DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional Law Exam Notes and Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutional Law Exam Notes and Cases MLL323 – Constitutional Law Exam Notes and Cases Contents Page Topic 1 – Constitutional Concepts Page 6: History of Australian Constitution Page 7: Four Fetters Page 8: Federation Page 9: Post-Federation (1901-) Page 10: Parliamentary Sovereignty Page 11: Rule of Law Page 12: Individual Ministerial Responsibility Topic 2 – The Executive Page 15: Terminology Page 16: Important Conventions Page 17: Sources of Executive Powers Page 18: Prerogatives Page 19: Case: Tampa Case Page 20: Implied Nationhood Power Page 21: Test for Proportionality Page 22: State Executive Power Page 23: Whitlam Dismissal 1975 Page 25: Outcome of Whitlam Dismissal Topic 3 – The Legislative Page 27: Structure of Commonwealth Legislature Page 28: Case: First Territory Senators Case Page 29: Structure of Victorian Legislature Page 30: Duration of Parliaments Page 31: Case: Sykes v Cleary (1992) Page 32: Case: Sue v Hill (1999) Page 33: House of Representatives Page 34: Summary of Commonwealth Parliament Page 35: Summary of Victorian Parliament Topic 4 – Legislative Procedures Page 37: Passage of Bill through Parliament Page 38: Double Dissolution Page 39: PMA Case Page 40: Commonwealth Restrictive Legislative Procedures Page 41: Section 53 Page 42: Section 55 Page 43: State Restrictive Procedures Page 44: Marquet Case Page 45: Victoria Page 48: Senate’s Deferral of Supply Topic 5 – The Judiciary Page 50: Chapter III Constitution Page 51: Judciciary in Victoria Topic 6 – Characterisation Page 53: Doctrine of Implied Immunities Page 54: Engineers Case Page 55: Heads of Power Page 56: Incidental Range Page 57: Fairfax Case Page 58: Case: Thomas v Mowbray Topic 7 – Financial and Economic Powers Page 61: Commonwealth Taxation Powers Page 62: Limitations Page 63: State Tax Powers Page 64: First Uniform Tax Case Page 65: Second Uniform Tax Case Page 66: AAP Case Page 67: Pape Case Page 69: Work Choices Case Page 70: Incorporation Case Topic 8 – External Affairs and Extraterritoriality Page 72: External Affairs Power Page 73: Tasmanian Dams Case Page 74: Industrial Relations Case Page 75: International Concern Topic 9 – Inconsistency and Intergovernmental Immunities Page 76: Tests for Inconsistency Page 77: Covering the Field Page 78: Relevant Factors Page 79: Intergovernmental Immunities Page 80: Major Case Law Page 83: Crown Immunity and Statutory Construction Topic 10 – Constitutional Rights and Freedoms Page 85: General Principles Page 86: Newcrest Mining Case Page 87: Requirements Page 88: Express Rights Page 89: Religion as an Express Right Page 90: Relevant Case Law Page 91: Discrimination on State Residence Page 92: Implied Rights Page 93: Implied Right to Political Communication Page 94: Lange Case Page 96: Lange Test Page 97: McClay Case Page 98: Proportionality Test Topic 11 – Separation of Powers Page 101: Principle 1 Page 102: Principle 2 Page 103: Commonwealth Separation of Powers Page 104: Persona Designata Page 105: Preventative Detention Page 106: Lim Case Page 107: Al Kateb Case Page 108: Relationship between Legislative and Executive Power Page 109: City of Collingwood Case Page 110: Major Case Law Page 113: Summary of Kable Principle Topic 4 Legislative Procedures Standard Legislative Procedures Quorum Senate: 1/3 (Section 22) House of Representatives: 1/3 (Section 39) Legislative Council: 1/3 (Section 32, CA 1975 (Vic)) Legislative Assembly: 1/2 (i.e. 20) Passage of a Bill Through Parliament 1. Legislation must be passed by the House of Representatives. 2. Legislation must be passed by the Senate. 3. The legislation must gain Royal Assent. Stage 1: House of Representatives 1. Bill is initiated into the House of Representatives (powers to do this lie under s51 and s52) 2. Legislation must be passed with at least 1/3 of the number of members: s39 3. Procedure is based on a simply majority from members present. 4. The speak also has a casting vote: s 40. Stage 2: Senate 1. Senate has the power to review, approve and amend the legislation given to the Senate: s 53. 2. Majority of members must be present: s 23. Stage 3: Royal Assent - Crown’s role is very limited - The Constitution recognises no power in the Crown to amend Bills passed by the two houses. - The Governor-General may return Bills to one of the houses with a recommendation for amendment: s 58. - Even this power was intended to have limited operation Options available to the Governor-General: Section 58 1. Give royal assent; 2. Withhold royal assent; 3. Reserve the Bill ‘for the Queen’s pleasure’. Section 58: ‘Withholding’ - Intended to deal with inaccuracies which may have crept into legislation - Used 14 times Note: Cannot assent to part of legislation (because may radically alter the Bill) Alternative Procedures Commonwealth Alternative Legislative Procedures - Section 57 - PMA Case (1975) - Territory Senators No 1 (1975) Commonwealth Restrictive Procedures: Section 128 Commonwealth Special Procedures: Section 53, 54, 55 Section 57: Double Dissolution Process of Double Dissolution 1. The House of Representatives passes the bill. 2. The Senate reject, or fails to pass the bill, or passes the bill with amendments to which the House of Reps will not agree. 