DOCSLIB.ORG

Publications for Anne Twomey 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Publications for Anne Twomey 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 Publications for Anne Twomey 2021 Power: Cabinet Manuals, Secrecy and the Identification of Twomey, A. (2021). "Constitutional Risk", Disrespect for the Convention. In Jason NE Varuhas, Shona Wilson Stark (Eds.), Rule of Law and Democratic Decay. Canadian Journal of The Frontiers of Public Law, (pp. 399-428). Oxford: Hart Comparative and Contemporary Law, 7, 293-341. Publishing. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781509930401.ch- Twomey, A. (2021). Australia: the correspondence between the 018">[More Information]</a> Queen and the Australian Governor-General during the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam Government. Public Law, January, Twomey, A. (2019). Pitt Cobbett - A Portrait of Australia's 192-194. Constitution at 1919. In Anne Twomey (Eds.), The Constitution and Government of Australia, 1788 to 1919: Twomey, A. (2021). Federal and State Powers to Deal with William Pitt Cobbett, (pp. xix-l). Sydney: The Federation Press. Pandemics - Cooperation, Conflict and Confusion. In Belinda Bennett and Ian Freckelton (Eds.), Pandemics, Public Health Twomey, A. (2019). The Constitution and Government of Emergencies and Government Powers � Perspectives on Australia, 1788 to 1919: William Pitt Cobbett. Sydney: The Australian Law, (pp. 52-68). Sydney, NSW: Federation Press. Federation Press. Twomey, A. (2021). Prorogation, the Queen and the Courts - A Twomey, A. (2019). The French Court, the Nature of the View from Afar. The UK Supreme Court Yearbook, 10, 390- Executive Power and its Reconciliation with the Expenditure 420. Power. In Henry Jackson (Eds.), Essays in Honour of Chief Justice French, (pp. 27-56). Sydney: The Federation Press. Twomey, A. (2021). The Reserve Powers in Times of Political Crisis: The Dutton/Turnbull Leadership Challenge and Royal Twomey, A. (2019). The Justiciability of Prorogation. Assent to the Medevac Bill and Brexit Bills. Federal Law Australian Law Journal, 93, 913-917. Review, 49(1), 96-121. <a Twomey, A. (2019). The Queen's Letters. Australian Law href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20973485">[More Journal, 93, 267-269. Information]</a> Twomey, A. (2019). Unions NSW v New South Wales (No 2). 2020 Public Law Review, 30, 98-105. Twomey, A. (2020). Executive Power Following the Twomey, A. (2019). William Pitt Cobbett - A Biographical "Williams" Cases. In John Griffiths, James Stellios (Eds.), Note. In Anne Twomey (Eds.), The Constitution and Current Issues in Australian Constitutional Law: Tributes to Government of Australia, 1788 to 1919: William Pitt Cobbett, Professor Leslie Zines, (pp. 33-55). Sydney: The Federation (pp. x-xviii). Sydney: The Federation Press. Press. Twomey, A. (2020). The Exercise of Soft Power by Female 2018 Monarchs in the United Kingdom. Royal Studies Journal, 7(2), Twomey, A. (2018). From Bagehot to Brexit: The monarch's 31-48. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.21039/rsj.266">[More rights to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. The Round Information]</a> Table, 107(4), 417-428. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2018.1494687">[Mor Twomey, A. (2020). The Race to the Palace from Tuvalu: What e Information]</a> Happens When a Prime Minister and a Governor-General Try to Dismiss Each Other? In H. Kumarasingham (Eds.), Twomey, A. (2018). Independence. In Cheryl Saunders, Viceregalism: The Crown as Head of State in Political Crises in Adrienne Stone (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Australian the Postwar Commonwealth, (pp. 331-351). Cham: Palgrave Constitution, (pp. 96-118). Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a Macmillan. