One of the most important parts of the parliamentary day is question time. This is because question time provides a forum in which almost all members of parliament are present in the chamber and questions are asked which may bring up specific matters that specific ministers are responsible for, that need to be solved or better understood. Question time gives the opposition a chance to ask the executive government questions in which executive government members need to explain their actions while the opposition critically analyze these actions (Parliament of NSW, question time). Although the importance of question time in testing the government and forcing government action, there are limits on its usefulness, as the government may wish to conceal …show more content…
This occurs when both members of the opposition and the government attack each other and much attention is given to the performance of battle between the ministers on the substance of their questions and answers (Fenna, Robbins & Summers, 2014: 40). This paper argues that there is a need for reform in the process of questions without notice, or question time in general to assure that ministers relevantly answer the questions that have been addressed to them by the opposition about government policy and administration. In order to achieve more relevant answers during question time, there is a need for reform that would achieve a higher level of accountability than the current case. To achieve this, the NSW parliament would need to move away from the current process and follow a number of procedures that have evidently been successful in achieving a higher rate of relevantly answered questions in other jurisdictions. This paper will discuss how and why question time in NSW parliament does not fulfill its duty, while suggesting procedures that have worked in Canadian, New Zealand and U.K …show more content…
Standing orders and practices that govern the conduct of question time state that “whatever other purpose members may have in regard to Question Times, its basic purpose must be to enable members to seek information and press for action. Question time should be the time when the accountability of government to parliament is demonstrated clearly and publicly” (Australia, Parliament of the Commonwealth, 1986). Question time in parliament has been used differently to its basic purpose brought up above, in which members have rarely brought up questions that are relevant to their electoral interest and have barely initiated their own questions. Furthermore, questions that have been asked by non-government members carry the intention of gaining media interest, while government members are known to mainly ask questions that have been prepared by the government to be asked of ministers that have prepared a favourable answer to the government, which likewise influences the government’s appearance in the media (Coghill & Hunt, 1998:37). To exemplify how the NSW Legislative assembly has taken question time out of its true purpose we will look at a 2015 precedent from the NSW parliament website. A report on question time held on the 14/05/2015,
Dion, S., et al. (2000). The Clarity Act debate in the House of Commons. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 23(2), 20-30. Retrieved from http://proxy4.vaniercollege.qc.ca:2096/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA30049448&v=2.1&u=vaniercol&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
In light of the recent Senate scandal, the public’s attention has been directed to the government’s credibility and its members’ discipline again. Mike Duffy’s 90,000 dollars scandal has put the Canadian government’s party discipline into the spotlight. While it is well-known amongst general public, there are other similar incentives and disincentives shared between the Members of the Parliament (MPs) and senators in keeping them disciplined, as well as some different ones that set them apart. In this essay, I am going to analyze the main levers of party discipline in the House of Commons and the Senate for their effectiveness. By comparing the similarities and differences, I will explain for the motivations behind the Senate, even if they have seemingly fewer incentives than the MPs, such as free of worrying about being re-elected.
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.
...r votes elect individuals who will represent their values and interests. While many will argue between whether a minority or majority government better represents Canadians, this essay has shown that regardless of the type of government, the Prime Minister is able to use his power to control his MP’s, media, and opposition members in order to fulfill a personal or hidden agenda. The sheer manipulation that is possible by a Prime Minister completely undermines the transparency and accountability of true democracy.
Cases on the foundations of a constitutional order, such as parliamentary sovereignty, tend to be rare in any event. But what makes R (Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] U.K.HL. 56; [2006] 1 A.C. 262 a significant case, is the dicta regarding constitutional issues mentioned by the judges in relation to parliamentary sovereignty. The discussions of the central issues in the case are in many ways constitutionally orthodox, treating the primary concerns as that of statutory interpretation and adopting a literal interpretation of the 1911 Act. By contrast, the discussion of the wider issues suggest that the judiciary may have support for what could be classed as unorthodox opinions on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is to be considered as a mere ideology in the eyes of the legislature, as the modern day practical sovereign parliament is far from that of the theory.
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
As well I will outline reasons why the Australian federal system of government is in its current state and what action can be taken to change it.
David Doherty, “Legislatures”. In William Cross, eds., Auditing Canadian Democracy, 10th ed. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010)
Parliament of Australia. 1999. The Federal Parliament and the Protection of Human Rights. [Online]. [19th December 2016]. Available from: .
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
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
In conclusion it seems that the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty as purported by Dicey is no longer an immutable part of our constitution. Although it remains a key principle of our constitution, it has now been reinterpreted in light of seminal cases such as Factortame and Jackson, from a legally unchangeable, rule of our constitution, to one in which Parliament is no longer prevented from placing limits to the content and form of itself.
The decision for Australia to adopt the Federal system was on the principle of which the State’s governments wanted to keep their power. For this reason there was the separation of powers between the newly formed Commonwealth government and the existing State governments. At a constitutional level, there are rulings in which the powers are separated, these rulings due to disputes have slightly changed since 1901. These changes all fell towards the one government, the Commonwealth (Federal) government. However this was not just a landslide event, the Constitution of Australia set up this imbalance of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments. We will explore this further in the points discussed later in this essay.
In the inspiring movie The Great Debaters, a group of three African Americans rises to the top of the debate scene despite the handicap of being black and coming from the small town of Marshall, Texas. The debaters wouldn’t have grown throughout the story if their debate coach Professor Tolson hadn’t taught them things like facing reality and how to overcome difficult situations. Thanks to their debate coach, Professor Tolson, who despite his radical political views, empowers the debaters until they are able to triumph over large state schools and eventually Harvard at the end. Even though this is the first year of the debate team at Wiley College, the debaters prove to be awe-inspiring with their wins and as a result, mark a major turning point in the civil rights movement. This success could not be brought about if not for the
‘The Parliamentary legislative process fails to achieve its primary purpose: it fails to ensure effective legislative scrutiny of Parliamentary Bills.’ Discuss.