3. Three months has passed and the House of Representatives again passes the bill (i.e. 3 months since the Senate rejects and HoRs passes the bill). 4. The Senate rejects or fails to pass the legislation for the second time. 5. The Governor-General may dissolve the houses (the dissolution cannot occur within six months of the expiry of the House of Reps 6. After the convocation of the new Parliament, the HoRs again passes the bill. 7. The Senate again rejects or fails to pass the legislation 8. There is a joint sitting 9. If the bill gains an absolute majority 10. The bill is prepared for royal assent and becomes law. Dominance of Lower House - House of Representative initiation - Numbers @ joint sitting (absolute majority & remember nexus) Joint Sitting ‘One off’ - Joint sitting can only consider those bills which have passed through steps 1 to 7 - Parliament reverts to bicameral legislature pre and post joint sitting - Only one joint sitting (6 & 7 August 1974) & absolute majority Case: Victoria v Commonwealth (PMA Case) 1975 Commonwealth Argued 1. Resolutions of Senate on 13/12/73 = failure to pass or rejection 2. Comments by senators both within and outside Senate relevant 3. Interval of three months from 1st passing by House of Representatives (Step 1) 4. Words of s 57 directory not mandatory 5. Non-justiciable - Resolution of Senate on 13/12/73≠ failure to pass because co equal chamber, not mere ‘house of review’ - Only look at actions of senate not actions of senators Three months does not run from Step 1: - Plain English - Role of Senate (contra Jacobs J) Justiciable and mandatory because: - Statutory powers and statute is fundamental law - High Court is ‘guardian of Constitution’ and has obligation to ensure law making prescribed by Constitution followed - Court has power ultimate to decide whether facts satisfied (cf G-G) Lawfulness of Double Dissolution Barwick CJ - Joint sitting ‘although not void, not lawful’ - Joint sitting had no power - No power to dissolve. Other justices - Section 12, 32 operate independently - Dissolution, election and summoning of new Parliament all valid Case: Western Australia v Commonwealth (First Territory Senators Case)e Passage of the Bill - 1st passed (Step 1) 30/5/73 - Rejected (Step 2) 7/6/73 - Passed 2nd time (Step 3) 27/8/73 - Rejected by Senate 2nd time (Step 4) 14/11/73 - Double dissolution 11th April 1974 (Step 5) Argued: Too great interval between steps 4 & 5 (“stockpiling”) Majority: No time limit (cf Barwick) Case: Cormack v Cope (1974) Held - Refusal to issue injunction to prevent joint sitting - Indicated proper remedy was to challenge subsequent legislation Barwick CJ: The discretion to intervene should not be exercised because an adequate remedy would be available once the legislative process was concluded. Commonwealth Restrictive Legislative Procedures Section 128: Referendum Features Include - Parliamentary initiation - Absolute majority - Passage by one House - Referendum & double majority - Role of Territories (1977 referendum) - State boundaries or representation Success rate: History 8/44 including 3 out of 4 in 1977. - Double majority - Apathy & negative argument & need for bipartisanship (e.g. 1999 republic referendum) Current issues: - Preamble (i.e. issues with aboriginal people) - Republic; - Local government; - Repeal of ‘race’ power Money bills include: - Tax bills (i.e. raising money) - Appropriation bills i.e. authorising expenditure of money Section 53: Initiation of Money Bills Qualifications: - Initiation of money bills (i.e. appropriation & tax bills) - Amendment of tax bills and appropriation bills for ‘ordinary annual services of government’ but subject to right of Senate to return bill (also deferral) (e.g. ‘blocking supply’ (1975)) - Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people Example: Clerk of Senate’s advice re PUP Senators amendment to Carbon Tax Repeal Bill on 10 July 2014. Note: No legal authority re appropriation bill for ‘ordinary annual services of government’ - Conventional view is that it involves government expenditure on matters of settled policy where no new development or capital expenditure involved Case: Air Caledonie v Commonwealth (1988) Facts - Migration Amendment ACt 1987 (Cth) (“the Amending Act”) s 7 inserts s 34A in Migration ACt 1958 (Cth) - Imposes an “arrival tax”; collected by airlines and airlines owe debt to Commonwealth Commonwealth Argued 1. Section 34A does not impose tax because fee for a service; 2. Amending Act only deals with the imposition of taxation → no problem of tacking → s 55 not violated. Outcome - Section 34A does impose tax at least re Australian citizens - Re Amending Act deals only with imposition of taxation - 1st paragraph of s 55 has two limbs 1st Limb: Reference to ‘laws’ in s 55 refers to laws as exist on statute book.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “An Audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1854-2017