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198738435.003.0005" 46283-3_13">[More Information]</a> >[More Information]</a> Twomey, A. (2020). The Reserve Power of the Queen and Her Twomey, A. (2018). Miller and the Prerogative. In Mark Vice-Regal Representatives to Refuse to Act on Ministerial Elliott, Jack Williams, Alison L Young (Eds.), The UK Advice. Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law, 14(1), 29- Constitution after Miller: Brexit and Beyond, (pp. 69-90). 41. Oxford: Hart Publishing. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781509916436.ch- 2019 003">[More Information]</a> Twomey, A. (2019). Dicey on Brexit and the Conservative Twomey, A. (2018). Office of profit under the Crown, Research Nature of Referendums. Australian Law Journal, 93, 981-984. Paper Series, 2017-18, (pp. 5 - 63). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Department of Parliamentary Services. <a Twomey, A. (2019). Lawyer, Catholic and liberal conservative. href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary In Anne Henderson (Eds.), Federation's Man of Letters: _Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/OfficeofPr Patrick McMahon Glynn, (pp. 103-112). Redland Bay: Connor ofit">[More Information]</a> Court Publishing. Twomey, A. (2018). The Veiled Sceptre - Reserve Powers of Twomey, A. (2019). Minority Government and the Validity of Heads of State in Westminster Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge Standing Order University Press. <a Requirements for Absolute Majority Votes. Public Law Review, href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781107297845">[More 30, 142-159. Information]</a> Twomey, A. (2019). Peering into the Black Box of Executive 2017 href="http://www.afr.com/business/legal/want-wakajumping- laws-for-bernardi-change-the-constitution-20170208- Twomey, A. (2017). Australian politics explainer: Gough gu8u2p">[More Information]</a> Whitlam's dismissal as prime minister. The Conversation. <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-politics-explainer- Twomey, A. (2017). Wild speculation distorts the meaning of gough-whitlams-dismissal-as-prime-minister-74148">[More Uluru. The Australian. <a Information]</a> href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/tablet-t3/tablet- t3/lifestyle/wild-speculation-distorts-the-meaning-of- Twomey, A. (2017). Citizenship: ignorance or inheritance may uluru/news- be no escape from section 44. Financial Review. <a story/0c439b965cc20ee9067dedea44aa6be9">[More href="http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/citizenship- Information]</a> ignorance-or-inheritance-may-be-no-escape-from-section-44- 20170815-gxwe6b">[More Information]</a> Twomey, A. (2017). Yes, Prime Minister, an Indigenous body is a conservative proposal. Financial Review. <a Twomey, A. (2017). High Court ruling on Bob Day should limit href="http://www.afr.com/business/legal/yes-prime-minister-an- conflict of interest. The Australian. <a indigenous-body-is-a-conservative-proposal-20170530- href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal- gwgcwp">[More Information]</a> affairs/high-court-ruling-on-bob-day-should-limit-conflict-of- interest/news- 2016 story/c0c8dbfce9e52e65a469e076f4727ccc">[More Information]</a> Twomey, A. (2016). Before the High Court: Day v Australian Electoral Officer (SA): Senate Voting Reforms under Twomey, A. (2017). Myths about 1967 referendum should be Challenge. Sydney Law Review, 38(2), 231-241. <a discarded. The Australian. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3316/agispt.20161856">[More href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal- Information]</a> affairs/myths-about-1967-referendum-should-be- discarded/news- Twomey, A. (2016). Book Review: Lions under the Throne: story/9dc09f38cffd999a41b574ab76db8ef5">[More Essays on the History of English Public Law. By Stephen Information]</a> Sedley [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. x + 295 pp. Paperback 25.99. ISBN 978-1-107-55976-9.]