Australian Bicameralism
Bicameralism in Australia has a long history dating back to the pre-Federation colonial parliaments. These structures, in turn, evolved from their British forbear, the parliament at Westminster. At federal and state levels there has been considerable debate and controversy over the continuing efficacy and efficiency of the two-house model. Is it necessary or desirable to maintain two houses of parliament for state and federal governments in Australia? Did the Queensland government do the right thing in abolishing its upper house? What is the future of bicameralism in Australia? These are some of the questions that this essay will seek to address.
Parliaments in Australia originally consisted of councils of colonial landowners, the members of which were appointed by the respective Governors of the individual colonies. The purpose of these councils was simply to advise the Governor of the day and to assist him in his duties in administering the colony. No popular mandate was sought or recognised.
Concurrent with the growth of democratic sentiment in the 19th century, was the development of popularly elected houses in Australia, along the lines of the British House of Commons. These houses originally had a very limited franchise, which was expanded, over time, to include all of the adult population. The Upper Houses of the newly formed states continued to limit or distort their franchise, and indeed, still do so in a variety of ways.
The newly formed Senate was prescribed along different lines. This institution was to be a house of review, a house designed specifically to empower and protect the states from the dangers of domination by the federal government. The Senators were elected in equal...
... middle of paper ...
...challenges of modern governance.
Bibliography:
Fenna, A. (2000) Essentials of Australian Government, Draft Version, Tertiary Press
Henderson, P. (1987) Parliament and Politics in Australia. Heinemann, Richmond.
Jaensch, D. (1992) The Politics Of Australia, Macmillan, Melbourne.
Kilcullen, R.J. (1995) "Democracy in Australia." http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/politics/y67xa.html, Macquarie University.
Madison, J or Hamilton, A. (1787-88) Federalist, numbers 62 and 63.
Minnesota House of Representatives, Research Department (1999) "Unicameral or Bicameral Legislatures: The Policy Debate." St.Paul, Minnesota.
Odgers, J.R. (1999) Australian Senate Practise, 9th edn., Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Singleton, Aitken, D., Jinks, B., Warhurst, J., (2000) Australian Political Institutions, 6th edn., Longman, Canberra.
Australia's federation came about through a process of deliberation, consultation and debate. Before 1901 Australia did not exist as a nation. It was six British colonies, which were self-governed, but under the power of the British Parliament. The colonies were almost like six separate countries. In the 1880s there was so much disorganisation within this system, which caused a belief that a national government was, needed to deal with issues such as trade, defence and immigration saw popular support for federation grow.
In 1944, the Liberal Party of Australia was founded after a three-day meeting held in a small hall not far from Parliament House in Canberra. The meeting was called by the then Leader of the Opposition (United Australia Party), Robert Menzies. Robert Menzies had already served as Prime Minister of Australia (1939-40), but he believed that the non-Labor parties should unite to present a strong alternative government to the Australian people. Eighty men and women from 18 non-Labor political parties and organisations attended the first Canberra conference. They shar...
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
no author. (2011). New Australian of the Year Wants to Debate an Australian Republic. Available: http://www.republic.org.au/story/new-australian-year-wants-australians-debate-australian-republic-courier-mail-26111. Last accessed 20th June 2011.
During the 1700’s, one of the most discussed topics, was the kind of government that should be incorporated into each state. Several men with skeptical beliefs and contradicting ideas, led to many (indirect) disputes about which route should be taken. Virginia and Pennsylvania’s constitutions were a hot topic during the era, they stimulated an intriguing matter amongst many politicians. From Thomas Paine to Carter Braxton’s writings, each individual had an important role arguing and making claims toward the type of government they found to be the most effective. Virginia’s constitution was considered to be a mixed government, while Pennsylvania’s constitution was a simple government. Each structure had men who praised it and men who critiqued it. Through their writings we find many pros and cons for each style of governing, as well as the different theories each individual had when it came to structuring a state’s constitution. We also gain an insight of what possible concerns came about during the time and what solutions they offered, if any were offered at all.
Special rules and new floor procedures have been institutionalized. Although the external political environment of the House is as electrifying as that of the Senate, it is based on a very different body of basic rules. The individualist Senate, a body in which senators aggressively exploited the great Congressional privileges these rules gave them, as she argues, to further their own individual ends. In fact, nowadays, the process of lawmaking in a chamber with non-majoritarian rules and with members so accustomed to exploiting those rules fully is reasonably expected to drag on for months, if not
Contrasts in the lawmaking methodology utilized as a part of the House and Senate reflect the distinctive size of the two chambers and individual terms of its parts. In the House, the dominant part gathering is inflexibly in control, stacking advisory groups with lion 's share party parts, and utilizing principles to seek after enactment supported by its parts. In the Senate, singular parts are better ready to hold up the procedure, which prompts lower similarity costs, however higher exchange costs. The complication of the lawmaking procedure gives rivals different chances to murder a bill, making a solid predisposition for the present state of affairs.
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
David Doherty, “Legislatures”. In William Cross, eds., Auditing Canadian Democracy, 10th ed. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010)
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Wendy Underhill , 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
For years, countries have had different legislatures bicameral and unicameral. The features of each legislatures are distinct from one another. It even accounts to various vices and virtues. Both legislatures exist in various countries in the world. The reason to which varies in each place. Legislatures are essential for a society to perform politically well. However, the political structure of every nations varies thus, there exist no simple generalization. The structural arrangements of different legislatures are distinct in relation to their number of chambers available. (Danziger, J. N. (1996))
7th edition. London: Pearson Longman, ed. Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. and Lawson, S. (2009) Introduction to Politics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Australia, formally known as the Commonwealth of Australia, was formed in 1901. This was the result of six independent British colonies that came together to form a new nation. The foundation for this federation, as they refer to themselves by, is known as the Australian Constitution. This written document acts as the basis for which how the government can operate and what it can do. Under the Constitution, the Australian Government is a federal system of government. Utilizing this system powers are divided between the central, Australian Government, and states of the nation, the six state governments. For the Australian Government, the central power, laws written and passed by this governing half of the entire system affect all Australians. In essence it is the law of the land and should be followed by all. The Australian Government is split into three arms. The first is known as the legislative arm, or parliament, and is responsible for the debate and vote of new laws to be initiated. These laws, if passed, are introduced under the power of section 51 of the Australian Constitution. Section 51 of the Australian Constitution in principle defines what the government can decide upon. The second of three arms of the Australian Government is the executive arm. This third is responsible for authorizing and sustaining the laws established by the legislative arm. Some members of the legislature, entitled ministers, are members of both the legislative and executive arms of the Australian Government. These specific members are tasked with special responsibilities for certain areas of the law. Lastly, the third of the three arms of the Australian Government is the judiciary. This is the legitimate arm of the Australian Government, and by t...