As of late, the possibility of an Australian republic has been on the minds of many Australians. However, it’s clear that independence from the British will remain little more than a castle-in-the-air unless the republican movement refines their campaign. Mark Day, a writer for the Australian, positions Australian voters to believe that Malcolm Turnbull is the man with the power to make this change. In his rather convoluted article [“A republic? It’s all up to you, Malcolm,” 16/11/15], Day cautions that, whilst Turnbull may lead us to a beneficial republic, he will only be successful if he firstly makes constitutional amendments. Tim Mayfield, in “No easy road towards republic [The Australian, 23/9/15) also anticipates the rise of a republican …show more content…
Day places the responsibility of enacting constitutional change firmly on the shoulders of Malcolm Turnbull, suggesting that he must decide when to “fire the starter’s gun on a new republican push.” This metaphor reinforces to Australian voters that once Turnbull brings the republican debate to the fore, that the time is right for major political changes to occur in Australia. Loaded language is evenly interspersed throughout the article in the writer’s bid to bring sophistication to his arguments. The loaded phrase, “orchestrate his destiny” is the writer’s attempt to persuade voters that Turnbull has enough political power and prowess to make the republican dream a reality. Whilst discussing the constitution, Day repeated uses the phrase “it does not,” in order to draw attention to the ways that the current constitution falls short. By doing so, he attempts to focus his audience’s attention on the deficiencies of our constitution, in order to convince them that multiple amendments must be made. With the knowledge that his audience is unlikely to have a detailed understanding of constitutional nuances, Day makes the generalizing comment that only those who “don’t know or care about the … provisions of the Constitution” would be in support of it. In this way, he hopes to give his audience the sense that he is well informed, …show more content…
Throughout his article, Day makes frequent appeals to the patriotism. His caution about creating an “avenue to dictatorship” plays on his audience’s pride in the freedom and diplomacy of Australia. In this way, he encourages his audience to associate a lack of constitutional reform with a shocking ramification for the nation, to convince them that change must occur immediately. In referencing both the current Irish model of government and New Zealand’s movement to “change the flag,” Day plays on the common desire to be bigger and better than other countries, appealing to modernity as well as nationality. The tactic of referencing can also be seen at the very beginning of Day’s opinion article, where he opens the piece with a reference to a key historical event that punctuated Australian politics “four decades” ago – the Dismissal – the only time in Australia’s history when “an elected government has been usurped.” He does so in order to set the trajectory of his article to alert his audience to focus on “what lies ahead” in regards to the debate on constitutional
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”.
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.
...e observed now as easily as it might be in it's final form. The prevailing notion is that through judicial interpretation or legislative act it should be more onerous to affect legislative override, not to the level of constitutional amendment of the rights in question, but perhaps a moderated super majority . The dialogue created by judicial-legislative interplay is truly indispensable to the democratic process, however the possibility exists that the dialogue could be circumvented and replaced with a legislative diatribe. As equally unappealing is the judicial monologue, the disdain for which increasingly dominates legislative analysis in the United States. The override provision effectively eliminates such concerns in Canada. The inevitable democratization of our override provision will in time perfect the dichotomy so vital to legislative-judicial conciliation.
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
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.
MacDermott, D. (1993). As we see you. In D. Grant & G. Seal (Eds.), Australia in the world (pp. 86-91). Perth: Black Swan Press
I believe that Australia should not become a republic. I think that there would be no point in becoming a republic, because we live without the intervention of the Queen at the moment, so becoming a republic would achieve nothing. If we were to become a republic, we would lose the support of England in times of war, famine or other disaster. I think that becoming a republic would achieve nothing, lose our links with England and waste the parliament's time when they should be concerned with more important issues.If we were to become a republic, the governor general would be replaced by a president who would have the same powers and responsibilities as our Governor General, so only the name and the person holding the position would change, wasting important parliament time and achieving absolutely nothing.
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
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
Thomas, L. (2013). Recognising indigenous people in the Australian constitution. Australian Nursing Journal: ANJ, the, 20(10), 21.
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
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
Politics: Who Gets What, When, How, H. D. Lasswell cited in G. Maddox, Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1985, p. 6