. Cambridge Twomey, A. (2017). No sacred cows for the youngest, Law Journal, 75(3), 638-641. trailblazing Justice, James Edelman. The Australian. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal- Twomey, A. (2016). Book Review: The Role of the Solicitor- affairs/no-sacred-cows-for-the-youngest-trailblazing-justice- General: Negotiating Law, Politics and the Public Interest james-edelman/news- Gabrielle Appleby (Hart Publishing, 2016) 335 pages Retail story/842eb1b45eb582a3720572f0d52a0db5">[More recommended price hardback: A$140.00 (ISBN 978-1-84946- Information]</a> 712-4). UNSW Law Journal, 39(4), 1466-1471. Twomey, A. (2017). Past flexibility makes Matt Canavan's Twomey, A. (2016). Constitutional Law: Recent Constitutional High Court gambit reasonable but uncertain. Sydney Morning Reforms in the United Kingdom. Australian Law Journal, Herald. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/past- 90(4), 223-226. flexibility-makes-matt-carnavans-high-court-gambit-reasonable- Twomey, A. (2016). Difference in a federal system should be but-uncertain-20170726-gxjbpv.html">[More Information]</a> cherished not feared. The Conversation. <a Twomey, A. (2017). Prelude to the Tasmanian Dam Case - href="https://theconversation.com/difference-in-a-federal- Constitutional Crises, Reserve Powers and the Exercise of Soft system-should-be-cherished-not-feared-57103">[More Power. In Michael Coper, Heather Roberts, James Stellios Information]</a> (Eds.), The Tasmanian Dam Case 30 Years On: An Enduring Twomey, A. (2016). Discretionary reserve powers of heads of Legacy, (pp. 16-43). Sydney: Federation Press. state. In H. Kumarasingham (Eds.), Constitution-making in Twomey, A. (2017). Relevance to Australia of the UK Supreme Asia: Decolonisation and state-building in the aftermath of the Court's Brexit Decision. Australian Law Journal, 91(3), 177- British Empire, (pp. 55-78). Abingdon: Routledge. <a 179. href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315629797-9">[More Information]</a> Twomey, A. (2017). Royal Succession, Abdication, and Regency in the Realms. Review of Constitutional Studies, 22(1), Twomey, A. (2016). Election 2016: What happens next if there 33-53. is a hung
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950
    82 The Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 After the Second World War ended with the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945, a new global conflict between Communist and non-Communist blocs threatened world peace. The Cold War, as it was called, had substantial domestic repercussions in Australia. First, the spectre of Australians who were committed Communists perhaps operating as fifth columnists in support of Communist states abroad haunted many in the Labor, Liberal and Country parties. The Soviet Union had been an ally for most of the war, and was widely understood to have been crucial to the defeat of Nazism, but was now likely to be the main opponent if a new world war broke out. The Communist victory in China in 1949 added to these fears. Second, many on the left feared persecution, as anti-Communist feeling intensified around the world. Such fears were particularly fuelled by the activities of Senator Joe McCarthy in the United States of America. McCarthy’s allegations that Communists had infiltrated to the highest levels of American government gave him great power for a brief period, but he over-reached himself in a series of attacks on servicemen in the US Army in 1954, after which he was censured by the US Senate. Membership of the Communist Party of Australia peaked at around 20,000 during the Second World War, and in 1944 Fred Paterson won the Queensland state seat of Bowen for the party. Although party membership began to decline after the war, many Communists were prominent in trade unions, as well as cultural and literary circles.
