Australian Political System Analysis

Today for most Australian’s the potential of what a vote can represent is lost in political apathy and some could argue that this directly relates to how the leaders of the two main political parties continually compete for the populist vote. This environment is dominated by the media portrayal of our political parties and as a result of this, policies for the long term interests of the country have become secondary to short term wins (Marsh, 2010).

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.

The role of the minor parties within the Australian political system can be as their title suggests, quite minor. On the other hand, a minor party can influence the political proceedings of this country in more ways than one. Minor parties can highlight socio-economic problems that quite often fly under the radar of the larger political parties, or simply can broaden electoral debate. Often spawning from a social, or in the case of the Greens, an environmental movement, minor parties tend to only last through one election, due to a lack of support and relevance in the mainstream social fabric. The minor parties can become crucial players come election time, due to Australia’s law of Compulsory preferential voting. Jaensch (1983, p.21)

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 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.

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 government system has been originally created in 1901 through the Constitution. With the fundamentals carved in the Constitution, the Australian System is often referred to as a ‘Washminster System’ as it is a hybrid of the Washington (US) and Westminster (UK) system of government. With the fusion of North America and the United Kingdom’s government systems, the phenomenon of the bicameral system was implemented in the Australian system. Bicameralism’s origins are from England and it was later established in the United States. Hence, the onset of the Australian system’s structures was anglocentric by reflecting the foundations and concepts of England. However, the concept of bicameralism is known to have existed since medieval times and has since been in the chronical of the Western political progress for centuries. Bicameralism is an important system in the Australian government. It refers to a government which consists of two chambers, or houses. Alike North America, the houses are known as the House of Representatives (the lower house) and the Senate (the upper house). On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, the chambers are known as the ‘House of Commons’ (the lower house) and the ‘House of Lords’ (the upper house). In 1789, North America altered their constitution in order to ratify how the American citizens were represented. Through bicameralism, the House of Representative would represent the people equally by population, whereas the Senate would

Gough Whitlam is regarded as one the most controversial Prime ministers in Australia’s history. He is highly recognised for the great change and impact he had on Australia and the lasting legacy of the Whitlam years. Through the many changes and introduction of policies within Government and internal events, the Whitlam Government experienced many successes and failures. These successes and failures contributed to the image of the Whitlam government and how the public perceived the stability and trust in the government. The successes showcased how the Whitlam government was quite dynamic and influential in change, but on the other hand, failures displayed how the Whitlam government was ill disciplined and inexperienced. Successes included education,

Will Australia become a republic in the next twenty years? This is a difficult question to speculate on. The main area of law governing this issue is section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (U.K). Other issues in this debate are regarding appointment, termination and the powers to be awarded to the proposed Head of State, and the impact the change will have on the States. Examining the history of Australian Legislative powers, and reasons why Australians would want to change, is also useful when speculating on this issue.

The Senate (Upper house) was designed by the founders to act as a reviewer or sometimes even just a ‘rubber stamp’ if the elected government has an overwhelming majority in both the Upper and Lower houses. The founders had given the Senate the power to reject a government’s budget all together, but it had never been used. The Opposition was using this alleged power to reject the government’s budgets; not because they objected to it, they only wanted the elected government to essentially run out of money and be forced to hold an election. These actions questioned the functioning of the Lower and Upper houses and endangered the structure of responsible government in Australian politics. Whitlam argued that the Senate did not have the power to stop a government from running the country and make them face the people. The Opposition said this power existed in the Constitution and ‘interpreted’ that it then must be alright for them to use it. Whitlam stated that by using this power the Opposition was breaking a tradition, a convention, which must be adhered to if there was any hope for a responsible Senate and

What began as a thoroughly independent and autonomous set of state governments has evolved with a much greater emphasis placed on the Federal power. However, this distinction of power is not outlined in a transparent and efficient way in the Constitution, and throughout the timeline of Australian politics, it has not been uncommon to see contests between the two governments on matters of roles and responsibilities. In times of conflict, section 71 of the Constitution outlines that the High Court can rule an overriding decision on these disagreements, which has strengthened the law making powers of federal parliament. This means that although the federal government has the power to override the state, the High court can still make a judgement that would overrule both federal and state powers. Since the federal government is responsible in the funding of various services it is fair to say that they have more power. The federal parliament can 'grant financial assistance to any state on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit' (Constitution, S96). This means the federal government can offer help to the state government, when needed, in order to help with decision making. If this is the case and the federal parliament does help the state, then this shows how the federal parliament influences the way in which those laws made under state powers are

branches of parliament are meant to divide and generally secure power from one another, in recent years

     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.

It is very evident that Queensland does not have to reinstate an upper house to be an effect government. This is due to that the original upper house was unable to do its job effectively of reviewing and negotiating laws and bills. Especially amending money bills that the lower house passed, due to that its members came from elitist group of wealth and education (Queensland Parliament, 2010). This elitist upper house resulted in a lacked of diversity, therefore laws that where made for working class Queenslanders, were rarely passed.

For the last few years of democratic history in Australia there has been much debate. One main focus of political debate has been the voting system Australia currently uses. The majority of the country like the way we currently vote by using a however there is one major difference that sets us aside from most democracy’s. This is compulsory voting. The majority of major democracies around the world (United States of America and England) do not enforce their citizens to vote.