Australian Constitutional Monarchy

First of all, there are some similarities between the Australian government and the American government. They both have a congress, although they call it parliament in the Australian government. Both have a federal government; this means that they have state and federal governments. They have senators that represents the states. They have a house that is elected by the people. In both countries, legislation has to be passed through both houses. They both have a court that interprets the constitution and handles final appeals (Supreme Court in U.S. and High Court in Australia). Also, they both have written constitutions that describes the powers of government. However, they both have differences.

In the Australian constitution the Queen holds the executive power and also has legislative power. The Governor General is appointed by the Queen and is also the commander-in-chief. Another difference between the two countries is the Australian judicature. The High Court of Australia does not have the power of judicial review. Ultimately, in Australia the parliament and the prime minister have the complete power.

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

As the Prime Minister of Australia, it is my duty to present my democratic nation with their elected desires. The current issue is concerning the movement of Australia’s governing system from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. I believe that Australia should become a republic, as our sunburnt country has overtime developed culturally and democratically since 1901 when we become the Commonwealth of Australia, and started living under the ruling of Queen Elizabeth the Second. We have created a place that is in no way similar to the British Empire. As Australians we respect and acknowledge the traditional owners of our land, the Aborigines. Over time, it seems as though we have taken this country out of their hands and handed it to the

Australia’s current political system is a Constitutional Monarchy. A constitutional monarchy requires that a hereditary monarch is appointed as the head of state. The monarch in a constitutional monarchy has got a largely a figurative and official role than a practical one. In this current system, the responsibility to pass legislation is tasked only to the democratically elected parliament. In Australia’s case, the hereditary monarch Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia and the Head of the Commonwealth, of which Australia is a part of. The position held by Her Majesty, cannot be contested by an election like the Prime Ministers, however it is a birth right of those in her lineage. Due to the exclusivity of the position as the hereditary

Australia 's Federal System is dynamic and the division of lawmaking power between the Commonwealth and State since 1901 has changed dramatically; Critically discuss, focussing on the major reasons for those changes.

Where there are problems, they are often with the way the Australian federal system operates, rather than with federalism itself. Rather than criticising our federal system, we should be working to make better use of its advantages
in order to improve our prosperity. In particular, the reform of the allocation of powers and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States, and reform of fiscal federalism, are desperately needed. (Twomey and Withers, 2007)

The political system used within Australia should be that of an aristocracy. This is superior to that of the democratic society we live. Today I shall be discussing what an aristocracy is and why it is superior to other political systems. Some issues being addressed are the values of equality, despite the classes within an aristocracy and the rights for the upper class or rulers of their society to be just and uphold the idea of society as a whole opposed to that of a democracy where individuals are favoured. This is followed by the cons of the other political systems and lastly the military and defence, which is presented in an aristocratic society.

The Australian Legal System was around the 1700’s when Britain brought its own legal system over when they were setting up the colonies in Australia. Over a century or so Britain began granting limited rights to set up a local legal system within the British colonies. They were granted this right, and were able to develop their own laws and legal systems. The passing of the Australian Constitution began an independent legal system that formed part of the governmental system in Australia, which took place in 1901, and while the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia was indeed an Act of the British Parliament, Britain's involvement in the Australian Government begun to decrease. However, there was minor propulsion for Australia to procure

The “Australia transitioning into a republic” issue has resurfaced in recent years because the opinion is right. There is an inherent conflict between Australia's stated values and its structure. We claim to appreciate equality but allow our head of state to be decided through hereditary title. We function as a democracy but automatically surrender the highest position of legitimate honour to an unelected European monarch. Australia has earned her right to stand alone as a fully independent democracy; we have our own identity within the world.

     Australia’s form of government has been described as a constitutional monarchy, in which the queen of England is the nominal head of state. In the federal government, power rests with the elected political party that holds the majority in the House of Representatives. The leader is the prime minister. The Senate consists of 76 members who are elected every six years. The House of Representatives has 147 members and they face elections every three years. Any laws that involve changes to the Constitution must be decided by a referendum in which the country’s citizens are called to vote on whether or not they want such changes to take place.

The piece Advance Australia … within reason, was conveyed on the 5th of January by Amy Mackintosh, at the annual “University of Students for Youth Political Activism’ meeting held at The University of Melbourne. Mackintosh steadily argues the reasons why Australia should not have become a republic, and how the country should stay as a monarchy. The tone of the speech is very colloquial and even sarcastic, with the middle part being more analytical and serious. The speaker gives the impression that the argument for Australia to stay as a Monarchy is unbiased and logical.

Firstly, a government’s claim to a majoritarian mandate can reduce Australian politics to an ‘electoral democracy.’ The opposition might be able to criticise government policy but according to this theory they have no right to amend, block or delay government legislation. This reduces the role of members of parliament, pressure groups and the media to simply channel public opinion. Broader participation in the political process is limited by the government’s claim to an all-powerful mandate. Furthermore, in recent parliaments, the will of the government has been frustrated by the parliament. However, it is because of this fact it can be argued parliament produces better legislation due to poor legislation being blocked. Australia’s two-party dominance, reflecting the majority of people’s will in the lower house has been proven effective and the Senate that is designed to act as the ‘house of review’ is an effective check on the people’s will. Despite this, the ‘review’ function of the senate is becoming increasingly a reflection of the ‘will of the parliament’ and this is contributing to parliament becoming dysfunctional. The Turnbull government hopes to resolve this through a double dissolution later this

The purpose of the Succession to the Crown act (2015) Cth is to adopt the UK’s changes of marriage and gender’s effects on royal succession. Thus, allowing the Sovereign of the UK to be that of Australia.

Australia’s government design was taken from the British Westminster system after those who originally colonized Australia. A functional, western style democracy, there are a number of minor political parties operating in Australia but the country’s federal politics is an essential 2-party system at present, much like the United States (Our Country, 2015).