After exploring bicameralism in this weeks topic, I found it particularly interesting that Queensland is the only state within Australia with a unicameral parliament. While Queensland had a bicameral parliament, it was voted to abolish its legislative council in 1922. This has continued to stay this way with the one house of parliament being the House of Representatives. As a result of this, I was surprised to understand that it can be found that to have laws enacted it can be passed easier in Queensland than other Australian parliaments. This is as, to enact legislation, it needs to be passed by both houses of parliaments. However, it Queensland it only needs to be passed by the one.

Upon additional research of bicameral parliaments versus unicameral parliaments I found many strengths and weaknesses to both. As a bicameral parliament has two chambers, it allows for decisions to made from individuals with different opinions, interests and priorities. This also focuses on the idea that a bicameral system represents the states interests rather than the interests of those representing the state. Additionally, many have stated that a bicameral system is more likely to succeed. Alternatively, a unicameral system is to be considered as much more efficient but with less equitable decisions.

After understanding this weeks topic on bicameralism and comparing this to Queensland's unicameral parliament, I question as to whether a unicameral parliament is the most effective parliament for Queensland. Despite the efficiency of a unicameral system, I believe implementing a bicameral system will allow for more careful decisions and result in more equitable government decisions.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Post 1

Hi Rachel,

I also found referendums in this weeks topic interesting. I strongly agree with your post and particularly agree with your statement that referendum process is vital in being able to highlight to the government what the community wants and how they want things to work. I believe that this referendum process to change current laws is effective in allowing the Australian public to voice their opinions and assist in making key parliamentary decisions. Although, I also find it difficult to distinguish between information with many differing opinions on social media.

When exploring referendums in this weeks content, I was also very surprised when it became aware to me that only 8 out of 45 referendums had been passed. I believe this is the case due to referendums needing approval by a 'double majority'. Due to this, I agree with your statement that referendums are a good way to allow the public to voice their opinions, however, there are many flaws within this system which need amending.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Reply 1

However, based on this weeks content, the ratification of a treaty has many consequences. It signals that Australia is bound in international law to follow that treaty's provisions. This means that the Commonwealth government is responsible for violation of a treaty, even if that violation arises from the actions of a state government. Another consequence includes, the ratification may render administrative decision-makers liable to take those treaty provisions into account when making decisions. The ratification of a treaty also gives the Commonwealth Parliament power to legislate to implement that treaty.

After understanding this weeks topic, overall I found the most interesting concept to be that treaties only have a limited effect on Australian domestic laws unless they are incorporated into the law by an act of parliament.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Post 2

This week I found the topic relating to the Governor-General particularly interesting. The Governor-General acts as the King's official representative, the representative of the monarch in the Commonwealth.

The Governor-General has the roles of royal assent, appointing prime ministers and ministers, and representing the monarch at official functions and ceremonies. As part of the Governor-General's role, they hold executive powers within the constitution. Defined in section 61 as the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, and execution and maintenance of the laws of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the function of the executive is to administer laws, put them into practice and deal with policy administration. Based on this information, I was interested when learning  that the executive government at the Commonwealth and State level is represented by "the crown", however, the governor-general represents the king.

This is cemented into law through section 61 of the constitution, stating "the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the King and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth". Furthermore, I also found it interesting that certain powers are exercised by the Governor-General alone and others are exercised by the Governor-General in Council.

Within this topic, the principle of responsible government was also mentioned. The principle of responsible government requires that the Governor-General acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. However, more interestingly, the reserve powers are certain powers which may be exercised by the Governor-General alone, without the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This makes me question the impartiality of the system as there is potential these powers could be abused for issues such as political gain. In addition to this, these powers are not codified which means their identification and application is controversial to many.

Based upon this information, I find the principle of responsible government to be much more effective in ensuring accountability and transparency whereas reserve powers may lack clear guidelines, leading to uncertainty.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Post 3

 I believe the topic you have chosen and the issues which you have raised are of similar interest to me. I also found the commonwealth grants power to be of particular interest in this weeks topic. I notice your research regarding the scope of the Commonwealth's financial power, and I also strongly agree with your statement on this. This is very concerning, especially with the key issues you have mentioned.

