Oceania How does our legislative system work?

Hello all,

I studied politics in year 11 & 12, however, that as been a while ago now, and I have a few questions about our legislative process... I know that there are a few learned people in this forum, so I hope somoene can come to my assistance in my humble pursuit of knowledge.

Some of you may not know, that in our Constitution, the role / name of Prime Minister is not even mentioned.

Does it mention parliamentarians? If not, then what defines their 'job description'?

What defines what jurisdiction and what kind of laws that the Federal Government can make?

Can the Senate make it's own legislation, or is it only a chamber of review for the legislation created by the House of Representatives?

If the Senate CAN make legislation, then what differs from the Senate and the House is what kind of legislation they can make?

 

I'd answer this, but I have no clue whatsoever, so I'm just going to wait for Saintheart to get his butt into this thread and put us all in awe of his legal knowledge.

 

The whole system is stupid.

What's to stop politicians from making up stupid laws like you have to go to church on Sunday's or you get 5 years in jail? Don't laugh - it could happen.

 

The Constitution has a separation of powers doctine, which, IIRC my first year PolSci/Law, is Section 56 (???). It divides the government into the Legislative, Judicial and Executive. The Executive makes the bill (House of Representatives), the Legislative passes the bill into Law (Senate), and the Judiciary (Courts) interpret the law.

This site offers some answers too

E_S

 

What's to stop politicians from making up stupid laws like you have to go to church on Sunday's or you get 5 years in jail?

s.116 of the Constitution

 

Nyder is like a libertarian version of a Uni radical. Whilst lefty radicals protest the ills of the "system" for humanist reasons, the Disciples of Milton Friedman protest the inhibiting factors on the market!

E_S

 

Haha!

 

The Master descends...

To answer the questions I do have concrete answers on, one by one:

What defines what jurisdiction and what kind of laws that the Federal Government can make?

Okay, for that you have to understand Australia's political construction. Australia, at Federation in 1901, agreed to transform from a group of independent colonies into one nation, where the federal government basically is the overarching authority.

I say overarching rather than overriding or supreme authority because to a certain extent all the states retained some independence. Each state (as far as I remember) has its own written constitution which allows the State Government of each to make law on any subject it likes within its borders.

The Constitution of Australia defines the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. One specific provision in the Constitution (can't remember which section number precisely) rigidly defines the areas on which the Federal Government can make laws. These include some things like taxation, customs and immigration laws, and (I think) oil and mineral rights.

The areas on which the federal Parliament can make law are rigidly defined because it is only on these areas that federal law overrides the states. For example, South Australia decides it will accept all refugees irrespective of merit. The Federal Government's laws on immigration override the state's bright idea, because SA agreed that the federal parliament would have that authority way back at Federation.

Can the Senate make it's own legislation, or is it only a chamber of review for the legislation created by the House of Representatives?

If the Senate CAN make legislation, then what differs from the Senate and the House is what kind of legislation they can make?

To get really anal about it, the first thing to point out is that a proposed law isn't legislation until it passes through both the House of Representatives and the Senate and then has the Governor-General's assent. Before then a proposed law is only a bill.

The Senate is only a second house for a proposed bill to pass through. There isn't a review as such in the sense that the bill is examined as to its merits: it is pure and simple votes (ostensibly the will of the people, but that's a whole different argument) that determines whether a bill gets through.

The Senate's real power comes from the fact it can, if the numbers are there, force an early election in this way: if a proposed bill is rejected by the Senate twice, after it being amended in the House of Representatives, the prime minister must call a "double dissolution": i.e. both the Senate and the House of Representatives are 'dissolved' and an election is called. It was this process that eventually led to Gough Whitlam being dismissed back in 1975, but that's another story.

Some of you may not know, that in our Constitution, the role / name of Prime Minister is not even mentioned.

Does it mention parliamentarians? If not, then what defines their 'job description'?

No, the Constitution doesn't mention parliamentarians or their job description as such. In that regard, we follow the English (or "Westminster") system of parliamentary procedure (since all the states started as British colonies), which has basically followed the same line since the late Middle Ages. Under the Westminster model, you have the monarch at the top (our equivalent being the Governor-General as Elizabeth II's representative) who ratifies the law; the House of Lords representing the ancient dukes and lords who were the major landowners in England (our equivalent being the Senate, though this occurs simply by election); and the House of Commons representing the interests of the common people (our House of Representatives.)

By custom, the elected leader of the governing party is de facto the leader of the country (since it is his party that can pass a law), and thereby called by custom the "prime" (first) minister. Although in techn

 

The Prime Minister must call a "double dissolution"

I don't think that this is entirely correct. I don't think he HAS to call a double-dissolution, but the PM has the opportunity to do so. Doesn't John Howard have the opportunity to now call a double dissolution whenever he wants to... didn't the full sale of Telstra get knocked back twice? I thought that there now is about 2 or 3 different bills that have been rejected twice by the Senate...

I think Whitlam was only forced because the Senate was blocking supply / monetary / budget bills.

 

Before Federation, what were the Foreign Policies like of the different colonies? Did they even have a foreign policy? Did each colony have their own seperate treaties with other countries?

Or because they were not offically nation states, did the foreign policy of Great Britain apply in their stead?

 

How does our legislative system work?