    2018 V “An audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1854-2017 Mark McKenna Article: “An audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1954-2017 “An audience with the Queen”: Indigenous Australians and the Crown, 1954- 2017 Mark McKenna Abstract: This article is the first substantial examination of the more recent historical relationship between Indigenous Australians and the Crown. While the earlier tradition of perceiving the Queen as benefactress has survived in Indigenous communities, it now co- exists with more critical and antagonistic views. After the High Court’s Mabo decision (1992), the passage of the Native Title Act (1993), and the federal government’s Apology to the Stolen Generations (2008), it is clear that the only avenues for seriously redressing Indigenous grievances lie within the courts and parliaments of Australia. The Australian monarch—either as a supportive voice, or as a vehicle for highlighting the failure of Australian governments— no longer holds any substantial political utility for Indigenous Australians. Monarchy has become largely irrelevant to the fate of future Indigenous claims for political and social justice. Keywords: monarchy, republic, Indigenous Australia n October 1999, a delegation of Indigenous leaders from Australia visited Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace. The ‘audience,’ which lasted for little more than an hour and was widely reported in the British and Australian press, was claimed to Ibe the first granted to Indigenous Australians by a reigning British monarch since 24 May 1793, when Bennelong, who had been captured by Governor Arthur Phillip in Sydney and later sailed with him to England, was presented to King George III.1 The 206-year hiatus was telling for more than one reason.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Chronology of Events
    Table of Contents Chronology of Events .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 History- 1788 to 1900 .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Plenary ‘sovereign’ Parliaments ........................................................................................................................................ 5 History- Towards Federation- 1880 to 1990 ................................................................................................... 6 Federation (1901)...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) ...................................................................................... 7 Post Federation- 1901 to 1986 (Parliamentary Sovereignty) ................................................................... 8 ‘Balfour Declaration 1926’ [1.3.9E] .................................................................................................................................. 8 Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) [1.3.11E] ................................................................................................................ 8 The Australia Acts ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Law Reform Commission the Judicial Power of The
    Australian Law Reform Commission Discussion Paper 64 The judicial power of the Commonwealth A review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and related legislation You are invited to make a submission or comment on this Discussion Paper DP 64 December 2000 How to make comments or submissions You are invited to make comments or submissions on the issues raised in this Paper, which should be sent to The Secretary Australian Law Reform Commission Level 10, 131 York Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 (GPO Box 3708 SYDNEY NSW 1044) Phone: (02) 9284 6333 TTY: (02) 9284 6379 Fax: (02) 9284 6363 E-mail: [email protected] ALRC homepage: http://www.alrc.gov.au Closing date: 16 March 2001 It would be helpful if comments addressed specific issues or paragraphs in the Paper. Confidentiality Unless a submission is marked confidential, it will be made available to any person or organisation on request. If you want your submission, or any part of it, to be treated as confidential, please indicate this clearly. A request for access to a submission marked ‘confidential’ will be determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The Commission will include in its final report on this project a list of submissions received in response to this Paper. It may also refer to those submissions in the text of the report and other Commission publications. It may decide to publish them. If you do not want your submission or any part of it to be used in any one of these ways please indicate this clearly. © Commonwealth of Australia 2000 This work is copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Indigenous Recognition Or Is It a Doomed Mission?
