In recent times, there has been much debate over the “Question Time” in the Australian Parliament over whether or not it is a fairly run institution and also whether or not it is “damaging the public image of the Parliament and of politicians in general” – Australian Collaboration.
Even though Australia inherited the institution from the British Parliament, The Australian Parliamentary office has confirmed that, “the committee has considered proposals to restructure question time with the aim of making it a more effective mechanism for seeking the accountability of the executive government to the parliament”.
As the Parliament is split up into two sections, The House of Representatives and The Senate, each requires their own separate question times, however this is ultimately a result of different sitting times. The Parliamentary Education Office (PEO) suggests that Question time is “one of the ways parliament scrutinises, or closely examines the work of the executive government”. However, it is important to note that the way the Questions are taken care of in both sections of Parliament is run the same way. The procedure of ‘Question time’ according to The Parliamentary Education Office (PEO) “begins with the speaker calling the for questions without notice and asking ‘are there any questions’? The first question always comes from the opposition. The government and opposition in turn then put questions to the Prime Minister or ministers”.
Questions without notice are as simple as it sounds. It is solely a question directed to Ministers whom are unaware of and usually challenging and tough to answer quickly. These questions are also masqueraded by the opposition and according to the PEO “designed to test minsters’ capacity to a...
... middle of paper ...
...f-unbiased-speakers-of-the-house
4. Greens, T. (2000). Dix Questions. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from The Greens Party: http://greens.org.au
5. Hamer, D. (1994). Can Responsible Government Survive In Australia? Canberra , ACT, Australia: The Department of The Senate.
6. SBS Politics. (2010, September). What Role does the Speaker Play? Retrieved April 29, 2014, from SBS: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2010/09/16/qa-what-role-does-speaker-play
7. The Australian Collaboration . (2013, July). Democracy In Australia - Reform of Question Time. Retrieved May 8, 2014, from The Australian Collaboration : http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/pdf/Democracy/Reform-question-time.pdf
8. The Parliamentary Education Office. (2012). Question Time. Retrieved May 8, 2014, from The Parliamentary Education Office: http://www.peo.gov.au/uploads/peo/docs/fact-sheets/question_time.pdf
My oral presentation being presented aims to prevent the original date of Australia day from being changed. Recent issues in the media have raised big concerns over the current date of Australia day as the national day that has been celebrated for years is deeply offensive to indigenous Australians and should be deemed as “invasion day”. Recent attempts to ban Australia through indigenous Australians protesting their way to deem Australia January 26th as “invasion day”.
(Bennett, 2014 Para. 9). NGV Gordon Bennett Education Resource. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/gordonbennett/education/03.html#06. [Accessed 06 May 2014].
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.
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.
Russell, titled ‘End Australia Day’, which simply advocates that it’s ‘time to let it [Australia Day] go’. Contrasting with Roberts-Smith, who was calm and collected, Russell is abrupt and almost pleading at times. The day has ‘outlived its usefulness’ and it’s adamant to Russell that it is time for a change. Noting suitable day changes, such as ‘July 9’, is high on his to-do list. However, he also believes the Constitution is ‘outdated’ and that to be fair to all in Australia it would be wise to ‘scrap it and start again’. His factual statements on the past allow the reader to acknowledge that their ancestors did play a part in the oppression of the Indigenous, but the recommendation of changing the Constitution entirely could be viewed as ludicrous. As trying to cater for everyone in the “new Constitution” could still mean that groups are left out, and the cost of this idea could turn heads in the opposite
If the parties in our governmental system would openly discuss about the difference in positions and in point of views within the groups in realizing these controversies will minimize the unnecessary troubles greatly. Another possibility of improvement would be following the great examples of other countries with the Westminster governance system. For example, in countries like Australia and New Zealand have already a well-established party discipline rules that are less strict than the ones in Canada and way more effective than the ones we have. In an article, it was said that” Australian parties are considerably more discipline than those in the UK an even those in Canada, although the degree of discipline in the latter has been the subject of much critical comment. Parliamentary votes in the UK are subject to varying degrees of party discipline, with the most rigid being the so-called” three-line whip’ votes. Neither Australia nor Canada has such gradations. In New Zealand party discipline has increased under its mixed Member proportional (MMP) electoral system and, unless party leaders have agreed to a conscience vote, standing orders require a party vote to be taken rather than individuals casting their votes in the chamber. “(Sawer, Abjorensen and Larkin
