In Australia, the case for bicameralism is not simply limited to the checking of power within the government. Rather, bicameralism is used as a means of limiting the State’s power, which is held at best by the Prime Minister and his closest subjects (Aroney, Praser & Nethercothe 2008, p. 69). Bicameralism has been evident in Australia even before Federation and still remains as a key distinct feature of Australian democracy. It exists both at Federal and State level, except in Queensland (Stone 2007, p. 2), and is comprised of the House of Representatives as the Lower House and the Senate as the Upper House. Similar to any bicameral government, these two Houses sit together in Parliament and are responsible for the creation of laws.
Australian
…show more content…
Under a Westminster system, the House of Lords are drawn from a peerage; members inherit seats by creating a system where peers are appointed (Connor 2013, p. 13). Therefore, there is no component under the House of Lords that is elected, directly or indirectly. Rather, Lords would be selected by providence and not merit (Chase 1929, p. 572). In contrast, members of the Senate are directly and democratically elected in accordance to s 7 of the Australian Constitution (Arcioni 2016, p. 435), with equal representation for each of the six States (Russell 2013, p. 373). This would provide the Australian Parliament with the legitimacy a Westminster model does not provide as governments will only be legitimate if members are democratically elected (Drexhage 2015, p. 31). In Australia, members of the Senate are elected as a result of proportional representation, allowing the chamber to feature a range of parties (Russell 2013, p. 384). The wide variety of parties and representations prevents the governing party from dominating the Senate, thereby allowing minor parties to receive representation. This further allows the Senate to better perform its function of being the house of review, serving as a break on the popular house (Hodgson 2014, p. 84). With representations from citizens of different walks of life, the Senate will be able to ensure that the proposed legislation will best meet the needs of
introduced Department of Housing, Home Savings Grants Scheme and Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to help more Australians own their own home
Australia is a monarchy of the United Kingdom. It always has been, and yet this does not seem to have significantly and adversely affected our development and growth towards our country. Thus, there seems no legitimate purpose to change this; since a republican Australia displays a lack of conclusive benefits towards our economy and ‘way of life.’ An Australian republic would cost billions to undertake and is simply unnecessary as there are more important issues facing Australia; and if the Australian citizens are not calling for a referendum, then any serious discussions from politicians or other related public figures are irrelevant and meaningless.
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.
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...
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.
Sharman, C. 1980. Partisanship and electoral engineering: Proportional representation and the Australian Senate. Seattle: Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting.
Australia is a bicameral federation Parliamentary democracy. Power is divided between the Commonwealth federal government and the six state governments. The Federal Parliament, or the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, is the legislative branch. The Queen (represented by the Governor-General), the Senate (Upper House) and the House of Representatives (Lower House) make up the Federal Parliament. The Federal Parliament includes two separate chambers: The House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate represent the six States and the two self-governing Territories while the members of the House represent electoral divisions according to population. The House of Representatives consists of 150 members, each elected from single member
The current plurality voting system in Canada is regularly attacked for unfairly representing the popular vote and giving some parties a disproportionate amount of legislative power while leaving others with none. Opponents contend that other electoral systems would be far superior and provide a better democracy. Proportional representation (PR) is usually cited as the best alternative; the debate of proportional representation versus plurality often hinges on the balance between fairness and efficiency. Without attempting the political calculus to determine the rate at which fairness should be sacrificed for efficiency, this paper will address the very claim that PR is more fair than the plurality system. The proponents contend that PR is a more accurate representation of the electorate's vote, that no votes are wasted, and that the will of the people translates into government better than the plurality system; however, the experience of New Zealand challenges that assertion. This paper will establish that the current plurality system produces a government that is more effective, better represents the people, and is more transparent than the proposed alternatives, namely proportional representation.
Uhr, John. "Why We Chose Proportional Representation." Representation and Institutional Change: 50 Years of Proportional Representation in the Senate. By Marian Sawer and Sarah Miskin. Canberra: Dept. of the Senate, 1999. 13-40. Print.
The principle of the separation of powers is that, in order to prevent oppressive government, the three powers of government should be held by separate bodies—the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary—which can act as checks and balances on each other. (Locke, 1690) Australia’s system of separation of powers (SOP) is a hybrid of the UK Westminster system of government and the American federal and constitutional features of government. This system of government was chosen because they provide essential philosophical and theoretical bases for which separation is essential and although this system incorporates the best aspects of the UK and US systems, many crossovers have been incorporated as a result. Consequently this shows vulnerability in the Australian federal and state system exposing it to exploitation, and mistreatment.
The highly decentralized Canadian federal government could impose voting, but due to the problems with the education of society, as stated above, elections would not guarantee that chosen senators are the best people for the job. Elections may involve senators explicitly siding with a particular party. This is evident in Australia, where “senators are elected with partisan party labels and conflict is often not between the centre and peripheral regions’ representatives, but between partisan political actors.” If senators are influenced by the ideology behind the party, they may not have their region’s best interest in mind. The Canadian electoral system is referred to as the “first-past-the-post” plurality system. In this system, the person with the most votes wins, however, they do not need the majority. This system could leave the majority of a region without representation in the government. Instating elections would allow some Canadians to have an active voice in politics, however, it does not concretely resolve the problems the Senate faces regarding regional
The government of Australia is Constitutional Monarchy and a Federal Parliamentary. According to the Australian Government website, they call it a Constitutional Monarchy because the country was established with a constitution and the Head of State was Queen Victoria (Irving). Queen Victoria was the Queen of England at the time. They also call it a Federal Parliamentary because their Constitution was the birth of their nation and it created a federal system of government (Irving). When a government is deemed a Parliamentary it has a Parliament and means that they elect a Prime Minister.
At the start of Australian Federation, there was already an imbalance of powers, to which many did not realise the impact this would have on the future of Australia as a nation. This imbalance changed ever so slightly with many a dispute but also just shifts towards support of the political party which the politicians serve instead of the state in which they represent. This all led to the Commonwealth having most of the power in Australia, and the State governments being financially dependent on the Commonwealth government.
In contrast, the representative government indicates where the people can freely vote for representatives exercising governmental powers on behalf of the people’s interests. Dawson J also stated that representative government needs people to elect freely their representative as a minimum requirement. In recent judgments in Australia, the two concepts are interchangeable. However, the notion of representative democracy seems a bit broader than the notion of representative government.
This is consistent with the concept of democracy as it allows much of the power to reside with the citizens of Australia, guaranteeing that those persons elected are held accountable to the people.