    [Show full text]
  • Williams V Commonwealth: Commonwealth Executive Power
    CASE NOTE WILLIAMS v COMMONWEALTH* COMMONWEALTH EXECUTIVE POWER AND AUSTRALIAN FEDERALISM SHIPRA CHORDIA, ** ANDREW LYNCH† AND GEORGE WILLIAMS‡ A majority of the High Court in Williams v Commonwealth held that the Common- wealth executive does not have a general power to enter into contracts and spend public money absent statutory authority or some other recognised source of power. This article surveys the Court’s reasoning in reaching this surprising conclusion. It also considers the wider implications of the case for federalism in Australia. In particular, it examines: (1) the potential use of s 96 grants to deliver programs that have in the past been directly funded by Commonwealth executive contracts; and (2) the question of whether statutory authority may be required for the Commonwealth executive to participate in inter- governmental agreements. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 190 II Background ............................................................................................................... 191 III Preliminary Issues .................................................................................................... 194 A Standing ........................................................................................................ 194 B Section 116 ................................................................................................... 196 C Validity of Appropriation ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Decade of Australian Anti-Terror Laws
    A DECADE OF AUSTRALIAN ANTI-TERROR LAWS GEORGE WILLIAMS* [This article takes stock of the making of anti-terror laws in Australia since 11 September 2001. First, it catalogues and describes Australia’s record of enacting anti-terror laws since that time. Second, with the benefit of perspective that a decade brings, it draws conclusions and identifies lessons about this body of law for the Australian legal system and the ongoing task of protecting the community from terrorism.] CONTENTS I Introduction ..........................................................................................................1137 II Australia’s Anti-Terror Laws ................................................................................1139 A Number of Federal Anti-Terror Laws ......................................................1140 1 Defining an Anti-Terror Law ......................................................1141 2 How Many Anti-Terror Laws? ....................................................1144 B Scope of Federal Anti-Terror Laws .........................................................1146 1 The Definition of a ‘Terrorist Act’ ..............................................1146 2 Offence of Committing a ‘Terrorist Act’ and Preparatory Offences ......................................................................................1146 3 Proscription Regime ....................................................................1147 4 Financing Offences and Regulation ............................................1147 (a) Offences ..........................................................................1147
    [Show full text]
  • The Limitations of Litigation in Stolen Generations Cases
    RESEARCH DISCUSSION PAPER The Limitations of Litigation in Stolen Generations Cases Chris Cunneen and Julia Grix Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney Law School NUMBER 15 AN AIATSIS RESEARCH DISCUSSION PAPER The Limitations of Litigation in Stolen Generations Cases Chris Cunneen and Julia Grix Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney Law School, 173-175 Phillip St, Sydney Research Discussion Paper # 15 First published in 2004 by the Research Section Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies GPO Box 553 Canberra ACT 2601 AIATSIS Research publications co-ordinator: Graeme K Ward Their views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Tory Strait Islander Studies. Copyright ©AIATSIS Apart from any fear dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA CATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA: Chris Cunneen and Julia Grix The Limitations of Litigation in Stolen Generations Cases ISBN 0 85575 483 4 1. Aboriginal Australians – Children – Government Policy. 2. Aboriginal Australians – Legal status, laws, etc. 3. Aboriginal Australians – Removal. I. Grix, Julia. II. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. III. Title. (Series: Research discussion paper (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies)
    [Show full text]
  • Participants in the Courtroom Counsel, Timings When Counsel Commence and Finish Court Etiquette in the Three Courtrooms
    Portraits of the first 11 Chief Justices are displayed cases involving the interpretation of the Australian Participants in the Courtroom counsel, timings when counsel commence and finish Court Etiquette in the three courtrooms. Photographic portraits of all Constitution, or disputes between states, or between speaking, adjournments and pronouncements by the HIGH COURT Chief Justices and Justices who have sat on the Court the Commonwealth and one or more states. Matters As you enter the courtroom, it may be helpful for you Bench. The Clerk also times the oral presentations in The High Court building is open to the public. We since its inception are displayed along the wall outside raising constitutional questions may involve the to understand the various roles of the people you are special leave applications and controls the counsel request your cooperation in respecting our restrictions Courtroom 1. intervention of some or all of the Attorneys-General for about to see. warning lights on the lectern. When reserved judgments and requirements for visitors. Court Guides are stationed OF AUSTRALIA the Commonwealth, the states and the territories. are delivered, an additional Associate attends in Court around the Public Hall and will advise you of courtroom www.hcourt.gov.au Commemorative Plaques Justices to collect the written judgments from each of the protocol. It is customary, as a matter of respect to the Oral Argument The Justices enter the courtroom through a door to the Justices as they are pronounced and delivers them to Court when it is in session, that you bow on entry into A feature wall at the lower entrance to the building right of the Bench.
