Federalism In Australia Summary

In this essay, it will be seen that the expansion of the external affairs power since Federation reflects Australia’s growing independence from a Dominion of the United Kingdom and its transition into nationhood.

In the dissenting judgment made by Callinan J in the landmark New South Wales v Commonwealth (“Workchoices’ Case”), a strong criticism was mounted against constitutional interpretation methods employed in the judicial forum. Explicitly, this conjecture was focused at Isaacs J’s judgement in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ Case”), where a textualism approach to constitutional interpretation was adopted. Callinan J expressed the Engineers’ Case as “less than satisfactory”, using “detached language” to discredit its literal methodology of interpreting the constitution.

To introduce, Australia was country solely owned and run by Britian until 1901, the year of Australian federation, from 6 separate self-governing colonies to one, on the 26th day of January 1901. ’While Federation was not perfect, it was a system (of both laws and beliefs) that enabled Australia to flourish.’ The question itself represents the states coming together as one uniting nation. The laws, the beliefs, the privileges and the embellishment of the phrase gives you a sense of welcoming into the history of Australian federation.

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.

Another institution that protects our rights is shown by this case, the principle of separation of powers is on display, simply put the principle of the separation of powers refers to the three different branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and how they provide for a system of checks and balances for one another (Donald Carper, 2011) ensuring all parts act within the scope of their powers. This is outlined by the fact that the actions of the executive where investigated by the courts to see if their actions were in compliance with the Australian Constitution and other relevant legislation passed, by ensuring that the government’s actions were in accordance with the rules stated in the constitution it was ensured that the government acted within its scope and there was no abuse of power, because if this system of checks and balances did not exist than there would be no way to stop one of the bodies from overstretching and doing something that is outside of their power, we need to hold institutions accountable in order to ensure people’s rights are protected and governments cannot implement any policy that they wish. Individuals may disagree about the outcomes of particular cases but it is vital to our democracy and our rights that all the outcomes of cases are based on the Constitution and the relevant legislation, by having everything follow a set guideline and by having systems to enforce these guidelines we ensure institutions

Beginning with the Articles of Confederation, our nascent country began its path to self-governance. No longer “property” of the British Empire, the task at hand was how to effectively govern these newly formed states. Apparently a fan of symmetry, the

There are several similarities contained within the preambles of the Australian and United States constitutions. Immediately, they both tell of the people and their states which will be affected and governed by the constitution which follows. Next, they say they have agreed to come together to create a union of some form. In addition, they both end the opening of the

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

Australian federation was a main turning point in Australia’s history, not so much for it’s camaraderie and sprit, but to legislate and retaliate against three main concerns that had arose in our developing nation; Australia’s defence, immigration and trade. With the introduction of Federation to Australia, all three problems were fixed, and much more.

On January 1st 1901, the commonwealth of Australia was born when the six separate states united under a single federal constitution. Sir Henry Parkes first voiced the need for a united defense of the Australian continent in his Tenterfield oration in 1889. Prior to his speech, the proposal was considered unpopular as each colony had their own characteristics and traditions independant from the rest of Australia. However with issues such as transportation and communication growing, many people understood that a federation be more beneficial towards these matters. With the threatening approach with other countries growing, politicians and high ranked defense officers ,now recognized as the most important figures in Australian history, realised

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

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.

The Division and Separation of power are essential to keep our societies rulers to have a restriction on their powers. The importance of each on the Australian domestic law especially in relation to the rule of law, and protecting individual rights, and the legal system.

In Australia, the main source of judicial review is found within our Constitution; s75(3) states that High Court with have original jurisdiction over all matters in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth is a party, and under s75(5), will also have jurisdiction over matters where in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth . With the High Court’s jurisdiction essentially defined by a series of constitutional writs, ‘jurisdictional error’ has become a unifying principle for judicial review . In order to evaluate the ability of a person to seek judicial review of an administrative decision, it is essential to understand how our system has developed over time. It is important to

In this essay I will be explaining how the doctrine of the separation of powers has been compromised to a less extent in the nation like Australia. The first section will constitute in exploring the history and the significance of the separation of the power doctrine. In the second section I will discuss about the compromise of the doctrine, especially between the administrator and the legislature with some good cases held in high court. Besides, some clarification will be provided to explain how the philosophical system of separation of power is being compromised. This estimate will be supported by the depth psychology of several examples and articles where the doctrine has been compromised concluding that the total separation of the power is merely a myth but as well in spite of that the doctrine protects the individual rights.