Well...it just does, alright...?
Sorry...I knew all this once, but then I left school. And that was less than three months ago. Moral of the story? Drink less alcohol

 

Before Federation, what were the Foreign Policies like of the different colonies? Did they even have a foreign policy? Did each colony have their own seperate treaties with other countries?

Or because they were not offically nation states, did the foreign policy of Great Britain apply in their stead?

Before Federation, the colonies did exactly as the Commonwealth told them (with only a few exceptions). Unlike today, in the 1800s->early 1900s the British C'wealth was still quite powerful and because the people living in Australia were still technically British subjects (except those who officially didn't exist because they were here first ), we followed the Brits.

Today, most people would laugh at following British foreign policy.

The Colonies did have their own policies towards each other, which is highlighted by WA not being initially included in the original wording of the Constitution Preamble (that was the other referendum in 1999 that nobody took much notice of). Also, NZ was considered in the Preamble to be allowed to join the Federation. Fat chance now... so don't even ask.

Essentially, foreign policy was dictated from above and because it took time to get policy decisions across the seas, often the disgression of various Governors was used. Although you have to consider that the international political landscape was still one of empires, rather than nation states as it is largely today.

 

I don't think that this is entirely correct. I don't think he HAS to call a double-dissolution, but the PM has the opportunity to do so.

No. He's required to--the Constitution specifically tells him that a double-dissolution must be called if the Senate does not ratify a bill twice.

Doesn't John Howard have the opportunity to now call a double dissolution whenever he wants to... didn't the full sale of Telstra get knocked back twice? I thought that there now is about 2 or 3 different bills that have been rejected twice by the Senate...

He could, but no PM calls an election before he has to, mostly on the basis that he can't be sure he'll win it.

As for the rejected bills: if the Senate rejects them twice and the House of Representatives refuses to amend them, a double dissolution follows. Likely the Telstra bills haven't triggered a double dissolution because they've had amendments made to them.

I think Whitlam was only forced because the Senate was blocking supply / monetary / budget bills.

Exactly. The Senate refused to pass the Federal budget, which therefore meant the government arms had no theoretical funds to pay their employees from the Treasury. Whitlam was therefore dismissed at the royal command, if you will, of the Governor-General Sir John Kerr...although there is pretty fierce debate over whether he actually had the legislative authority to do so.

 

It is very interesting when you look at the underlying facts at what actually made the Whitlam / Fraser / Kerr situation happen.

 

It's even more interesting to note that Whitlam, the poster boy of Labor Left Students, actually came from a Labor Right faction!

E_S

 

I did notice one error on my previous post: it wasn't the Senate itself refusing to pass the Government's budget as such that triggered Whitlam's dismissal, but more accurately Whitlam's refusal to declare a double dissolution and put both Houses of Parliament to an election.

Whitlam as I recall was objecting to calling a double dissolution on the basis that the Senate, controlled by the Liberal Party, wasn't blocking supply with the intent of amending any bill passed, but rather simply to force Whitlam out. I think he regarded that as an abuse of the parliamentary process and refused to go to an election as a result.

If I remember the story right, the country was in that deadlock for about seven days or so, until Sir John Kerr decided on the advice of the Chief Justice of the High Court (Sir Garfield Barwick, an old nemesis of Whitlam's) that he had the authority to dismiss (read: sack) the elected government.

The question over whether Kerr had the legal authority to do so was that Whitlam asserted (after some research; he was a QC also) the Governor-General always acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, that the GG position is in reality a figurehead and has no real discretion to do otherwise.

 

What did Whitlam say then? He quipped something about the GG then, but it escapes me now..

E_S

 

"God may save the Queen, but nothing will save the Governor-General."

 

That's it. Cheers.

E_S

 

Ok, if you REALLY want to read into the intrigue, Machiavellian Plots, and inner background of what actually caused the crisis, then read these text files:

Part 1

Part 2 - IMPORTANT

Part 3 - IMPORTANT

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

 

Whilst I'm not doubting the credibility of those sources...oh wait, yes I am. They're hosted off some guy's private blog on "Connect Infobahn Australia" or some such thing. I'm sure we weren't honestly meant to believe that it has anything to do with the real CIA. Is there a more reliable source for this information?

 

See,

HawkNC, this is again where you are discreditng something which you obviously have no idea about. Do some research, as the folks in the Senate like to remind me instead of just asking me a question.

My father was a member of the Royal Australian Navy for 20+ years, and when he left there, he joined on of Australia's most secretive intelligence organizations - Defense Signals Directorate (DSD) Marshall Greene.

If you do consider yourself a knowledgeable university student, then do some research into Marshall Greene, and his influence in the South East Asian area during the 60's - 70's, especially his role in Indonesia.

 

Oh, I know the DSD exists. I never argued that. What I am arguing, however, is the legitimacy of those documents. If they were hosted on a site that is even remotely reputable, then fine, but as it is, they look like some hack teenager is trying to pass them off as "real" CIA documents.

 

Dude, I never said that you doubted the DSD existed. As I said my Dad worked for them and the military, and independently told me about Marhall Greene and the events he played in Indonesia and China, apart from a website.

As I said, before you instantly reject something do a GOOGLE search or YAHOO search or whatever search engine tickles your fancy about Marshall Greene, and other people mentioned in that document.

 

If your father had worked for DSD, then you just violated §40 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (C'wlth).

E_S