The Whitlam dismissal is still regarded as one of the most controversial issues in Australia's history, both sides of this argument still debating the justice of this affair. In the terms of the constitution, this was a completely legal act, and also a very valid one, considering the conditions of the government at the time. The Whitlam government was thoroughly inexperienced, and had policies, reforms and actions which were overall damaging Australia’s social, economic and political structures. The Whitlam government being instated in 1972 was a result of the country wanting a change from the twenty-three years of Liberal rule. The Labor Party, under the leadership of Whitlam, had campaigned hard for their change, but when they were finally sworn into parliament, they attempted to change many of the policies that Australia has been based on since its foundations were laid. Their slogan, ‘It’s Time’, was well carried through, new batches of decisions were announced every day. Never before had a government made so much difference in such a short amount of time, but the Labor government’s lack of experience and impatience drew itself into a difficult situation. Although many of the reforms were long overdue, such as the abolition of conscription and White Australia Policy, the conservatives disliked the way the new government was running the country. The new government, in its keenness and lack of experience, made some errors that caused many people to think it was not fit to govern. Some ministers made fundamental mistakes, such as the treasurer, Jim Cairns, who had made public his relationship with his very attractive head of personal staff. Despite the fact that there were no proven claims, the opposition saw it as a great oppo... ... middle of paper ... ...sonable abuse of the Senate’s power, when the election was finally held, the Liberal party returned to government. Whether the loss of the Labor party was due to the naivety of Whitlam and his refusal to believe the Governor General he appointed would dismiss him, or because the Labor party only used shame and guilt to campaign for the 1975 election, the message remained clear. Australia was still conservative, and after a taste of the Labor government, it wanted to return to the safe and conservative Liberal government. The Whitlam government was removed with sufficient reasons, and its failure to return to government reinforced this fact. The policies and reforms the government put through were damaging Australia’s social, political and economical structures, and the government’s inexperience and impatience showed the public their inability to govern a country.
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
They have juggled power between them and Australia has emerged a powerful and intelligent nation under their leadership.
The Liberal victory in General Election of 1906 has gone down in History for being one of the biggest landslides in modern UK politics, but it can be argued that it was more of a Conservative loss than a Liberal gain.
for the split in 1931. It was also not easy for the labour party when
In the 1906 election, the number of seats won by Liberals increased from 184 to 377, in contrast the numbers of seats lost by the Conservatives went from 402 seats won in 1900 to 157 seats lost in the 1906 election, this represented the lowest number of seats held by a Conservative government since 1832. This dramatic reversal of constituencies held, is due to a number of reasons. An argument is that, due to some poor decisions made by the Conservative governments, they in fact contributed largely to the landslide result in the 1906 election. ‘They were in effect the architects to the own downfall.’
Prime Minister Robert Menzies was a believer in the need for ‘great and powerful friends’ and the idea of ‘forward defence’. Before the 1949 federal election, Menzies campaigned on the representation of the Labor Party as out of touch with Australia’s postwar ambitions. He was aided by Chifley’s willpower to cover union wage stresses and control increase. Predominantly injuring for Labor was a Communist-led coal strike in New South Wales, and the government’s practice of troops to
Therefore, it is clear that a monarchy in Australia should remain. Even though he led the Republican Movement for the 1999 referendum at the time, it has been stated explicitly by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull that a republican Australia will only occur if there is widespread public momentum for the change. Thus, there is today not enough interest in changing our system of government, so why bother with it if the people do not want it? Becoming a republic requires constitutional change, and thus means two-thirds of people in a majority of states must be supportive for a monarch to be replaced by a republic. Traditionally, senior citizens have not been in support of topics such as a republican movement; thus, those who emigrated from England and the United Kingdom would predominantly reject a republic. Hence, the younger generations in society are the citizens in which usually are more divisive or willing to all options. “Many young Australians just don’t see the point of conducting a referendum.” These young Australians also hold the belief that by becoming a republic, the financial detriment will prove to be far too much of a burden and are not in favour of the switch to an untried system from one in which functions effectively now. Moreover, since Australia has always been with the Commonwealth, and having been required
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
Australia is a relatively young country; only becoming a unified nation in 1901 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). A young country is no different from a young person; identity is an issue. Questions of who am I and where do I fit in the world are asked, and unfortunately not often answered until a tragedy occurs. National identity is a sense of a nation and its people as a connected whole. This feeling of cohesiveness can be shaped by many events in a nation’s history but none more so than war. War is a stressful, traumatic affair that changes forever, not only the people that go to it but the nation as a whole. Many consider the Great War Australia’s tragedy where we became a nation (Bollard, 2013) with our own modern identity.
The main for a republic is that for Australia to be truly independent, it is essential to sever the ties with the British monarch. Currently the only person who can become the official head of state is the eldest male heir to the British throne. A republic would allow for equality in this respect, as any Australian would be eligible for the positi...
When Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was swept into power in December 1972 there was huge anticipation for dramatic and swift change. Australia had been under the control of a conservative liberal government for 23 consecutive years, and Whitlam’s promises if social change were eagerly anticipated. Whitlam, despite his failings as a negotiator, managed to implement a huge array of reforms and changes, many of which shaped Australia into the country it is today. However is that enough to say he succeeded? Even Whitlam today admits that he regrets doing “too much too soon”, and perhaps Whitlam’s government was a government that was too socially progressive for its time, which could perchance have been a foreshadowing of things to come for the most recent labor government of Julia Gillard which has been labeled by some as the most incompetent government since Whitlam. Gough Whitlam has had the most books written and published about him than any other Australian Prime Minister to Date. This essay will argue that Whitlam was a successful leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), who had the ability and charisma to lead Australia in an era of prosperity; he did however succumbed to a few grave errors of judgment that ultimately led to his downfall, however his ultimate goal was to transform Australia which he achieved. Whitlam’s’ errors were seen as being due to his inability take advice from senior figures on how to turn his amateur government into a competent one and his inflexible approach to dealing with the hostile senate that the Australian public gave him, and often led to his government being labeled the worst in Australian history and as a failure.
House of Representatives. (1965, April 29). Retrieved March 16, 2014, from Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates: http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/education/Documents/avw_topic1.pdf
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
Australia was posed with their first major problem as a federated nation: WWI. Although the population consisted of mainly ‘white Australians’, they were conflicted in their desired relationship with the British. Some believed that Australia should be its own nation, their own society, and especially not forced to lay down their life because another nation said so. Others were willing to serve their, in essence, masters, and to fight with their English brethren.
His first government was regarded as the greatest of the Victorian era and it was certainly his best fiscally. His policies reflected more individual liberty while loosening political and economic restraints. In fact, he remained heavily involved in every department and by 1873, Gladstone had appointed himself as Chancellor of the Exchequer. For that year he managed to reduce income taxes to three pounds, and planned to phase it out completely by the next year. Therefore, Gladstone called a general election on the question of abolishing the tax. To his and many other’s surprise, his liberal party lost the majority in parliament. However Gladstone’s inability to fix divisions within his government and his tendency to create division himself perhaps hindered the progress he had made. Despite this failure, his government succeeded in producing a surplus each year in Gladstone’s stint as Prime