Various Authors (2012) Oxford Big Ideas Australian Curriculum History 10, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
With an understanding of the theoretical links between economic structures, relations of production, and political systems that protect economic structures in society this case study examines media as a contributor to democracy in Australia as well as a business with economic objectives. This section will provide a short explanation of Fairfax media history and position in 2012 prior to explaining Gina Rinehart’s role in the company. The print sector in Australia has historically exhibited relatively high levels of concentration, dominated by News Corp Australia, Fairfax and APN. The Australian print news media have experienced a long-term trend of a decrease in titles and owners. According to Geoffrey Craig, ‘in 1923 there were as many as
Paun Akash, Robert Hazell, Andrew Turnball, Alan Beith, Paul Evans, and Michael Crick. "Hung Parliaments and the Challenges for Westminster and Whitehall: How to Make Minority and Multiparty Governance Work (with Commentaries by Turnbull, Beith, Evans and Crick)." in Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue 2: 213-227.
The governance of the Commonwealth of Australia is divided into three arms, the legislative, executive and the judicial arm. These three arms of government are accountable towards the rule of law through the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. The forms of power enshrined in the Australian Constitution is a key measure of protection towards the rights and liberties of Australian citizens. The legislative arm is responsible for making laws, the executive arm is authorised to the implementation of a law and the judicial arm is accountable to the enforcement of a law and to interpret laws when disputes occur. The system of checks and balances is used to prevent an arm from getting too powerful. The notion of balance confirms that the
Sharman (1999) illustrates how non-major parties play an important role keeping the government constrained. Holding the balance of power allows minor parties to scrutinise legislation and make compromises with the government. The Senate, dubbed the “house of review” (Gauja 2010; Galligan 1985), and this important role began to gain visibility when the Democratic Labor Party (previously Australian Labor Party Anti-communist) gained a seat in the 1955 Senate election (Sharman 1999). Through exposure to the Democratic Labor Party challenging the major parties as part of the balance of power, the Australian voter recognised the potential of the Senate for their own strategic goals(Gauja 2010; Sharman 1999). Research suggests that the Australian Democrats in particular were used strategically by voters during the 1980s and 1990s to keep the government accountable (Gauja 2010). The “cross-over” strategy involves voting differently for each chamber (Galligan 1985). It was started to be rocognised from the polls of the 1984 federal election (first election after 1983 reforms), when a discrepancy between those who voted for ALP in the house and those who voted ALP in the senate was visible (Galligan 1985). Voters may have been using their votes to support the ALP in the House of
Moreover, Smith’s concludes in chapter eight that although “the lower chamber has always provided a common place for common people, it has never been that alone” (2007, p. 139). The House has struggled with being a chamber for the people, but Smith believes that reconciliation is possible. Canada can have a parliamentary system with roots in the constitution, and at the same time, it can accommodate the enhanced power of the courts and the charter as the charter and parliament do not contradict each other, in fact, they complement each other. Smith also says: “too little is known about the House and the conventions and provisions of the constitution that touch upon its work to advocate fundamental change in the absence of close research” (2007,
During this parliamentary debate points of information are allowed by the team that is silent while the other speaks. Any points of information that a team wishes to make are not allowed during the first and last minutes of the speaker's argument. This restricts all points of information to a one-minute window. The procedure for adding a point is critical. The team member will stand and say "Point of Information", at this time he must wait for the speaker's response of 'accept' or 'reject'. If accepted the point is limited to one short phrase of roughly 10 words. At any time the speaker can stop the point and continue on with his or her argument.