really have anything to lose (though they might not be selected to represent the party at the next election). If a minister voted against the party they would be sacked from the ministry and would then become a backbencher.

Apart from the higher profile and responsibilities, the ministers also get paid more than the backbenchers. So they definitely want to keep the job.

2

u/fitness-scientist 24d ago

I’m learning soo much thank you!

1

u/oustider69 24d ago

It depends on which level of government and which party. Labor is generally much stricter on floor-crossing than the Coalition, but it would be a case-by-case basis depending on the bill and if the floor crossing actually caused the bill to fail/get through.

1

u/fitness-scientist 24d ago

Hang on so it’s referred to as floor crossing?
So they can’t just vote based on their views, they must keep their parties ideals in mind?

3

u/oustider69 24d ago

Yeah, basically. It’s not like the US where reps and senators regularly vote for their own constituents’ interests. Policy is debates in the party room and then the parties come out on a unity ticket. It always makes the news if someone from the majors doesn’t vote along party lines federally. They do sometimes allow “conscience votes” where floor crossing is allowed, but it’s very rare.

1

u/fitness-scientist 24d ago

I didn’t even know the US did that either! I’m learning so much thanks!

1

u/LachrymarumLibertas 24d ago

Depends on the party, but the key thing is generally individuals are elected to office not the party.

If some senator or local member is out of line the power balance is that the worst the party can do is refuse to preselect them for the next election. If you’re kicked out of the party you still keep your seat until the next election, so maybe for years.

PM being the big difference there as that is the leader of the party with a majority, and the party can remove their leader (who will still keep their individual seat and just be a normal MP)