The purpose of Australia’s democratic parliament is to convert political inputs into outputs and to be the means by which the will of the people is expressed. Its Bi- cameral structure is intended to allow the sovereignty of a popular government whilst maintain and protecting the interests of the states; its two chambers have distinct identities but similar powers. The four main function of parliament are legislation, representation, responsibility and acting as a forum of debate. It is a commonly held belief that there has been a decline in parliamentary thesis. Advocates of this belief claim that parliament in the modern day supports the executive rather than scrutinizing it and thus acts as little more than an electoral college. They claim that this decline is evident in the fact that it is unable to effectively scrutinize bills, its members are loyal to parties rather than electorates and in that it is ineffective in acting as a forum of debate. This essay will assess and evaluate these claims and ultimately conclude whether or not there has been a decline in parliamentary thesis.
The legislative function requires that parliament initiates, deliberates and thereafter passes legislation. In accordance with its intended image parliament should ideally allow legislative proposals to be raised both by the government and ordinary members; any such bills should then be scrutinized and amended where necessary to make them suitable for enactment. Decline of parliamentary thesis advocates however claim that parliament retain this function only formally as it is in reality dominated by party politics. This claim is based on a variety of factors; firstly since the government almost always holds a majority in the lower house it elects the...
... middle of paper ...
...dividuals to be elected and express their views
Conclusively parliament is clearly incapable of performing its traditional functions. This is due predominantly to the adoption of the two party systems in 1910 which greatly changed political objectives. Advocates of the decline of parliamentary thesis consequently claim that in comparison to the golden age parliament has deteriorated into a rubber stamp of executive will. These critics however fail to take into account that previous parliaments were different not necessarily better and while it is true that party dominance reduced the opportunity for debate and the ability to enforce ministerial responsibility it also has strong benefits such as providing government with a clear set of policies which it can then defend with electoral mandate. Additionally the two party system also contributes to government stability.
The decision for Australia to adopt the Federal system was on the principle of which the State’s governments wanted to keep their power. For this reason there was the separation of powers between the newly formed Commonwealth government and the existing State governments. At a constitutional level, there are rulings in which the powers are separated, these rulings due to disputes have slightly changed since 1901. These changes all fell towards the one government, the Commonwealth (Federal) government. However this was not just a landslide event, the Constitution of Australia set up this imbalance of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments. We will explore this further in the points discussed later in this essay.
Senate reform in Canada has been a popular topic for decades but has yet to be accomplished. Since the Senates formation in 1867 there has been numerous people who call for its reform or abolishment due to the fact it has not changed since its implementation and does not appear to be fulfilling its original role. An impediment to this request is that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the structure of the Senate, which is not an easy feat. Senate reform ideas have developed from other upper houses in counties such as the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. From those two different successful governments emerges examples of different electoral systems, state representation, and methods of passing legislations.
In our Canadian parliamentary system there are many ideologies and practices which aid in the successful running of our country. One of the more important ideologies and practices in our political system is the notion of strict party discipline. Party discipline refers to the notion of members of a political party “voting together, according to the goals and doctrines of the party, on issues that are pertinent to the government” or opposition in the House of Commons. In this paper, I will be discussing the practice of party discipline in the Canadian parliamentary system as well as the ways in which a change in the practice of strict party discipline to weaker party discipline would result in more positive effects on the practice of Canadian politics rather than more negative ones.
middle of paper ... ... d therefore the smaller parties can be considered to have very little effect on the overall political situation. In conclusion, the UK can still best be described as a two party system, provided two considerations are taken into account. The first is that Conservative dominance victories between 1979-97 was not a suggestion of party dominance and that eventually, the swing of the political pendulum will be even for both sides. This can perhaps be seen today with Labour's two landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.
Paun Akash, Robert Hazell, Andrew Turnball, Alan Beith, Paul Evans, and Michael Crick. "Hung Parliaments and the Challenges for Westminster and Whitehall: How to Make Minority and Multiparty Governance Work (with Commentaries by Turnbull, Beith, Evans and Crick)." in Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue 2: 213-227.