    [Show full text]
  • American Exceptionalism and Government Shutdowns: a Comparative Constitutional Reflection on the 2013 Lapse in Appropriations
    AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REFLECTION ON THE 2013 LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS KATHARINE G. YOUNG∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 991 I. THE U.S. SHUTDOWN AND POLITICAL DYSFUNCTION ......................... 993 II. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL IMPASSE ............................................................................................... 998 III. BEHIND CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN: AUSTRALIA’S FINANCIAL IMPASSE ............................................................................................. 1007 IV. CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO FINANCIAL IMPASSE: THREE FRAMES ............................................................................................. 1018 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 1024 INTRODUCTION The shutdown of the United States government for sixteen days in October 2013 symbolized a distinctively American version of political failure. Failure is, of course, not uncommon in the lifecycles of modern constitutional government. Between 2010 and 2011, Belgium spent more than 530 days without an elected government, due to a political gridlock between politicians from the Flemish-speaking North and the French-speaking South.1 And between 2006 and 2013, Canada’s Parliament was suspended four times at the Prime Minister’s request, amounting to a stoppage of 181 days.2 The United States, Belgium, and
    [Show full text]
  • Voting in AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA Contents
    Voting IN AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA Contents Your vote, your voice 1 Government in Australia: a brief history 2 The federal Parliament 5 Three levels of government in Australia 8 Federal elections 9 Electorates 10 Getting ready to vote 12 Election day 13 Completing a ballot paper 14 Election results 16 Changing the Australian Constitution 20 Active citizenship 22 Your vote, your voice In Australia, citizens have the right and responsibility to choose their representatives in the federal Parliament by voting at elections. The representatives elected to federal Parliament make decisions that affect many aspects of Australian life including tax, marriage, the environment, trade and immigration. This publication explains how Australia’s electoral system works. It will help you understand Australia’s system of government, and the important role you play in it. This information is provided by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), an independent statutory authority. The AEC provides Australians with an independent electoral service and educational resources to assist citizens to understand and participate in the electoral process. 1 Government in Australia: a brief history For tens of thousands of years, the heart of governance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was in their culture. While traditional systems of laws, customs, rules and codes of conduct have changed over time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to share many common cultural values and traditions to organise themselves and connect with each other. Despite their great diversity, all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities value connection to ‘Country’. This includes spirituality, ceremony, art and dance, family connections, kin relationships, mutual responsibility, sharing resources, respecting law and the authority of elders, and, in particular, the role of Traditional Owners in making decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court and the Parliament Partners in Law-Making Or Hostile Combatants?*
    The High Court and the Parliament Partners in law-making or hostile combatants?* Michael Coper The question of when a human life begins poses definitional and philosophical puzzles that are as familiar as they are unanswerable. It might surprise you to know that the question of when the High Court of Australia came into existence raises some similar puzzles,1 though they are by contrast generally unfamiliar and not quite so difficult to answer. Interestingly, the High Court tangled with this issue in its very first case, a case called Hannah v Dalgarno,2 argued—by Wise3 on one side and Sly4 on the other—on 6 and 10 November 1903, and decided the next day on a date that now positively reverberates with constitutional significance, 11 November.5 * This paper was presented as a lecture in the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House on 19 September 2003. I am indebted to my colleagues Fiona Wheeler and John Seymour for their comments on an earlier draft. 1 See Tony Blackshield and Francesca Dominello, ‘Constitutional basis of Court’ in Tony Blackshield, Michael Coper and George Williams (eds), The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia, South Melbourne, Vic., Oxford University Press, 2001 (hereafter ‘The Oxford Companion’): 136. 2 (1903) 1 CLR 1; Francesca Dominello, ‘Hannah v Dalgarno’ in The Oxford Companion: 316. 3 Bernhard Ringrose Wise (1858–1916) was the Attorney-General for NSW and had been a framer of the Australian Constitution. 4 Richard Sly (1849–1929) was one of three lawyer brothers (including George, a founder of the firm of Sly and Russell), who all had doctorates in law.
