Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, and my car is blue. That's absolutely true, but is doesn't fully explain or describe it.
You could also classify governments on whether they are fully democratically elected, and hence political, bi-cameral systems. Its just as valid a classification system.
Do you know what the Westminster system is? and should add do you understand what the term "base on" means.
Maybe you are so busy trying to distance Aus from the UK you have never bothered to read up.
Do you know what the Westminster system is? and should add do you understand what the term "base on" means.
Maybe you are so busy trying to distance Aus from the UK you have never bothered to read up.
Just putting it out there.
Yes I do; both its unique characteristics, and those it shares with most western government systems. I'm also pretty mindful of key aspects of the Australian system (federal and state) that are not based in the Westminster system.
Yes I do; both its unique characteristics, and those it shares with most western government systems. I'm also pretty mindful of key aspects of the Australian system (federal and state) that are not based in the Westminster system.
You can Denny your own history all you like. Its a bit like Americans denying slavery ever existed as they don't "like" that part of their history lol
Australia's political system is based on the British Westminster system period. Other similar terms to "Based on", "Started with", "evolved from".
The office of Governor is the oldest constitutional office in Australia. Each of the six states was founded as a British colony, and a Governor was appointed by the British government to exercise executive authority over the colony. Captain Arthur Phillip assumed office as Governor of New South Wales on 7 February 1788, the day on which he founded what is now the city of Sydney, the first British settlement in Australia.
The first Governors of the other five states, and their dates of appointment, were as follows:
Only in New South Wales and South Australia was the date of the appointment of the first Governor the actual date of the colony's foundation. The settlement which became Queensland was founded in 1824, but was not separated from New South Wales until 1859. In Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia executive authority was exercised by a Lieutenant-Governor for some years before the first Governor was appointed; Tasmania was founded in 1804, Western Australia in 1828 and Victoria in 1835.
New South Wales and Tasmania (which was known as Van Diemen's Land until 1855) were founded as penal colonies, and their Governors (Lieutenant-Governors in Tasmania) exercised more or less absolute authority. Tasmania in particular was run as a virtual prison camp in its early years. The Governors were also commanders-in-chief, and the troops under their command were the real basis of their authority.
From the 1820s, however, the increasing number of free settlers in the colonies led to a process of constitutional reform which gradually reduced the powers of the Governors. New South Wales was given its first legislative body, the New South Wales Legislative Council, in 1825. Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, which were not founded as penal settlements, moved rapidly towards constitutional government after their establishment. Responsible government
The discovery of gold in New South Wales and Victoria in 1851 led to a rapid influx of free settlers, mainly from Britain, and to increasing demands for self-government and "British liberties". As a result, Victoria was granted full responsible parliamentary government in 1855, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania in 1856 and Queensland in 1859. Western Australia, owing to its small population, did not attain responsible government until 1890.
Responsible government reduced the role of the state Governors to a largely ceremonial one, although they remained the head of the constitutional system, appointing heads of government (see Premiers of the Australian states) and granting or declining requests for dissolutions of the legislatures. Since all colonial Governors were British and were appointed by the British government, they also exercised a supervisory role over the colonial governments on behalf of Britain.
The office of Governor is the oldest constitutional office in Australia. Each of the six states was founded as a British colony, and a Governor was appointed by the British government to exercise executive authority over the colony. Captain Arthur Phillip assumed office as Governor of New South Wales on 7 February 1788, the day on which he founded what is now the city of Sydney, the first British settlement in Australia.
The first Governors of the other five states, and their dates of appointment, were as follows:
Only in New South Wales and South Australia was the date of the appointment of the first Governor the actual date of the colony's foundation. The settlement which became Queensland was founded in 1824, but was not separated from New South Wales until 1859. In Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia executive authority was exercised by a Lieutenant-Governor for some years before the first Governor was appointed; Tasmania was founded in 1804, Western Australia in 1828 and Victoria in 1835.
New South Wales and Tasmania (which was known as Van Diemen's Land until 1855) were founded as penal colonies, and their Governors (Lieutenant-Governors in Tasmania) exercised more or less absolute authority. Tasmania in particular was run as a virtual prison camp in its early years. The Governors were also commanders-in-chief, and the troops under their command were the real basis of their authority.
From the 1820s, however, the increasing number of free settlers in the colonies led to a process of constitutional reform which gradually reduced the powers of the Governors. New South Wales was given its first legislative body, the New South Wales Legislative Council, in 1825. Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, which were not founded as penal settlements, moved rapidly towards constitutional government after their establishment. Responsible government
The discovery of gold in New South Wales and Victoria in 1851 led to a rapid influx of free settlers, mainly from Britain, and to increasing demands for self-government and "British liberties". As a result, Victoria was granted full responsible parliamentary government in 1855, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania in 1856 and Queensland in 1859. Western Australia, owing to its small population, did not attain responsible government until 1890.
Responsible government reduced the role of the state Governors to a largely ceremonial one, although they remained the head of the constitutional system, appointing heads of government (see Premiers of the Australian states) and granting or declining requests for dissolutions of the legislatures. Since all colonial Governors were British and were appointed by the British government, they also exercised a supervisory role over the colonial governments on behalf of Britain.
That's the type of history lesson most of us here sat though many times in our early high schools years. Yes, what were to become Australian states began as British colonies. Have I ever argued otherwise? No.
