Upper House Case Study

That being stated, one particular argument that has been raised in opposition to Senate reforms is that the upper house is no longer relevant and should be abolished (Maclean’s, 2013). The website suggests that

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.

In his article Marsh (2010) suggests that the Australian political system could benefit from new infrastructure by replacing senate with committees of

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

In this referendum, 54.87% of the population voted in the negative to Australia becoming a republic. The result obtained through this nationwide ballot show that the overwhelming majority of Australian’s have chosen to not become a republic when presented the opportunity. Additionally, they contest that the current system of governance has effectively worked since the days of conception to now. So a system which has been functional and a major source of stability for over 116 years, doesn’t require any restructuring or overhaul. Another argument held by the right wing conservatives is that in being constitutional monarchy under the monarch of Great Britain we have gained many advantages such as important relations with the UK and other Commonwealth countries, these relations have allowed us to become the functional, strong and independent country we are today. Another argument held by the monarchists is that the cost of changing to a republic would be astronomically high. The previous expenses spent to run the 1999 referendums which was $87.5 million as well as the estimated costs of changing references to the monarchy in government stationary, letter-headers, logos, etc are estimated to go into the billions of dollars. Expenditure of this magnitude is currently not viable considering 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.

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

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

The main parties of Australia are: the Labour Party, Liberal Party, National Party, and the Australian Democrats; these parties are voted in through a preferential system of voting (“Australia’s Political Structure,” 2011). All citizens over the age of 18 are required to vote for these parties because of compulsory voting (adopted in 1924). Australia followed many other democracies on there decision to implement compulsory voting during the 1920s. However, the country unusually added mandatory voting without other previsions (Birch, 2009). Australia was able to do so because of several strong factors supporting the measure.

The case of Mabo v Others v State of Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (www.austlii, 1993), rewrote common law as the court ruled in a six to one majority, that the people of

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)

Whilst in theory there should be a distinct division between the three arms of government, in practice the Australian political system makes evident overlaps. The overlapping nature of government often arises as an issue over which parties are to exercise what kinds of power. Essentially however, each head or group is designed to keep the others in check.

We discuss changes and will where possible include staff and service users in the drafting and development of a home's policies and procedures normally in team/residents meetings this makes people more interested and they feel involved. Service users have access to relevant policies, procedures and codes of practice in appropriate formats and staff explain them to service users using relevant and appropriate methods of communication.

When I arrived DH as at the house already. DH was in her room watching Full House. I checked into DH every hour to make sure she was fine. DH ate dinner and after dinner DH wanted cake for dinner. I reached out to the Service Cordinator to see if DH could have cake because of her health issues. I redirected DH numerous times to watch full house or to watch telivsion with me in the living room. DH did not want either she kept pursisting on having cake. I explained to DH that I care more about her health than her eating a full cake. I comprimised with DH and split a pop tart with her roommate. DH placed the poptart in the toster. When the pop tart was done, DH went to grab the pop tart out of the toster and I informed DH she would burn herself

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.