Australian Journal of International Affairs
ISSN: 1035-7718 (Print) 1465-332X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caji20
The Liberal National Coalition, Australian Labor
Party and Africa: two decades of partisanship in
Australia’s foreign policy
Nikola Pijovic
To cite this article: Nikola Pijovic (2016) The Liberal National Coalition, Australian Labor Party and
Africa: two decades of partisanship in Australia’s foreign policy, Australian Journal of International
Affairs, 70:5, 541-562, DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2016.1167835
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1167835
Published online: 18 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 887
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caji20
,AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2016
VOL. 70, NO. 5, 541–562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1167835
The Liberal National Coalition, Australian Labor Party and
Africa: two decades of partisanship in Australia’s foreign
policy
Nikola Pijovic
National Security College, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The issue of bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy is not often Africa; Australian foreign
substantially addressed. The country’s relations with the world policy; bipartisanship; middle
appear to exhibit strong continuity regardless of the political party powers; political rhetoric
in government. And yet, when it comes to engagement with
African states and issues, the last two decades have seen highly
prominent partisan differences in Australian foreign policy. This
article utilises the example of Australia’s foreign policy
engagement with Africa to argue that there may be two levels of
understanding bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy. On the
one hand, aimed at relationships and issues perceived to be of
primal and significant security and economic well-being for the
country, Australian foreign policy does indeed appear to be
bipartisan. However, aimed at relationships and issues that have
traditionally been perceived as holding minimal security and
economic interest and importance for the country, Australian
foreign policy does exhibit partisanship.
The debate about bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy ran its most prominent
course in the 1980s, with the last substantial contribution concluding that any general
statements on bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy ‘are obviously misleading’ (Mat-
thews and Ravenhill 1988, 19). An yet, notwithstanding such cautions, and given the
obvious continuity in many aspects of Australia’s relations with the world, it is difficult
to fight the notion that the country does, indeed, at least to some extent and on certain
issues, enjoy a bipartisan foreign policy. As classical writing on political parties, and
especially two-party Westminster political systems, has made clear, in order to secure elec-
toral success, major parties will ‘agree on any issues that a majority of citizens strongly
favour’, thereby becoming ‘catch-all parties’ which pursue ‘votes at the expense of ideol-
ogy’, trying to appeal to an ever wider audience (Downs 1957, 297; Kirchheimer 1966; Wil-
liams 2009, 539). This process decreases any distinguishable policy differences between the
major parties, relegating such differences mainly to the periphery of their political
agendas.
CONTACT Nikola Pijovic
© 2016 Australian Institute of International Affairs
, 542 N. PIJOVIC
These ideas about political parties offer a good background to better understanding (bi)
partisanship in Australia’s foreign policy. Both of Australia’s two major political forces—
the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal National Coalition (Coalition)—espouse
different foreign policy traditions and ideas about Australia’s place in the world, and have
utilised them in constructing distinct foreign policy outlooks. However, these foreign
policy outlooks do not necessarily exclude similar means of satisfying often similar
foreign policy goals and, notwithstanding differing foreign policy outlooks, international
politics, economic interdependencies, and the ‘demands of office’ and ‘administrative
reality’, do imply a certain degree of bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy (Millar
1985, 2; Matthews and Ravenhill 1988, 10).
Many have observed that foreign policy outlooks mostly serve the purpose of party
differentiation for electoral purposes, and that in (at least) its main contours, Australia’s
foreign policy is largely bipartisan (Albinski 1977, 35; Lee and Waters 1997; Gyngell
and Wesley 2007, 150). Even Australia’s prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Bob
Hawke announced that Australia in fact enjoyed a bipartisan foreign policy (Whitlam,
quoted in Albinski 1977, 338; Hawke, quoted in Matthews and Ravenhill 1988, 11), and
Kevin Rudd, acting as the ALP’s Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International
Security in 2004, argued that:
During the quarter century from the election of the Whitlam Government to the election of
the Howard Government, a broad consensus was achieved on the enduring themes of Aus-
tralia’s foreign policy engagement: our alliance with the US; strong participation in the multi-
lateral system; and a strengthened relationship with our nearest neighbours in Asia and the
Pacific. Foreign policy differences tended to be those of nuance, emphasis and tone rather
than fundamental policy divergence (ALP 2004, 3).