Bicameralism in Australia has a long history dating back to the pre-Federation colonial parliaments. These structures, in turn, evolved from their British forbear, the parliament at Westminster. At federal and state levels there has been considerable debate and controversy over the continuing efficacy and efficiency of the two-house model. Is it necessary or desirable to maintain two houses of parliament for state and federal governments in Australia? Did the Queensland government do the right thing in abolishing its upper house? What is the future of bicameralism in Australia? These are some of the questions that this essay will seek to address.
The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty is about the relationship between the parliament and the courts. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution; it is the highest authority in the UK. Parliament can repeal or amend any law it wishes. Thus through the procedure of the House of Commons and the House of Lords passing the legislation to the monarch and the monarch gives assent. In result, making the legislation and no court or higher body has legal power to declare the legislation validity. The UK constitution is uncodified which means it is unwritten. According to Professor Leyland’s he says that the history of the British constitution is significant to the current practice . For example, the Bill of Rights 1689 gave inheritance to the current principle that resulted in making the crown, House of Lords and House of common with unlimited legislative authority. Therefore, the legal sovereignty of parliament was Dicey’s regarded founding principle of the constitution. There are three principles that Dicey outlined to explain the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy . This essay will discuss the significance of parliamentary sovereignty to the UK constitution and Dicey’s interpretation of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. It will also consider any exception occurred to Dicey’s redefinition principle and other theorist.
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...
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 prime minister and the members of the legislative branch hold office in both (Phillips, 2012, p.198). Contrary to the “separation of powers” that the presidential system holds, the parliamentary system holds the “fusion of powers”. This makes both branches responsible for administering the daily operations of government departments and also exercising executive powers (Phillips, 2012, p.198). This can be seen as an advantage and a disadvantage at the exact same time. It is the parliamentary systems’ most important advantage, that no branch has the power to go against the executive, but it may also be seen as a disadvantage.
New Zealand is a large island about the size of Colorado that is situated southwest of Australia, in the south Pacific. The Island is considered to belong to the volcanic “ring of fire”, that circulates the Pacific Ocean. The Island has a varied myriad of geography ranging from flat, sheep strewn plains to impressive mountains (Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, New Zealand). Along with the geography, the climate also ranges from subtropical to temperate (Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, New Zealand). The population of 4 million is mostly made up of people that claim a British ancestry, although 15% of the population classify themselves as indigenous Polynesians or Maori (Keith Jackson, “New Zealand"). More than three quarters of the population increase in the twentieth century is a result of population growth instead of immigration (Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs). The nation’s culture is also being broadened due to a resurgence of Maori culture and through globalisation. New Zealand is ruled under a Parliamentary Democracy, although it is also included as a dominion of the United Kingdom.
The formation of an electoral coalition consisting of a national majority allows British elections to be a rapid process. For instance, the elected representatives are in control of the institutional mechanism of exercising authority on matters of national public policy. This gives one party a clear majority of the seats in the lower and more powerful House of the legislature and the legitimate right to control the executive as well as legislative organs of government. (Way
Past forms of representative government have become extinct or severely troubled because of numerous weaknesses. The first problem of representative government that the cabinet system seeks to reconcile is the lack of cooperation between executive powers and legislative powers. This can happen when different parties control each branch of the government. This paralysis of government is seen as a danger to the cabinet system. Lack of cooperation can also occur because people of a country look to the executive as the leader, but he can often not have any power as a result of lack of cooperation from the legislative powers. Overall, there is a lingering inclination in representative government for the powers to become dissonant, thus rendering government unable to take any action. The cabinet system sees this gridlock as an entirely avoidable evil.
To assess parliament’s performance in its ability to scrutinise various government departments, the article draws attention to the two houses of parliament. The House of Representatives is generally under strict government control while the Senate is very rarely controlled by the ruling government, giving it a greater ability to scrutinise government performance. (Thomas 2009: 373)
...ol all the people all the time. But they can make fools of the people – they can make fools of themselves – for at least four years” (15). This is why changing the system is important – people are slowly being consumed by the system. It is important to have an efficient system beforehand, like the parliamentary system, because the government will play a vital role in the country and even a more central and dominant role. There will be an emanation from the executive: the initiation for policymaking, since this is basically the goal of the parliamentary system of government – to be more hands-on in making and implementing policies (24). Due to this, many countries are also debating if they will shift to a parliamentary type of government (6) since many of the first world countries today like Australia, Canada, Japan, and Singapore are using this type of system (23).