    [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]
  • What Is Executive Power?
    1 What is Executive Power? I Introduction In the 1988 case of Davis v Commonwealth, Mason J said of executive power that it is potentially very broad yet ‘its scope [is not] amenable to exhaustive definition.’1 Executive power is a power with significant content but ill-defined limits. It is not the particular power of lawmaking, or of determining disputes but, rather, the general power to carry out all the other functions of government. In the Westminster tradition, all governmental power derived originally from the Crown2 and independent legislative3 and judicial4 functions were a subsequent development. The Coronation Charter of Henry I, the immediate successor to William I and, therefore, the first postconquest king to have a coronation as such, illustrates the breadth of the original power of the Crown (the following excerpts indicating executive, judicial and legislative power respectively): 1 Davis v Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 79, 93. 2 Magna Carta 1215 (Imp); NSW v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337, 480, 487–91 (‘Seas and Submerged Lands Case’) (Jacobs J); J H Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, (Butterworths, 2nd ed, 1979) 12–15; John Gillingham, ‘The Early Middle Ages 1066–1290’ in Kenneth Morgan (ed), The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain (Oxford University Press, 1984), 104; Elizabeth Wicks, The Evolution of a Constitution: Eight Key Moments in British Constitutional History(Hart, 2006) 3–6; cf Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, 137–8 Mason CJ discussing ‘sovereign power which resides in the people’ by virtue of the mechanism for constitutional amendment being a referendum under s 128 of the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • To Be Called the High Court of Australia on the First Day of the 20Th Century
    . to be called the High Court of Australia On the first day of the 20th century, the Commonwealth of Australia came into existence. This new country had a new Constitution. That document set out the powers of the new Parliament and it allowed for the creation of a new court to oversee the exercise of those powers. “The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia.” The Court commenced operating in 1903 when the Governor-General appointed the Court’s first three members, Sir Samuel Griffith as the Chief Justice, and Sir Edmund Barton and Richard O’Connor as the other Justices. Each of them had been heavily involved in the Constitutional Conventions in the late 19th century. Today, the High Court of Australia sits at the apex of Australia’s justice system. The Court derives its authority directly from the Constitution and has two main functions: first, to interpret the Australian Constitution and, secondly, to sit as the final Court of Appeal on all matters arising in Federal, State and Territory courts. For the first 80 years of its life the Court was without a home of its own. It sat mostly in Sydney and Melbourne. When it travelled to other State capitals, it used the court rooms, offices and libraries of the State Supreme Courts. On 26 May 1980 the High Court building was opened and Australia’s highest Court had a permanent new home. While the Court does most of its public work in Canberra, it still travels and usually sits once a year in each State capital, apart from Sydney and Melbourne, where it sits on several occasions each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's System of Government
    61 Australia’s system of government Australia is a federation, a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. This means that Australia: Has a Queen, who resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in Australia by a Governor-General. Is governed by a ministry headed by the Prime Minister. Has a two-chamber Commonwealth Parliament to make laws. A government, led by the Prime Minister, which must have a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. Has eight State and Territory Parliaments. This model of government is often referred to as the Westminster System, because it derives from the United Kingdom parliament at Westminster. A Federation of States Australia is a federation of six states, each of which was until 1901 a separate British colony. The states – New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania - each have their own governments, which in most respects are very similar to those of the federal government. Each state has a Governor, with a Premier as head of government. Each state also has a two-chambered Parliament, except Queensland which has had only one chamber since 1921. There are also two self-governing territories: the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The federal government has no power to override the decisions of state governments except in accordance with the federal Constitution, but it can and does exercise that power over territories. A Constitutional Monarchy Australia is an independent nation, but it shares a monarchy with the United Kingdom and many other countries, including Canada and New Zealand. The Queen is the head of the Commonwealth of Australia, but with her powers delegated to the Governor-General by the Constitution.
    [Show full text]