But seriously, how is that history "lesson" relevant to the point of debate; how much of the Australian political system is based on the Westminster model, how much is derived from other models, and how much is unique to the Aus context? By your logic, the US has a Westminster model as well, as the original 13 states also began their existence as British colonies.
Key features of the Aus politcal system and landscape do not owe their origins to the UK or Westminster models. These include: a federal system, codified constitutions, elected party political Senates (legislative councils in the state), preferential voting methods (the Australian ballot), compulsory voting. Also, aspects derived from the UK or Westminster model are very different in operation in the Aus context compared to the UK model - chiefly who has the power to exercise the reserve powers, and how that position is filled (a governor or governor general appointed by the prime minster or premier of the day, and not an hereditary monarch). In these aspects, the Aus political system is very different to that in the UK.
Seriously, do you think they currently elect members to the House of Lords in the UK, have arguments between states and a federal government regarding the constitutionality of federal legislation under specific clauses contained in a written constitution, and take those disputes to the High Court. By way of example, in the UK it was only in 2010 that proposals were published calling for a partly elected upper chamber. And put another way, do you think there are members of the Australian Senate who enjoy indefinite membership simply because of a position they hold in a religious organisation?
, the US has a Westminster model as well, as the original 13 states also began their existence as British colonies.
Yes very much a history lesson.
When was the great Australian revolution that threw out British rule like the USA?, you know the big Australian civil war?, I cant seem to find the date on google!
Or did the Australian system evolve from the Westminster system, hence you still have a Governor General.
The USA has a VERY VERY different history to Australia.
Or did the Australian system evolve from the Westminster system, hence you still have a Governor General.
In part evolution, in part a fresh new start (eg the codified constitutions) not trapped by the history and vested interests of the UK system.
Federation was certainly a significant historical event that can't be ignored, and the constitutional conventions of delegates from the states-to-be had a largely clean sheet of paper in front of them. They wanted a federal system, and found the US federal model to be the most appealing; hence the heavy borrowing from that system at the federal level.
Its interesting that it took the UK until 1995 - 2010 to start thinking about or take their first tentative steps towards features and "ways of doing things" that have been part of the Australian political landscape for over a century.
Last edited by Richard1098; 08-18-2013 at 03:11 AM..
Federation was certainly a significant historical event that can't be ignored, and the constitutional conventions of delegates from the states-to-be had a largely clean sheet of paper in front of them. They wanted a federal system, and found the US federal model to be the most appealing; hence the heavy borrowing from that system at the federal level.
One one hand you have stated the Aus States are largely self governed, but refuse to acknowledge the political system they were built on "The Westminster system".
You are very quick to talk about the 1901 federation , and yes it was a significant event but it doesn't null and void the state history prior.
One one hand you have stated the Aus States are largely self governed, but refuse to acknowledge the political system they were built on "The Westminster system".
You are very quick to talk about the 1901 federation , and yes it was a significant event but it doesn't null and void the state history prior.
Seriously, have another read of the last few pages; you seem to have difficulty in understanding many of the points I've raised.
Seriously, have another read of the last few pages; you seem to have difficulty in understanding many of the points I've raised.
No I am choosing not to respond to points not particularly relevant, you are ignoring the elephant in the room and providing what I call fluff arguments.
When was the great Australian revolution that threw out British rule like the USA?, you know the big Australian civil war?, I cant seem to find the date on google!
Or did the Australian system evolve from the Westminster system, hence you still have a Governor General.
The USA has a VERY VERY different history to Australia.
I would say the "great Australian Revolution" happened back in 1776. In a very real sense, the British learned enough of a lesson from 1776 that Australia, Canada and New Zealand never had to rebel the way the American colonies did.
In fact the British had already begun to learn the lesson only two years later because they tried to come terms with the Americans in 1778 with the Carlisle Peace Commission. Here are some highlights of the British terms (Response to British Peace Proposals | Teaching American History )
To his excellency Henry Laurens, the President, and other Members of Congress.
Gentlemen, With an earnest desire to stop the further effusion of blood and the calamities of war, we communicate to you, a copy of the commission with which his Majesty is pleased to honour us, as also the acts of parliament on which it is founded; and at the same time that we assure you of our most earnest desire to re-establish, on the basis of equal freedom and mutual {safety, the tranquillity of this once happy empire....
’To consent to a cessation of hostilities, both by sea and land. To restore free intercourse, to revive mutual affection, and restore the common benefits of naturalisation through the several parts of this empire. To extend every freedom to trade that our respective interests can require. To agree that no military force shall be kept up in the different states of North America, without the consent of the general congress, or particular assemblies. To concur in measures calculated to discharge the debts of America, and raise the value and credit of the paper circulation....
’To perpetuate our union, by a reciprocal deputation of an agent or agents from the different states, who shall have the privilege of a seat and voice in the parliament of Great Britain.....
’In short, to establish the power of the respective legislatures in each particular state, to settle its revenue, its civil and military establishment, and to exercise a perfect freedom of legislation and internal government, so that the British states throughout North America, acting with us in peace and war, under our common sovereign.....
Note how the British now use the words "states" and "union" instead of just colonies and also recognize the Continental Congress. Some historians believe that if the British had offered these terms to the Americans back in 1775 then there might not have been an American Revolution. Its possible that the British Empire might have transformed into today as a British Federation, with not only the British and the Americans but Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean Islands etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
