A democracy relies on the participation of citizens. They participate not just by voting, but by getting involved in their community. This might be by joining a charity, a political party or an environmental or community group. Democracy key ideas. Attribution — you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.
Waiver — any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. What is democracy? Democratic society A democracy relies on the participation of citizens. A democratic society is one that works towards the ideals of democracy: Respect for individuals, and their right to make their own choices. Tolerance of differences and opposing ideas. It is recommended that this infosheet be read with Infosheet No.
The Australian Coat of Arms signifies the national unity of Australia and is a sign of its identity and authority. Parliamentary government. Parliamentary government means that the Executive Government comes from within the Parliament; responsible government means that the Executive Government is responsible to the Parliament. This is the central feature of a Westminster-style government following the United Kingdom model—in contrast to other systems of government where the Executive is quite separate and not directly answerable to the Legislature—for example, in the United States of America.
The separation of powers. Political theory recognises three powers of government—the legislative power to make laws; the executive power to carry out and enforce the laws; and the judicial power to interpret laws and to judge whether they apply in individual cases. The principle of the separation of powers is that, in order to prevent oppressive government, the three powers of government should be held by separate bodies—the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary—which can act as checks and balances on each other.
With parliamentary government the legislative and executive functions overlap, as the members of the Executive Government—the Ministers—are drawn from the Parliament. However, in the Australian system there are still checks and balances between the Executive and Legislature—Ministers are subject to the scrutiny of other Members of the Parliament led by an officially recognised opposition.
In addition, the Executive does not necessarily control both Houses of the Parliament see below. Infosheet No. The Parliament. The Constitution gives the legislative power of the Commonwealth—the power to make laws—to the Parliament. The Parliament passes legislation. Proposed laws have to be agreed to by both Houses of Parliament to become law. The two Houses have equal powers, except that there are restrictions on the power of the Senate to introduce or directly amend some kinds of financial legislation.
The Governor-General has a role in the legislative process by assenting to Acts. See later in this infosheet for more information about the role of the Governor-General. The Parliament also authorises the Executive Government often simply called the government or the Executive to spend public money by agreeing to government proposals for expenditure and taxation, scrutinises the administrative actions of the government and serves as a forum for the debate of public policy.
Another function of the Parliament under the Australian system is to provide from its membership the members of the Executive Government. After a general election the political party or coalition of parties with the support of a majority of members in the House of Representatives becomes the governing party and its leader becomes the Prime Minister. The composition of the House also determines who will form the official opposition. The party or coalition of parties which has the most non-government Members in the House of Representatives becomes the opposition party and its leader becomes the Leader of the Opposition.
The opposition has the officially recognised function, established by convention, of opposing the government. This subject is discussed in more detail in Infosheet No. While the government has, by definition, the support of a majority of Members in the House of Representatives, the system of voting used for Senate elections gives greater opportunity to minority parties and independents, and the government often does not have majority support in the Senate. The Executive Government. Constitutional provisions.
The Executive Government in practice. In reality, the executive power is possessed by the Prime Minister and Cabinet senior Ministers. Their power derives:. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Cabinet are mentioned in the Constitution—the framers of the Constitution took their existence for granted, as they did the various conventions of the Westminster system of government inherited from the United Kingdom.
Table 1 below gives a comparison of the constitutional provisions and the actual practice according to the conventions which have operated in Australia.
Composition of the Ministry. The Prime Minister is the head of the government. They achieve this position by being the elected leader of the party in government in the case of a coalition government, the major party. Major policy and legislative proposals are decided by the Cabinet. The Prime Minister selects Ministers for Cabinet positions.
Ministers are selected by the Prime Minister. Legislation currently allows for up to 30 Ministers. About 20 or so senior Ministers administer the major departments and are, usually, members of Cabinet. Other Ministers are responsible for particular areas of administration within a major department, or may be in charge of a small department.
Ministers are appointed from both Houses of Parliament, although most about two thirds are Members of the House of Representatives. For example, the COVID pandemic has revealed a widespread Australian ignorance about the structure and workings of its democracy. This has been illustrated during the COVID pandemic health emergency where difficult decisions must be made to prevent infection and protect the community while limiting negative impacts to the economy and civil society at the same time.
There is immense public ignorance as to the respective roles of the federal and state governments. Yet, community scrutiny and criticism are being mis directed toward the federal government for decisions being taken by state authorities on issues such as closing domestic borders, lockdown laws, and domestic quarantine procedures.
The upshot is state governments are enjoying far less public and media scrutiny of decisions they have taken which is resulting in lower standards of accountability and transparency from state governments than ought to be the case.
The lower the accountability and transparency for decisions taken and implemented, the poorer the incentive that these be proportionate and appropriate for the problem at hand. Other levels of government collect more obscure taxes such as land, payroll, and stamp duties on the purchase of property.
This means Australian citizens overwhelmingly associate paying taxes with the federal government, and consequently, predominantly only apply scrutiny to policy decisions made by the federal government. In the current environment, this has led to shortcomings with respect to issues of accountability. State governments retain primary authority to respond to COVID through decisions which have profoundly disruptive and sometimes destructive impacts on Australian citizens, households, and businesses — border closures, lockdowns, curfews, and diverting of health care resources away from other much needed areas, etc.
At the same time, it is the federal government which must manage and finance the economic, social, health, and other impacts of decisions made by state governments.
This means that dissatisfaction with policies made and implemented by state governments is frequently directed against the federal government, accompanied by public demands that further federal resources be allocated to alleviate the economic impacts of measures enacted by state governments including domestic border closures.
The point about poor democratic accountability arises because state governments have few incentives to consider the economic and non-economic impacts of their policies. More troubling than flaws in institutional and fiscal design is the mindset by some state governments that legislation and actions to suspend civil and even some human rights of citizens so as to respond to the health emergency can be applied arbitrarily and must be accepted uncritically, promptly, and without the need for scrutiny as to the reasoning or implementation of such emergency measures.
As with any great crisis or disruption, democratic institutions, practices, and mindsets are being tested in a way which does not occur during business as usual. This was a period in which there was a spike in infections following the poor handling of quarantine for returning international travellers by the Victorian government. The suspension of parliament also meant there was no formal political debate on the imposition of an indefinite curfew from early August onward despite the high controversy surrounding the decision.
Morrison To put this in context, federal and state parliaments sat during both world wars and the Spanish Flu, and curfews have never been imposed. It is about human life. Finally, many Australians have become disconcertingly accepting of the need for premiers to exercise emergency powers without regard to time limits and when such powers might cease.
Checks, balances, and rights are perceived to be obstacles to solutions rather than inalienable principles around which solutions must be derived. One should also note that concerns are not just centered around relatively unaccountable state premiers. It is so far unclear whether Australia will emerge as a more robust, adaptable, and functional democracy after COVID Australian politicians and citizens need reminding that decisionmakers ought to bear the political and economic costs of their actions.
The failure to understand how institutions influence incentives, and therefore behavior, is dangerous. In a region where alternative political systems are assessed according to capacity to overcome challenges and results, the suspension of normal standards of transparency, accountability and debate when faced with a serious emergency is a nod to those believing that authoritarian approaches are superior when it comes to meeting complex problems.
That is a dangerous line of argument in any democracy.
0コメント