Political Institutions: History of Australian Democracy

Political Institutions:
History of Australian Democracy

	4.1 Historical Background: Britain and the Colonies
	4.2 Colonial Chartism
	4.3 Responsible Government in the Colonies
	4.4 Australian Federal Democracy: Colonial Background
	4.5 Responsible Government and Australian Citizenship

The principal aim of this week's study is to consider how democratic principles and institutions have evolved historically in Australia. While the analysis is broadly chronological, it is not intended to be a comprehensive account of the history of Australian democracy. Rather, the emphasis is placed on the origins of several of the most important characteristics of Australian democracy including the practice of 'responsible government' and parliamentary accountability. The intention is to consider a number of historical events and trends in contemporary Australian politics and government. In so doing, we will examine British historical precedents for responsible government, the evolution of colonial democracy and arguments over the nature of the federal democracy established with the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.

It is important to note that the major Australian political institutions are examples of a liberal and representative democracy. In these institutions, the political role of the citizen is largely confined to voting at periodic elections. Nonetheless, there are constant public calls for Australian democracy to become more participatory and encourage a civic republican form of active citizenship. In this regard, you will be encouraged to explore the contemporary debate over Citizen's Initiated Referendums.

1.Historical Background: Britain and the Colonies

Australia provides an interesting case in the study of democracy. The establishment of the British colony of New South Wales in 1788 occurred at a time of growing interest in liberalism and democracy in many parts of the Western world. The Americans declared their independence from Britain in 1776, and with the assistance of the French, fought a war to rid themselves of the British monarchy. The French followed with their own revolution in 1789. In Britain, those interested in establishing liberal democracy placed greater emphasis on modifying the existing system of government, rather than the more radically overthrowing and replacing it. In fact, the British had already experimented with a non-monarchical system of government, complete with the execution of their king 140 years before the French. This radicalism was short-lived and the English monarchy was restored in 1660. Nonetheless, the Restoration, as it was called, was not a total endorsement of the power of the monarch. Later in the 17th century, with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English parliament again asserted its rights against the monarch. For instance, the Bill of Rights (1688) required the King obtain parliament's approval to declare war, and to levy taxation on English citizens.

While we can talk of the 'Age of Absolutism' in countries such as France, Austria and Prussia in the 17th and 18th centuries, the days of the absolute monarch in England were over by 1800. Maddox points out in the first reading that, as early as 1215, the English monarch's authority was contested in the form of the Magna Carta. By the time of the first European settlement at Sydney Cove, Britain was no longer an absolute monarchy but a constitutional monarchy. Maddox devotes considerable attention to the evolution of the British system of parliamentary government. It is important to appreciate that the Australian system of government has its roots in the events Maddox describes. He also refers to political ideas and principles that you first read about in Study Week 2.

STUDY EXERCISE 4.1

Read:G. Maddox, Government, Parliament and Judiciary. 1996. In Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice. 3rd edn, Melbourne: Longman, pp. 188—97.

Answer the following questions:

1.Maddox refers to the 'descending' and 'ascending' theses of government. Explain the fundamental difference between these two ideas. Answer

2.In what ways does parliament embody the ascending thesis of government? Answer

By the end of the 18th century in Great Britain, significant elements of what is called 'the Westminster system' of government were beginning to emerge. These elements of constitutional government were not initially transported to New South Wales with the convicts in the First Fleet. New South Wales was not originally intended to be a place of migration by free British citizens. The over-riding purpose of the first settlement was to serve as a penal colony or gaol for those convicted of serious offences in Great Britain. Accordingly, the population of the new settlement mainly comprised convicts and the military (officers and soldiers) who guarded them.

Maddox notes that, while it may be inaccurate to describe the early governors of New South Wales as 'autocrats', it is evident that in a society in which 75% of the population in 1790 were convicts, the principles of liberal democracy were not given a high priority. Yet, among the free settlers there were a number who were concerned by the degree of authority granted to the Governor. During the terms of office of the early Governors there was recurring conflict between the Governor and prominent members of colonial society such as the officers of the Royal Marines.

Here we need to consider the reasons behind challenges to the Governors' rule. In many respects, the objections were based on the demand that the government (in this case, the British government represented by the Governor), be responsible, or accountable to a select group within society. In this case, it can be argued that such responsible government was really designed to protect the interests of that select group, rather than the population as a whole. This form of responsibility may in fact diminish democracy. Maddox stresses this point with reference to Governor Macquarie's attitude towards the so-called 'exclusionists'. The exclusionists, those privileged free-settlers such as John Macarthur, who wanted to exert influence in governing the colony, had little interest in extending the same rights to a broader section of colonial society.

