Presidential battle showcases the differences between US political system and ours

As for the quantity and quality of governmental operations, Australia is way ahead of the United States, but for political nerds, it is the US’s turnover that is more fascinating to watch this year. 
 
The fight between Trump and Harris turned into a clash between the traditions of the American presidential system and those of the Westminster one, and between the two countries’ approaches to money, campaigns, and sheer flair. 
 
Australia is tending toward limiting federal election finance — in the US, funding has gone overboard. Australian party conferences are boring, but there is boring in the Labor party, occasional gritty scenes included. I the US, they are Hollywood extravagances. 
 
There is now this modern cynicism that characterises most voters in the so called developed democracies; America has this in equal measure but in a more advanced form. In Australia, where voting is compulsory though highly desirable, emphasis is more on ‘getting out the vote’. 
 
Recent years Australian politics is not very thrilling (no, it will not resume with next year’s federal election); American politics can get high drama, today more than it usually does in the year of presidential elections. 
 
There is a serious lack of celebrities here in Australia, God knows why, but it may be for the best. Unquestionably for the better, nobody like Trump is in the race for the presidential post. 
 
The question many people are asking is: who is the political equal of Kamala Harris in Australia? 
 
But Joe Hockey, Australia’s former ambassador to the US and now a lobbyist in Washington, who has been at this week’s Democratic National Convention, does find some similarity between Harris and Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. 
 
When questioned on The Conversation podcast about who on the Australian political spectrum would be Harris’s match, Hockey replies that Harris is “quite like Anthony Albanese”, whom he stated to be the first left-wing Labor prime minister in Australia. 
 
Interestingly, he does not propose a rivalry with Julia Gillard, a woman from the ‘left’. ‘I believe Julia Gillard had to tow the line of the right in the labours’ more than Anthony Albanese has had to. This was because she always had the ever looming figure of Kevin Rudd breathing down her neck while the prime minister, Albanese does not have this problem’. 
 
If Harris is successful in November, Albanese will no doubt be keen to arrange a prompt visit to Washington but this may not be likely before the Indonesian’s own election, which is due by May. 
 
Albo’s vision is singularly fixed upon local configurations. 
 
Albanese’s focus, for the time being, can only be pointed exclusively at the local. 

The just-concluded parliamentary sitting was marked by achievement of government’s list of tasks. And yet, during a lacklustre performance in question times that was dominated by questions about visits for Gazans and national security, Albanese’s appea 
 
Minister for Workplace Relations Murray Watt secured with bipartisan approval after some changes of his bill to start regulating the CFMEU construction division . As one might expect, the insurgent union is pondering whether to appeal to the courts for a remedy. 
 
Bill Shorten’s NDIS reform legislation finally passed the lower house. This was also supported by one negotiated with the Coalition and another with the states and territories. The latter was done with a good assist from South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, an OTT but highly practical politician who appears to be one of the most promising in the country. 
 
No formal deal with the opposition on aged care legislation was reached prior to this speech, though it was nearly reached; the introduction of this legislation will have to be postponed until the September sitting. 
 
Both sides have reasons to insist on bipartisanship on the need to reform the NDIS scheme and improve the aged care facility service. The government understandably would rather curtail opposition, for reforms with losers or which might deflate votes. The Coalition wants those hard reforms in by the time it gets into government (whenever that is) rather than having to do it itself, let alone the political fall out of having to do it. 
 
There is another sphere where government and opposition are clearly similar, although it has not become acute yet. That is, reform of gambling advertising. Both of them stand for a restricted liberalization only which is enough to allow certain commercials on the commercial television — neither is for total prohibition. 
 
Labour is expected to reveal its policy in weeks but its reluctance to go for full ban has angered some backbenchers. Likewise, before caucus members, the government briefed stakeholders as well. 
 
Albanese’s answers were somewhat sloppy to say the least. 
 
But there is a bigger question here. 
 
This rampant process is well sold by the government with promoting the idea of ‘consultation’ and engagement of stakeholder. But that has also included a high level of intimidating and demanding compliance to non-disclosure agreements as well. Since insiders who get to be briefed have to keep the information a secret, the emails will have anonymity. It reduces the extent of information available to the public prior to certain decisions, and also the power of these stakeholders to publicly discuss the problem. From the government’s perspective, hands are tied, which is rather convenient. 
 
Opposition in the recent two weeks focused almost exclusively on the government’s reckless issuing of the visitor visas for Gazans in the question time, which was not without its perils. The Coalition moved away from what was of most pressing interest to the bulk voters in the country. 
 
But the tactic did reveal that Albanese was a little sloppy with his replies (for example, using the extract from the ASIO chief selectively) and brought up the matter of Labor’s processes and efficiency in the disputed area of immigration once again. 
 
It did produce one piece of good news for face-saving Assistant Immigration Minister Tony Burke. In his Sydney seat of Watson, Burke has a large number of Muslims and a formidable opponent is a Muslim candidate who is an independent. That Peter Dutton is taking a hard line on Gazan refugees (he won’t let any of them in until further notice) means that there is no way the Liberals would put the Muslim candidate ahead of Burke which would make Burke almost certain.