Australian Federalism and the Debate over a Bill of Rights

Galligan, Brian; Knopff, Rainer; Uhr, John

doi:10.2307/3330292

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(a) To include in the Commonwealth Constitution a Charter of Civil and Human Rights (ALP 1951,53). This strategy of linking the centralisation of power with countervailing protection for individual rights continued within ALP circles into the 1980s (Galligan, Knopff and Uhr 1990), and was championed by scholars such as Geoffrey Sawer (1976,104).…”

Section: Holding the Line: The 1950smentioning

confidence: 97%

Labor's reconciliation with federalism

Galligan

Mardiste

1992

Australian Journal of Political Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until the 1960s, the federal Labor party was formally pledged to the abolition of federalism and its replacement by a system in which the central government would have plenary powers and the states only delegated administrative responsibilities. This article examines how the ALP's platform was progressively changed during the 1960s and 1970s. The modification of Labor's commitment to abolish federalism and the Senate was due partly to a more realistic sense of what was feasible and partly to a more sophisticated approach towards working the existing system. But, as well, Labor's social and economic goals had been moderated to ones that were congenial to middle Australia and private enterprise. Progressive changes to Labor's platform were an important precondition for the Whitlam government's 'new federalism' in the 1970s, and the Hawke government's current initiative of 'closer partnership with the states' for reforming the practical working of the federal system.

show abstract

Section: Holding the Line: The 1950smentioning

confidence: 97%

Labor's reconciliation with federalism

Galligan

Mardiste

1992

Australian Journal of Political Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast with Canada, New Zealand and the UK, Australia's powerful Senate has been a significant obstacle to the introduction of a bill of rights. From the late 1960s, the Federal Labor party has combined its traditional commitment to the concentration of governmental power with a concern to check that power by means of a bill of rights (see Galligan et al, 1990: 65–66). On each occasion the party has come to office since that time—in 1972, 1983 and 2007—it has shown interest in legislating on this matter.…”

Section: Strong Bicameralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constitutional Design and Australian Exceptionalism in the Adoption of National Bills of Rights

Stone

Barry

2014

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why has Australia not followed Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom in adopting a formal bill of rights at the national level? We argue that the Australian Constitution has made the difference. The Constitution has underpinned a comparatively strong parliamentary check on the executive, weakening the rationale for a bill of rights and impeding legislative initiatives towards this end; thwarted the drive for a constitutional bill of rights; and helped delegitimize statutory approaches to a bill of rights in general and the “dialogue model” in particular. The article ultimately questions the notion that a common approach to rights protection can apply across Westminster democracies.

show abstract

“…The federal organization of government in Australia, as Galligan and Uhr (1990) argue, is quite clearly set out in the preamble of the Constitution to reflect the expressed wishes of the people:…”

Section: Liberty and The Australian Point Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The consensus model of democracy is a direct result of the federal arrangement and, according to Lijphart's classification of 21 democracies, federal consensus stands 'in sharp contrast to the majoritaxtan characteristics of the Westminster model' (1984, p. 23). A recent Australian analysis by Galligan, Knopf and Uhr (1990) suggests not only that both aspects should be given due recognition, but also that already 'the range of federal institutions is grounded in principles of federal democracy that are more pervasive than the majoritarian tendencies often associated with parliamentary government. In fact, it is the latter that are grafted onto the former' (p. 65).…”

Section: Tergovernmental Relations In Australia 605mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reform of Intergovernmental Relations in Australia: The Politics of Federalism and the Non‐politics of Managerialism

Fletcher¹,

Walsh²

1992

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A remarkable process of reform of intergovernmental arrangements was initiated in Australia in 1990 designed, according to its proponents, ‘to improve our national efficiency and international competitiveness and to improve the delivery and quality of services governments provide’. Unlike previous ‘new federalisms’ in Australia (and elsewhere) the reform process on this occasion was neither totally unilateral, nor top‐down in design and implementation. Rather, while reflecting the commonwealth (federal) government's frustrations at the limits imposed by the federal system on its political power and administrative capacity, the process intentionally was cooperative, incorporating all state and temtory government leaders, and including representatives of local government. In the context of a review of the origins, nature and objectives of the reform initiative, this article points both to the valuable innovations embodied in its processes, and to the risks of reduced political access and citizen participation created by its attempts to apply ‘single‐government’ managerialist principles to the redesign of intergovernmental arrangements in federal systems. Political and bureaucratic objectives, combined with a lack of adequate appreciation of federal principles, led, in our view, to an attempt to supplant participatory politics with relatively less accessible and responsive managerial structures.

show abstract

Australian Federalism and the Debate over a Bill of Rights

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Labor's reconciliation with federalism

Labor's reconciliation with federalism

Constitutional Design and Australian Exceptionalism in the Adoption of National Bills of Rights

Reform of Intergovernmental Relations in Australia: The Politics of Federalism and the Non‐politics of Managerialism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About