    Indigenous recognition or is it a doomed mission? Proposals to Constitutionally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their language are often divided into the symbolic as either amending the preamble or standalone provision(s) which acknowledge Indigenous identity and the more substantive such as a constitutional ban on racial discrimination or a First Nation’s voice to Parliament. While all Australian States have now adopted purely symbolic Indigenous recognition provisions, it has generally fallen out of favour at the national level. Are there any good reasons to adopt purely symbolic forms of Constitutional recognition? One should compare the experience of reforms in the Australian States. I Necessity and broader movements The present state of non-recognition of indigenous culture and language in the national Constitution can inflict harm and act as a form of oppression, As Taylor states, this can imprison individuals and groups in a false, distorted and reduced mode of being.1 Australian First Nation Peoples (FNP) as a minority group experience marginalisation from mainstream social, political and economic discourse.2 A preamble or standalone provision(s) recognising indigenous culture and language may assist in changing societal and legislative measures in favour of substantive equality. With the intended function of redeeming the document, unifying communities and reducing or eliminating barriers to entry in the otherwise marginalized activities. The proposal has national approval in principle by all major political parties, with intentions of furthering national reconciliation and to guard Australia’s reputation internationally through indigenous wellbeing.3 Instilling in the Constitution a restorative justice theory, whereby in the interests of equality indigenous are treated differently4 by their positive inclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court of Australia: a Personal Impression of Its First 100 Years
    —M.U.L.R— Mason— Title of Article — printed 14/12/03 at 13:17 — page 864 of 25 THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA: A PERSONAL IMPRESSION OF ITS FIRST 100 YEARS ∗ THE HON SIR ANTHONY MASON AC KBE [This article records my impressions of the High Court, its jurisprudence and the Justices up to the time when I became Chief Justice in 1987. For obvious reasons it would be invidious for me to record my impressions of the Court from that time onwards. The article reviews the work of the Court and endeavours to convey a picture of the contribution and personality of some of the individual Justices. The article concludes with the statement that the Court has achieved the high objectives of which Alfred Deakin spoke in his second reading speech on the introduction of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The Court has established its reputation as one of the world’s leading courts of final appeal and has fulfilled its role alongside the Parliament and the executive in our constitutional framework.] CONTENTS I Introduction.............................................................................................................864 II In the Beginning......................................................................................................865 III The Early High Court..............................................................................................866 IV Conflict with the Executive ....................................................................................867 V Conflict with the Privy Council ..............................................................................868
    [Show full text]
  • Slavery and Constitutional Invalidity: Rethinking Kruger and Bray
    2008 Slavery and Constitutional Validity: Rethinking Kruger and Bray 645 SLAVERY AND CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY: RETHINKING KRUGER AND BRAY STEPHEN GRAY∗ I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article is to consider what might seem an extraordinary proposition: that ‘protective’ legislation such as the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918–1953 (NT) might be found constitutionally invalid, in whole or in part, for breach of 19th century British anti-slavery laws.1 It has been argued elsewhere, and will consequently not be argued in detail here, that the conditions under which some, indeed many, Aboriginal people lived and worked during the period in which such Ordinances were in force can be regarded as amounting to ‘slavery’.2 Aboriginal people who gave evidence to the 2006 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional ∗ BA, LLB (Hons) (Monash), LLM (Melb), PhD; Faculty of Law, Monash University. The author wishes to thank Professor Jeff Goldsworthy for his helpful comments and analysis of a piece on which this article is based. Thanks also to Ms Melissa Castan and to the anonymous reviewers and editors of the article. 1 The first of these passed by the UK Parliament was An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade 1807, 47 Geo III c36. This was followed by further legislative measures in 1824, 1833 and 1843. Under section 10 of the Slave Trade Act 1824 5 Geo IV c113, it was an offence to ‘deal or trade in slaves or persons intended to be dealt with as slaves’. These provisions were primarily directed at the international slave trade, particularly that coming out of Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Last Month When I Was Watching the Chris
