Public Affairs Essay
To what extent does Australia’s system of government reflect basic democratic principles, and to
what extent not.
Answer the above question giving specific examples and insight into the issue.
Also include NEWS ARTICLES, YOUTUBE CLIPS and ACADEMIC SOURCES to strengthen the
argument.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ESSAY 2
To what extent does Australia’s system of government reflect basic democratic principles, and to
what extent not.
Australia has enjoyed very stable democratic institutions for a long time and at
Federation took pride in being a very young nation but an old democracy. Australia is quite a
different type of country than it was in 1901 and “Brutishness” no longer provides the other
aspect of its identity. Since 1989, there have been various attempts to articulate a civic identity as
an alternative to an ethnically based national identity. Sets of core values or basic principles
associated with Australian democracy have been identified, and, recently, the Australian
Citizenship Council has urged acts of public commitment to these shared democratic principles,
including acceptance of democratic diversity and recognition of the status of Torres Strait
Islander and Aboriginal peoples as well as the strengthening of the parliamentary democracy
(Levey, n.d.).
Despite such affirmations, many believe that trust in representative institutions has
eroded rather than strengthened in recent times. Surveys find a gap between the policy
preferences of voters and those of their elected officials (Galligan & Roberts, 2004). This gap
can be particularly large on issues such as immigration. There has been resentment in some parts
of the country that immigrants no longer need to come from Britain or at least to assimilate to
full citizens. This resentment fuelled support for populist politicians who claimed to be a voice
for the people rather than for the political elite. Moreover, a civic identity based on sound
democratic principles is not in itself sufficient for ensuring national cohesion, particularly in
multi-ethnic or multinational states. There needs to be some emotional identification with the
history of the nation. In the Australian context, knowledge of and pride in, the democratic
struggles and accomplishments might promote such identity without the need for any racial pride
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ESSAY 3
(Birch, 2001). There exists evidence from the International Social Survey Program of 1996 that
pride in Australia’s democracy is very high by international standards, exceeded only by New
Zealand, Norway, Canada and Britain. There is distrust of politicians, and the country does not
rank so highly on this indicator, but there is still less distrust than in most countries. While pride
in democracy still plays such a role in Australian national identity, there can be some optimism
for the future, despite the cultural and economic insecurities of the present (Cook, 2004).
In any democratic political system, the executive is required to accountable i.e. should be
held responsible for its administrative practices and decisions. One of the most significant
principles of democracy in Australia is that voters/people have a choice of government (Foley,
1996). To keep with this expectation’s spirit, the opposition is recognized as being the next
largest party in Australia. This implies that the party forming the opposition is thought of a party
that lost the last election based on the numbers in the State Legislative Assembly or the House of
Representatives. The Australian government has embraced democracy allowing opposition that
plays a vital role of keeping the government accountable and honest (Lindell, 1994).
Traditionally, the opposition forms a shadow cabinet that scrutinizes government officials and
propose alternative ideas and amendments to government legislations. In this context, the
shadow opposition cabinet plays a significant role in criticizing the agenda of the government as
well as pointing out any shortcomings of the top leadership i.e. the ministerial team or the Prime
Minister (Smith, 2012).
Fundamental democratic principles are reflected by the Australian government’s
separation of powers in order to define distinct and discrete functions and roles as well as avoid a
monopoly of authority (Galligan, 1995). The functional basis of the separation of powers has
enabled expertise and professionalism required in exercising various governmental powers,
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ESSAY 4
especially judicial power, has been perceived in a way which was impossible under the earlier
notions of ‘balanced government’ which had viewed the various ‘estates’ held in balance merely
as centres of power. There was, for example, no inherent reason why the nobles should sit in
Parliament, rather than, say, the lower clergy or the landless peasantry, except that one group
held social or economic power and the others did not. But the separation of powers doctrine
highlighted the need for democratic input into legislation and, in the case of the judicially, for
independence and professional expertise, which received early recognition (Keating, 2004).
Separation of power has made the way the Australian government system works
differently. In the First place, it has prevented the courts from being given powers that are non-
judicial (Hart, 2008). Federal courts could not be asked to negotiate or arbitrate industrial
disputes, for example because arbitration is an executive power. Federal courts could not be
called upon to agree to continue keeping dangerous offenders in gaol after they have served their
sentence, as some state courts have been. That power is not judicial either. Separation of power
has also prevented other bodies using judicial power. Over several years, this has had its primary
impact on organizations that are set up to deals with disputes of various kinds but which do not
meet the definition of the courts. An example of these was the Interstate Commission established
under section 101 of the Constitution (Keating, 2004). This commission was supposed to have
powers of adjudication and administration over disputes about how the parts of the constitution
dealing with economic matters worked. In 1915, the high court said that whatever those words
meant, the commission would not use judicial power because its members were appointed only
for seven years and so it was not a court. This made the commission less necessary, and it no
longer exists. Separation of judicial power means that parliament cannot use judicial power
either. This is essential especially for the protection of individuals under the Australian
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ESSAY 5
Constitution. For example, Parliament cannot pass a law to say that a particular person has
committed a crime and to punish them for it because this is judicial power. On the other hand,
the separation of judicial power has limited the instructions that Parliament can give the courts
about how to do their work. The separation of powers has been necessary for preventing tyranny
and preservation and maintenance of people’s liberty. This is because a separation of powers is
the best means for institutionalising the rule of law the idea that an objective set of publicly
known as rules are applied transparently and equally to all people (Peabody, 2011).
