cam: Supposedly Robert Askin was the first one to run a presidential campaign in Australia. He was NSW Premier for quite a while too. The Liberal Party are more likely to run Presidential style systems as they are heavily dependent upon the authority of their party leader to maintain a cohesive party. Labor and its pledge means the national executive is a strong as the party leader in office.

The politics is played in a presidential way, but Adams misses the benefits of a separate executive which is you get a separate legislative - where Petre Giorgio's become the norm not the exception.

If we have a presidential parliamentary system we are actually get the worst of both systems which is executive dominance without a legislative check.

holdenrepublic: Interesting. The NZ Labour Party's caucus technically elects the ministers of cabinet, but the PM can fire ministers (this happened in the 80s); despite this Helen Clark's tenure has definitely been very presidential in its composition.

cam: It has changed over time, but the innovation in Australian politics from the 1890s was labor's pledge and all labor parliamentarians being required to block vote on the national executive's decisions. Even as recently as the 1930s the executive cabinet would vote on an issue and could be overridden by the national executive. These days authority comes from winning government so a PM like Hawke or Keating dominate policy. It is more like the Liberal Party authority structure where a PM/leader who can win governments gives the greatest legitimacy - and hence authority.

All parties have their national executive, for instance the Australian Democrats can conscience vote on any issue, but if they do against the national executive they have to explain to them why they chose to conscience vote. But the Australian Democrats are a legislative party, not an executive one, so they don't have the pressures of a strong PM/leader, however, the public resources an elected Senator has become very important to the party.