    Last month when I was watching the Chris Smith TV show one evening there appeared a clip showing Prince Charles at the Davos meeting shaking hands with Greta Thunberg (no problem) and then going along a row of important attendees, including Mike Pence, the Vice-President of the USA and shaking their hands and making the occasional comment. When he arrived at Mike Pence, who held out his hand for a handshake, the Prince deliberately passed him by and shook the hand of the next person, with Vice-President Pence looking flabbergasted at this obvious snub. I could not believe it – here was the person who is to be the next Head of State of Australia displaying contempt for a high ranking representative of an important ally not just of Australia but also Britain and other Commonwealth countries. Up to that point I had not taken much notice of Prince Charles’ views on plants, homoeopathy, etc, but this was something that could not be ignored. In 2010, my wife and I were visiting some friends in Canada and while there I read the local newspapers. In one paper there was an article about how the Canadian Government should consider having in place a succession plan for when the Queen died and Prince Charles took over the Monarchy. Like Australia, Canada is signatory to the Statute of Westminster 1931 which requires for Commonwealth countries sharing the Queen as Head of State “…that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Comment the Australia Act 1986 - Some Legal Conundrums
    LEGISLATIVE COMMENT THE AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 - SOME LEGAL CONUNDRUMS 1. INTRODUCTION The Australia Act 1986 (Cth.) was designed "to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, indepen- dent and federal nation".' The enactment of identical legislation2 by the United Kingdom Parliament has, as was aptly pointed out by Sir Anthony Mason, brought "legal and constitutional theory into line with real it^".^ Whilst the overall effect for the Commonwealth of Australia is "symboli- cally significant", the legislation has a greater degree of practical importance for the component States of the Australian federation. This article explains the changes effected by the Australia Act and discusses the conundrums arising from the enactment of this legislation. 2. MECHANISMS FOR ENACTING THE LEGISLATION The Australia Act 1986 signifies the culmination of extensive discussions between the Commonwealth, State and United Kingdom governments and Her Majesty, which spanned a few years prior to its enactment. The legis- lation was enacted pursuant to s.5l(xxxviii) of the Commonwealth Consti- tution - the second occasion on which this power has been in~oked.~ However, because of some doubts about the scope of the placitum, an alter- native mechanism based on "request and consent" legislation was employed. Preamble to the Australia Act 1986 (Cth.). See, generally, D.J. Cremean, "Australia - You're Legislating in it!" (1986) 60 L.I.J. 436; Ian S. Dickinson, "The Australia Act 1986 - An End to Constitutional Links Between Australia and the U.K." (1986) 136 N.L.J. 401; J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parliament and the Role of the House
    1 The Parliament and the role of the House COMPOSITION The Commonwealth Parliament is composed of three distinct elements, the Queen,1 the Senate and the House of Representatives.2 These three elements together characterise the nation as being a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy and a federation. The Constitution vests in the Parliament the legislative power of the Commonwealth. The legislature is bicameral, which is the term commonly used to indicate a Parliament of two Houses. THE QUEEN Although the Queen is nominally a constituent part of the Parliament, the Constitution immediately provides that she appoint a Governor-General to be her representative in the Commonwealth.3 The Queen’s role is little more than titular, as the legislative and executive powers and functions of the Head of State are vested in the Governor-General by virtue of the Constitution.4 However, while in Australia, the Sovereign has performed duties of the Governor-General in person,5 and in the event of the Queen being present to open Parliament, references to the Governor-General in the relevant standing orders6 are read as references to the Queen.7 The Royal Style and Titles Act provides that the Queen shall be known in Australia and its Territories as: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.8 GOVERNOR-GENERAL The Governor-General is covered in this chapter as a constituent part of the Parliament. However, it is a feature of the Westminster system of government that the Head of State is part of both the Executive Government and the legislature.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia Acts (Request) Act 1999 No 11
