Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Australian constitution
Constitution essay australian
Constitution essay australian
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Australian constitution
The Australian Constitution
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 Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 emphasized self-government in the colonies, although denying them the power to amend or repeal British law. (Enright et.al 1995, p.14) It wasn’t until Australia became a Federation with the enactment of the Australian Constitution Act 1901(U.K.) on 1 January 1901, that Australia had their own law making powers. However, these powers were still limited by the Constitution. (Waller et.al 2000, p.71) When the Statute of Winchester 1931 invalidated the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 the Commonwealth gained the power to pass their own Acts, irrespective of whether they were consistent with British Law. However, this power did not extend to the States. Remaining restrictions were removed with the enactment of the Australia Acts 1986. Australian Parliaments and Courts now had full control of Australian Laws. (Enright et.al 1995, p.p. 16-17 and Carvan et.al 1999, p.p. 25-26)
Although the Monarch ceased to be active in government, the Queen still remains as the Constitutional Head of State, with Monarchial power being exercised through the Governor-General. With the exception of ‘reserve powers’ the Governor-General a...
... middle of paper ...
...Constitutional Issues; University of Queensland Law Journal(1994) University of Queensland Press, Australia.
Carvan, J., Understanding the Australian legal System (1999) LBC Information Services, Sydney.
Chisholm, R., Nettheim, G., Understanding Law (1997) Butterworths, Australia.
Enright, C., Studying Law (1995) Federation Press, Sydney.
Mack, K., in Corkery J.F., A Career in Law (1998) Federation Press, Sydney.
Waller, L., An introduction to law (2000) LBC Information Services, Sydney.
Winterton, G., Monarchy to Republic: Australian Republican Government (1994) Oxford University Press, Australia.
Winterton, G., in Stephenson, M.A., Turner, C., Republic or Monarchy: Legal and Constitutional Issues; University of Queensland Law Journal (1994) University of Queensland Press, Australia.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/republic.htm#aussie
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
Australia's federation came about through a process of deliberation, consultation and debate. Before 1901 Australia did not exist as a nation. It was six British colonies, which were self-governed, but under the power of the British Parliament. The colonies were almost like six separate countries. In the 1880s there was so much disorganisation within this system, which caused a belief that a national government was, needed to deal with issues such as trade, defence and immigration saw popular support for federation grow.
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
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.
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
I believe that Australia should not become a republic. I think that there would be no point in becoming a republic, because we live without the intervention of the Queen at the moment, so becoming a republic would achieve nothing. If we were to become a republic, we would lose the support of England in times of war, famine or other disaster. I think that becoming a republic would achieve nothing, lose our links with England and waste the parliament's time when they should be concerned with more important issues.If we were to become a republic, the governor general would be replaced by a president who would have the same powers and responsibilities as our Governor General, so only the name and the person holding the position would change, wasting important parliament time and achieving absolutely nothing.
The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
First, let's talk about the similarities between colonial government and the current government system. For example, the Privy Council is similar to the executive branch today because both set policies or laws for the colony or country and enforce them. Also, the privy council and the executive branch allowed some colonies or states to run their own affairs (kind of like how today, the executive branch could set laws in a country, but some states have certain rules. An example of this is how Idaho allows people to ride motorcycles without helmets, but in most other
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.
The monarchy symbolizes unity and traditions, which is unique and treasured to the nation. The monarch universally known as head of the Commonwealth, she is voluntarily recognised as the Head of State to 54 independent countries (The British Monarchy, 2013) The Queen to modern Britain, is an icon, who cannot simply be swapped for an elected politician. The British monarchy has played huge importance in British history, which is integral to our national identity. The Queen reined for 61 years and she provides an existing connection between the past, present and future. This is exactly what a politician could not offer to the public; for instance, Tony Blair, prior to 1997 was unknown on a state level, as he had done nothing significant for the British public. The monarchy’s traditions are famous not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of sixteen other countries including Britain. Whilst the queen receives many privileges as head of state, it does come at a personal cost. Her privacy is limited as she is consistently scrutinized from t...
3 G. Maddox, Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1985, p. 9
The British Monarchy. “The Queen in Parliament.” The Royal Household. Accessed May 4, 2014. https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueeninParliament.aspx.