# Washminster: the uniqueness of Australian Government

Foundations
For those curious on the history and foundations of public policy, we have provided some background and insights. This is not to say the foundations can’t be changed, but it is worth understanding the past to help you shape the future. Then you are better able to understand how we got here, what is worth keeping and what is worth changing.
Every reader of this playbook ought to consider their own origin stories and historical backdrops to the development over time of the political and policymaking systems of which they are a part. We provide the Australian story here as an example of the types of matters to consider as you reflect on the foundational DNA that structures your architecture and journey path dependencies.
Without reflection on these origin stories and histories, we cannot weigh and calibrate the balance of what we might need to unlearn or lay down, what we need to preserve, and what might demand us to innovate or create new to meet our contemporary and future aspirations and challenges.
Washminster: the uniqueness of Australian Government
The colloquial term for the Australian system is Washminster— reflecting the dominant influences of the British and American systems and the locational building (Westminster) and place (Washington) that spoke to the Australian sensibilities of “founding fathers” of the late
20th century. Such a term speaks of the international gaze that colonial
Australia exercised from its inception, as well as the pragmatic deployment of a range of governance systems that were uniquely meshed together to form a functional mechanism to manage six distinct colonies across a vast landmass with need for some semblance of unity to attempt to create a national identity worthy of defence and economic development.

As an island continent far removed from the rest of the known world, marked with what colonisers saw as harsh land conditions, massive spatial distances and an incredibly large shoreline, Australian governance was structured both to capture its land of opportunity status as well as its dangerous qualities. From its inception, colonial Australia ignored or dismissed wisdom it might have learned from the country itself and that of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inhabitants whose governance systems were viewed as uncivilised or impenetrable
(Althaus and Morrison 2015).
The concept of Australian government must also be taken in historical context.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance has a long history, featuring remarkable attributes that prioritised relationality across all facets of life and the planet. Governance included integrated holistic community progress, sustainable custodianship and management of country, biological kinship and clan structures that remain sophisticated in ways that sustained complex but robust and harmonious intertribal coexistence. These structures enabled over 500 unique nations (some
250-300 language groups) to flourish with dignity across the diverse conditions of the Australian landscape for over 65,000 years (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999; Clarkson et al. 2017). A noteworthy feature is the ability of these unique systems of governance to achieve unity through diversity, prizing their specific customs, traditions, languages and practices, managing conflict and living sustainably in ways that defy the domination effects that otherwise dogs other significant civilisations.
Colonial public administration in Australia brought the practices of British rule to establish a penal colony, setting a new and different tone to the governance of this part of the world. Each state had their own approach so when it came to Federation in 1901, the course of a federalised Australian government as a discrete set of institutional arrangements moved beyond mere British sensibilities to attempt to capture some of what was considered the ”best and brightest” of the western world. Deliberate attention was paid not only to enshrining the ideas of Westminster enhanced with the republic ideas of the United States of America.
Westminster carried notions of responsible government in an elected parliament, the separation of powers and an independent judiciary, the
 roles of sovereign and symbolic heads of state, and the presence of a loyal opposition and independent public service. Washington contributed its federated model of layered jurisdictions with the division of powers, the presence of a dedicated “states” house in parliament and a written constitution.
The Swiss referendum process was adopted for constitutional reform and
Canadian ideas of united, nationalised government were also influential, as was having a single federal defence force. Australians remained citizens of the British Empire until the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 when the idea of Australian citizenship was pragmatically adopted. The collapse of the British Empire and the increasing non-British migration patterns of the post-WWII era facilitated assimilation agendas and heralded a need to address the Australian constitutional requirement that parliamentarians could not be dual citizens.
A number of features mark this Australian system of government and associated policymaking.
First, it is pragmatic. Australians are rarely persuaded by grand narratives or theoretical forays. They want something that works. And Australian citizens are not fussy as to who or how many layers of government may be involved (Brown 2010; Gray and Brown 2006). They just want good outcomes. On the policymaking side, there is no pressure to conform to a particular model or framework. On the contrary an eclectic mix of approaches can be found across and between different policy domains, with policymakers often mesmerised by experimenting with new shiny ideas from overseas or kicking around the cobbling of various ideas into a practical option to explore for suitability and fit to the Australian policy landscape. Together, this suggests a pragmatic bowerbird style might describe something of the Australian style of policymaking.
Second, checks and balances. From the inception of the colonial system of governance, Australia has relished the deployment of specific measures to contain unilateral power and an interesting paradoxical tendency to simultaneously prize high conservatism with thumbing our noses at authority. The incorporation of compulsory voting makes citizens participate in their civic life so Australians know for sure the people have decided the expression of their political will. We turn this into the modern
 democracy sausage party and community fundraising event but we value abiding by the law, maintaining social order, and people “having a fair go”.
Culturally, Australians endure the “tall poppy syndrome”—one doesn’t want to grow too tall or they will get cut down to size. Much of this cultural reality stems from a checks and balances approach that values equality and no one getting “too big for their boots”.
Third, there is a big and prominent role for the public sector. Australians did not feature a significant elite class nor the presence of a high number of entrepreneurs, manufacturing, or philanthropic actors. It was a British colonial outpost populated initially largely by convicts and rogues seeking new opportunities and fresh starts far away from their old mother or fatherlands who had often exiled them for one reason or another. In such a setting, the public sector became a dominant force helping to create
Australian colonial society. Moreover the public service was instrumental in forging the basic foundations of the federation and spawning the massive infrastructure, defence, education, agricultural and justice architecture and initiatives that marked out economic progress. This origin story of the role of the public sector has remained unchanged over time with Australians not only tolerant of the role of government, but often demanding it to do its part in creating economic growth, employment opportunities and government service delivery. According to The Economist
(2025), Australia features the biggest public sector workforce, adjusted for population, in International Labour Organisation (ILO) data with
143 employees per 1000 people, equating to approximately 29% of
Australian workers.
Fourth, the role of place is significant for policymaking. The sheer diversity of geographic biodiversity and cultural realities across the vast continent of Australia is remarkable. What life is like for a citizen in the North Queensland tourist mecca of Cairns is very different from that in cosmopolitan Melbourne, remote communities in Alice Springs or Kalgoorlie, or the regional realities of Launceston in Tasmania. Over time, and in contrary movement to that of Canadian provincialism,
Australia’s states and territories have ceded their states rights for a more unified national market and identity. Yet the institutional governance fabric and the economic instruments of the Australian federation remain wedded to deliberate calculations dedicated to establishing ongoing