While Trevor Matthews and John Ravenhill were right to point out that general statements
about bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy can be ‘misleading’, given the structure of
the country’s political system and how its two main ‘catch-all’ political parties operate, it
can be suggested that Australian foreign policy has in some fundamental aspects enjoyed a
high degree of bipartisanship, regardless of how it is defined (1988, 9–12). This much was
reiterated recently by Matt McDonald (2015, 656), who noted that Australian ‘foreign
policy is more readily characterised by continuity than change, particularly on key
issues’. Regardless of their political rhetoric and adherence to distinct foreign policy out-
looks, both of Australia’s major political parties accept the same key pillars of the country’s
engagement with the world. Hence, both the ALP and the Coalition are interested in
greater engagement with the Asia-Pacific region; maintaining close ties with major econ-
omic and security partners such as the USA, European Union, China, Japan, Indonesia
and New Zealand; and focusing development cooperation largely on the immediate
region, particularly Papua New Guinea and the Pacific islands. Hence, in its fundamentals
(the relationships and issues that are perceived to be of primal and immediate economic
and security importance for the country), Australian foreign policy does appear overall to
exhibit a strong degree of bipartisanship.1
However, building on the work of Matthews and Ravenhill, the argument of this article
is that, on what can be considered the periphery of Australia’s foreign policy agenda,
which deals with relationships and issues that have traditionally been conceptualised as
of minimal and less obvious economic and security importance for the country, there is
ISSN: 1035-7718 (Print) 1465-332X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caji20
The Liberal National Coalition, Australian Labor
Party and Africa: two decades of partisanship in
Australia’s foreign policy
Nikola Pijovic
To cite this article: Nikola Pijovic (2016) The Liberal National Coalition, Australian Labor Party and
Africa: two decades of partisanship in Australia’s foreign policy, Australian Journal of International
Affairs, 70:5, 541-562, DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2016.1167835
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1167835
Published online: 18 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 887
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caji20
,AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2016
VOL. 70, NO. 5, 541–562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1167835
The Liberal National Coalition, Australian Labor Party and
Africa: two decades of partisanship in Australia’s foreign
policy
Nikola Pijovic
National Security College, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The issue of bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy is not often Africa; Australian foreign
substantially addressed. The country’s relations with the world policy; bipartisanship; middle
appear to exhibit strong continuity regardless of the political party powers; political rhetoric
in government. And yet, when it comes to engagement with
African states and issues, the last two decades have seen highly
prominent partisan differences in Australian foreign policy. This
article utilises the example of Australia’s foreign policy
engagement with Africa to argue that there may be two levels of
understanding bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy. On the
one hand, aimed at relationships and issues perceived to be of
primal and significant security and economic well-being for the
country, Australian foreign policy does indeed appear to be
bipartisan. However, aimed at relationships and issues that have
traditionally been perceived as holding minimal security and
economic interest and importance for the country, Australian
foreign policy does exhibit partisanship.
The debate about bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy ran its most prominent
course in the 1980s, with the last substantial contribution concluding that any general
statements on bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy ‘are obviously misleading’ (Mat-
thews and Ravenhill 1988, 19). An yet, notwithstanding such cautions, and given the
obvious continuity in many aspects of Australia’s relations with the world, it is difficult
to fight the notion that the country does, indeed, at least to some extent and on certain
issues, enjoy a bipartisan foreign policy. As classical writing on political parties, and
especially two-party Westminster political systems, has made clear, in order to secure elec-
toral success, major parties will ‘agree on any issues that a majority of citizens strongly
favour’, thereby becoming ‘catch-all parties’ which pursue ‘votes at the expense of ideol-
ogy’, trying to appeal to an ever wider audience (Downs 1957, 297; Kirchheimer 1966; Wil-
liams 2009, 539). This process decreases any distinguishable policy differences between the
major parties, relegating such differences mainly to the periphery of their political
agendas.
CONTACT Nikola Pijovic
© 2016 Australian Institute of International Affairs
, 542 N. PIJOVIC
These ideas about political parties offer a good background to better understanding (bi)
partisanship in Australia’s foreign policy. Both of Australia’s two major political forces—
the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal National Coalition (Coalition)—espouse
different foreign policy traditions and ideas about Australia’s place in the world, and have
utilised them in constructing distinct foreign policy outlooks. However, these foreign
policy outlooks do not necessarily exclude similar means of satisfying often similar
foreign policy goals and, notwithstanding differing foreign policy outlooks, international
politics, economic interdependencies, and the ‘demands of office’ and ‘administrative
reality’, do imply a certain degree of bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy (Millar
1985, 2; Matthews and Ravenhill 1988, 10).
Many have observed that foreign policy outlooks mostly serve the purpose of party
differentiation for electoral purposes, and that in (at least) its main contours, Australia’s
foreign policy is largely bipartisan (Albinski 1977, 35; Lee and Waters 1997; Gyngell
and Wesley 2007, 150). Even Australia’s prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Bob
Hawke announced that Australia in fact enjoyed a bipartisan foreign policy (Whitlam,
quoted in Albinski 1977, 338; Hawke, quoted in Matthews and Ravenhill 1988, 11), and
Kevin Rudd, acting as the ALP’s Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and International
Security in 2004, argued that:
During the quarter century from the election of the Whitlam Government to the election of
the Howard Government, a broad consensus was achieved on the enduring themes of Aus-
tralia’s foreign policy engagement: our alliance with the US; strong participation in the multi-
lateral system; and a strengthened relationship with our nearest neighbours in Asia and the
Pacific. Foreign policy differences tended to be those of nuance, emphasis and tone rather
than fundamental policy divergence (ALP 2004, 3).
While Trevor Matthews and John Ravenhill were right to point out that general statements
about bipartisanship in Australian foreign policy can be ‘misleading’, given the structure of
the country’s political system and how its two main ‘catch-all’ political parties operate, it
can be suggested that Australian foreign policy has in some fundamental aspects enjoyed a
high degree of bipartisanship, regardless of how it is defined (1988, 9–12). This much was
reiterated recently by Matt McDonald (2015, 656), who noted that Australian ‘foreign
policy is more readily characterised by continuity than change, particularly on key
issues’. Regardless of their political rhetoric and adherence to distinct foreign policy out-
looks, both of Australia’s major political parties accept the same key pillars of the country’s
engagement with the world. Hence, both the ALP and the Coalition are interested in
greater engagement with the Asia-Pacific region; maintaining close ties with major econ-
omic and security partners such as the USA, European Union, China, Japan, Indonesia
and New Zealand; and focusing development cooperation largely on the immediate
region, particularly Papua New Guinea and the Pacific islands. Hence, in its fundamentals
(the relationships and issues that are perceived to be of primal and immediate economic
and security importance for the country), Australian foreign policy does appear overall to
exhibit a strong degree of bipartisanship.1
However, building on the work of Matthews and Ravenhill, the argument of this article
is that, on what can be considered the periphery of Australia’s foreign policy agenda,
which deals with relationships and issues that have traditionally been conceptualised as
of minimal and less obvious economic and security importance for the country, there is