    New South Wales Australia Acts (Request) Act 1999 No 11 Contents Page 1 Name of Act and purpose 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Request for amendment of Australia Acts 2 Schedule—Australia Acts Amendment Act 1999 of the Commonwealth 1 Short title 3 2 Commencement 3 3 Schedule(s) 3 Schedule 1—Australia Act 1986 of the Commonwealth 3 Schedule 2—Australia Act 1986 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom 4 [8] New South Wales Australia Acts (Request) Act 1999 No 11 Act No 11, 1999 An Act to request the amendment of the Australia Acts in connection with proposed constitutional arrangements to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic. [Assented to 9 June 1999] Preamble Australia Acts (Request) Act 1999 No 11 Preamble (1) The Government of the Commonwealth proposes to introduce a Bill for a proposed law to alter the Constitution of the Commonwealth to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. (2) If passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, the proposed law will be put to the Australian people at a constitutional referendum in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. (3) If the proposed law is approved by the Australian people, it is desirable that the Australia Act 1986 of the Commonwealth and the Australia Act 1986 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom be amended to remove any impediment to the alteration by a State of its laws relating to the powers and functions of Her Majesty and the Governor in respect of the State.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia?
    Can Responsible Government Survive In Australia? DAVID HAMER Department of the Senate Published by The Department of the Senate Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Australia First published 1994 This edition, revised by the author in 2001, published 2004 © Barbara Hamer This book is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means or process whatsoever without the written permission of the publisher and the copyright owner. National Library of Australia cataloguing-in-publication data Hamer, David Can responsible government survive in Australia? Bibliography ISBN 0 642 71433 9 1. Parliamentary practice—Australia. 2. Representative government and representation— Australia. 3. Australia—Politics and government. 4. Canada—Politics and government. 5. Great Britain— Politics and government. 6. New Zealand—Politics and government. I. Australia. Parliament. Dept. of the Senate. II. Title. 320.30994 Printed by the Department of the Senate, Canberra. Foreword to the second edition This book was originally published in 1994. The author had just completed work on a second edition when he died in January 2002. At the request of his widow, Mrs Barbara Hamer, the Department of the Senate undertook to edit and publish the manuscript. We did so because Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia? has proved to be an invaluable and unique repository of comparative information about the powers and practices of twenty legislatures in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I know of no other book like it. David Hamer, apart from his career as a great parliamentarian, was an enthusiastic and colourful writer and a man of firm opinions.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Account of the Evolution of the Prime Minister's Role in the UK
    Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza Cattedra di Public Comparative Law Comparative account of the evolution of the Prime Minister’s role in the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms: the constitutional relationship with the Head of State RELATORE Gent.mo dott. Giovanni Piccirilli CANDIDATO Renato Paolocci Matr. 108583 CORRELATORE Chiar.mo prof. Gino Scaccia ANNO ACCADEMICO 2017/2018 Index of content Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4 I. Aim of the comparison .................................................................................................................. 4 II. The concept of “Commonwealth Realm” and the choice of Australia, Canada and New Zealand ............................................................................................................................................... 7 III. Structure of the comparison ...................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Prime Minister and Sovereign in the United Kingdom ................................................................................ 10 1.1 Origins and historical development of the Prime Minister office in the United Kingdom . 10 1.1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]