To some extent, the precise role of the courts in the country is hotly contested. A maxim
of democratic governance is that, in accordance with the doctrine of the separation of powers, a
separate and independent branch of government is granted judicial powers. The other two
branches of government- the legislature and the executive- are compressed to debate enact and
implement laws and policy. The judicially, through the court system, interprets and applies those
laws independently of government. The judiciary, in, turn, is required to restrict its role to
interpretation and enforcement of relevant laws, rather than seeking to usurp the roles of the
executive and legislature (Keating, 2004). In principle, this all sounds logical and
straightforward. In practice, however, it is anything but, Australian courts often find themselves
at the centre of political storms (Youtube). Parliamentarians and public commentators have
publicly derided their decisions, and members of the public have called for parliaments to step in
and specify to the courts the length and type of sentences that ought to be imposed for certain
offences, thereby overriding the discretion of judges. This implies that the activities of the courts
are often as hotly debated as the activities of other government branches (Keating, 2004).
Australian government has adopted a strange position on the protection of human rights
and the human rights bodies and parliament have been left to defend people’s liberty. This is
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ESSAY 6
against the strict separation of powers (Youtube). The government criticizes the efforts of the
human rights bodies and fails to recognize that parliament has a task of ensuring that the laws in
the country comply with human rights standards. Therefore, the government seems not to
support the basic democratic principles and enhances the disappearance of the mechanisms that
ensures compliance of the federal laws with human rights norms (Davis, 2015).
In theoretical terms, a major concern has been whether federalism is compatible with
democracy- a concern on which some theorists disagree. Much of theoretical debate about the
advantages and disadvantages of federal systems stems from the varying weights given to
democratic and liberal values (Kincaid, 2005). Considering the principle of the popular control
of the Australian government, one of the advertised virtues of federalism has been the checks and
balances it places on the potential for democracy to lead to ‘big government.’ Supporters of
federalism emphasize the way in which divided sovereignty disperses the power of central
government by creating competing centres of power. Some believe this competition curbs
corruption by providing multiple levels at which allegations can be aired under parliamentary
privilege (Dahl, 2003). The limiting of each jurisdiction’s power to particular policy areas, and to
geographical regions in the case of sub-national governments, is also seen as restricting the
growth of government. The tortuous and legalistic decision-making process associated with
federalism have been favourably interpreted as slowing governments down and hence ensuring
due process or at least a break from arbitrary action (Harris, 2002).
The founding fathers of federalism were particularly concerned about the danger to
property rights that might be posed by popular movements in a new democracy and this came to
be seen as a more general threat to individual or minority rights (Patapan, 2000). Federalism was
said to be a defence against the overbearing majorities that democracy might produce. By
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ESSAY 7
dividing the power to govern, federalism could be a means of taming democracy in Australia and
creating a defence against the people who would legislate ‘happiness schemes’ (Hudson, 2004).
The view that federalism ensures limited government has been challenged by public
choice arguments that it creates multiple independent sources of public authority, each of which
has a tendency to continuous expansion, contributing to the growth of big government rather
than its restriction. Competition between these multiple centres of political and bureaucratic
power may contribute t the growth of Australian government, not just through the overlap and
duplication of functions, but also through competition for political prestige and electoral support
(Sansom & Alam, n.d.).
In terms of civil rights, the Australian government serves to protect rights and freedoms
against a possible tyranny of the majority of government itself. The protection of human rights in
Australia currently varies considerably between jurisdictions, with rights such as the freedom of
assembly being now more secure in jurisdictions which have a charter of rights than those that do
not (Crotty, 2009). In Conclusion, the Australian government is in a constant process of change,
and the capacity of the conventions of democratic government to adapt has been an important
advantage in this evolution. The challenge waiting ahead will be whether the country’s top
leadership can find better ways of delivering sound and responsive control of Australian
government in keeping with democratic traditions, as well as the expectations of the citizens.
References
Birch, A. (2001). Concepts, theories of modern democracy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ESSAY 8
Cook, I. (2004). Government and democracy in Australia. Victoria, Australia: Oxford
University Press.
Crotty, M. (2009). Turning points in Australian history. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Dahl, R. (2003). How democratic is the American Constitution? (2nd ed.). New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press.
Davis, F. (2015, March 9). Human rights in Australia will become a political plaything without
consensus.