“equality” across the states and territories through mechanisms such as the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Furthermore, flirtation has long persisted with regional governance institutions in attempts to meet the needs and aspirations of highly dispersed populations across large geographic distances (Brown 2001 and Brown 2007). Meanwhile, Australia is home to persistent secessionist tendencies, especially from Western
Australia (Secession In Australia - MoAD History Stories, and Republic of Western Australia: From secession to COVID, the west has always charted its own course - ABC News, (Holbrook and Megarrity 2025).
While territorial parochialism remains alive and well—especially in the realm of the Australian national religion of sport—Australians are sensitive to both the uniqueness of their personal place as well as the unifying forces of being singularly Australian. Trends emphasising place-based policymaking continue to find modern expression in institutions such as PLACE (Partnerships for Local Action and Community Empowerment).
Put together, these historical and foundational characteristics of
Australian policymaking and its public sector and political system suggest attention be paid to its critical role and ongoing purpose and fit. Australia is viewed as a mature liberal democracy (Emy and Hughes 1988) featuring remarkably flexible and evolving democratic principles that remain hinged to free and fair elections, adherence to the rule of law, engaged citizenry through compulsory voting, and relatively inclusive society (Dunleavy et al. 2024). Yet it still grapples with its historical and modern relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Davis 2018; Davis 2015).
Assimilation and racism remain forces at play (Bargallie 2019) as does complex relationships to multiculturalism and Australia’s current (and future) status as an Asian nation.
Australia’s interpretations of responsible government and ministerial responsibility have moved beyond a strict interpretation that it is only the minister of the day to whom policymaking responsibility is owed.
The pragmatism of Australian policymaking style is likely to endure, marking it out as particularly ripe in dynamic, adaptive capacity.