In addition to this, the specific purpose grants is to designate the purpose for which the grant money is to be spent. I think this grant is particularly more important for several reasons including targeted funding allowing for allocations of funds to specific areas or projects, flexibility and accountability in how funds are used. These grants are also used to support healthcare, education, infrastructure and social services to ensure these services are adequately accessible to everyone. In my opinion, the specific purpose grants are significant for addressing needs within the community.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Reply 2

The topic of 'impossibility of simultaneous obedience' caught my attention as it highlights issues of legal conflict. Issues like this, from different jurisdictions cause uncertainty within the community when legislation is contradictory and impossible to comply with both sets of laws simultaneously. An example of this is in the case of McBain v Victoria (2000), which dealt with the issue of discrimination in relation to fertility treatments and whether a State law in Victoria restricted access to IVF treatment was discriminatory under federal law.

Based on this information and the case of McBain v Victoria (2000), I find it particularly interesting the implications of inconsistent laws has on the interpretation and implementation of legislation. This evidently shows area of laws which need amending to create more consistency.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Post 4

I also found the topic of immunities in this weeks content very interesting. I strongly agree with your statement regarding the case D'Emden v Peddler, where the early ruling is an abuse of power. Another case which I found particularly interesting is the case Melbourne Corporation case, which addressed the scope of the federal government's power to regulate state functions.

Overall, I was surprised to understand that certain functions of state governments are essential for their operation and should be protected from federal interference. Based on the outcome of D'Emden v Peddler, the decision emphasized the need for a balance of powers between the Commonwealth and the States.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Reply 3

I found the topic of separation of powers, in this weeks content, particularly interesting as the foundational role in establishing the system of governance which promotes checks and balances among different branches of government. One aspect of separation of powers which stood out is principle 2 of the separation of judicial power. The Boilermakers (1956) case established the extent to which federal courts can exercise non-judicial powers. In this case, the High Court considered the constitutionality  of a Commonwealth law which gave powers to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The court held that it was unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to vest non-judicial powers in federal courts as this would mix judicial and executive functions. I find it particularly interesting how this case highlighted the potential challenges of blending judicial and non-judicial functions. Additionally, it is intriguing that this case reinforced the principle of judicial independence, providing clear interpretations of the separation of powers doctrine. I believe this case has highlighted the distinct roles and responsibilities of the three branches of government, also establishing legal boundaries for the distribution of powers and functions among courts. Based on this case and the information I have learnt in this weeks content, I believe the separation of powers is vital in maintaining an impartial and fair legal system.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Post 5

Hi, I also found the Kable principle within this weeks topic also interesting. I strongly agree with your post, ultimately stating the uncertainty of the principle. While the principle holds that state courts must maintain their integrity and independence to exercise judicial power, I don’t believe the scope of the principle is always clear, similar to as what you have stated in your post. I also find it intriguing that when determining a decision in a case, judges may have differing opinions on how the Kable principle should be applied. This adds more uncertainty to this principle as the varying outcomes in judicial interpretations contributes to unpredictability. I strongly agree with your recommendation where the boundaries of the Kable principle should be outlined and expressed in the Constitution rather than implied.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Reply 4

Hi Tiare,

Thank you for your insight on the Gartlett v WA (2022) case. I strongly agree with your points within this reflection and believe that the lack of adherence to this precedent and the actions which went against the Lim principles, underscores the importance of the judiciary and the careful application of legal precedents in shaping legal outcomes. While precedents serve as guides, ensuring consistency and predictability in legal outcomes, their interpretation and application require careful consideration of the specific facts and circumstances of each case. I agree with your statement, specifying that you don’t agree with the way the executive seemed to be able to detain without adhering to judicial processes or the need for a trial. This lack of judicial oversight has forced me to consider the fairness of the judicial system. Perhaps a more transparent judicial making process could contribute to greater accountability and public trust in the legal system to prevent uncertainty in decisions, like this case.

Danita Smith (s5297419)

Submission Reply 5