In these circumstances, a Governor exercising extensive authority in the interests of the wider colony, may be preferable to a Governor obliged to share power with a minority motivated by little more than self-interest. One alternative to both these standpoints, is a form of responsible government more consistent with the principles of liberal democracy. This was the position advocated by the 'emancipists'. This term, originally used to describe pardoned convicts and those who had completed their sentence, is used by Maddox to describe all those members of colonial society demanding responsible government. The emancipists generally understood that responsible government must also be linked to a representative body if the principles of liberal democracy are to be implemented.

During the first 50 years of the colony, the exclusionists prevailed. Prior to 1823, responsibility for the administration of New South Wales lay in the hands of the seven men who served as successive Governors. The source of their authority derived from their Commission, or instructions from the British Crown. This gave the Governor the authority to make laws for the 'good government' of the settlement. Hence, they had extensive powers to grant land, control commerce, appoint magistrates and pardon criminals. As there was no formal political mechanism with which to challenge the Governor's rule, the exclusionists often adopted less orthodox methods of protest. Perhaps the most notable clash occurred during the 'Rum Rebellion' of 1808 when the powerful commercial and landowning interests of the colony rejected the policies and authority of the fourth Governor, William Bligh.

After 1823, the Governor's legislative powers were affected by the formation of the Legislative Councils, first in New South Wales, and later in the other colonies: Van Dieman's Land (1825), Western Australia (1832) and South Australia (1839). The first Legislative Councils were not really designed to restrict the Governor's power so much as add legitimacy or authority to it. Moreover, these Councils were appointed by the Governor and unrepresentative of the colonies' populations. There were no places for elected members until 1842 when New South Wales expanded its Legislative Council to 36 members, two-thirds of whom were elected. Nonetheless, the introduction of elections was only a limited step towards establishing a liberal democracy. Since the franchise was so limited as to prevent a majority of the citizens from voting, elections merely provided an opportunity for the exclusionists to dominate the Council.

STUDY EXERCISE 4.2

Read:G. Maddox, 1996. Government, Parliament and Judiciary, pp. 197—201.

Answer the following question:

1.Which thesis of government, the ascending or descending, was most strongly evident in the way New South Wales was governed during its first half century? Answer

Even though the institutions of a genuine representative democracy did not exist at this time, other aspects of colonial citizenship were evolving. The introduction of many of these liberal reforms can be linked to the Governorship of Richard Bourke (1831—1837). A champion of liberalism and the rights of the 'underdog', Bourke restricted the power of the exclusionists by extending rights to trial by jury, encouraging toleration of religious minorities such as Roman Catholics, and limiting the powers of magistrates.

2.Colonial Chartism

By the middle of the nineteenth century another political force began to emerge in the Australian colonies. As differences between the exclusionists and the emancipists started to diminish, the voices of workers and the commercial and professional middle class became more powerful. Several contributing factors can be isolated. Skilled labourers began to organise themselves in the form of trade unions and workers' mutual benefit societies. These organisations drew most of their strength from the free immigrants of the 1830s, many of whom were labourers and skilled tradesmen. While many of the objectives of such organisations were designed to protect the members' economic self-interest, there were clear elements of democratic idealism contained within them. Moreover, these new forces often demanded a more active and participatory type of citizenship and institutions that were more representative of the people.

The influence of the Chartist movement deserves consideration here. Chartism describes a broad collection of protest and reform movements that developed in Britain in the 1830s and 1840s. Based in organisations such as the London Workingmen's Association (LWMA, founded in 1836), and the Birmingham Political Union, the primary focus of the Chartists was the 'People's Charter' that incorporated six main points. These were:

(1) universal manhood suffrage,
(2) annual elections,
(3) the secret ballot,
(4) electoral districts of equal size,
(5) abolition of the property qualification membership of the House of Commons, and
(6) the payment of members of parliament.

While Chartism certainly contained radical elements, the movement largely retained faith in the Westminster system of government and possibility of reform. Hence on several occasions, the People's Charter was presented to the House of Commons accompanied by huge petitions signed by millions of British people. Yet by the 1850s, Chartism had largely collapsed as a political force in Britain, having achieved none of its formal objectives. As Maddox and others (e.g. Hirst 1988) note, Chartism had greater political impact in Australia. This occurred with the rapid expansion of immigration to the Australian colonies, especially after the discovery of gold in 1851.

Yet it is a mistake to assume that the major constitutional changes that occurred in the Australian colonies after 1850 were the outcome of nothing more than political pressure from the colonies. While this was important, support in the British Colonial Office was also essential. The crucial factor leading to a more sympathetic view of the British government towards a more democratic system of colonial administration was the cessation of transportation to New South Wales in 1840. The British government argued that while New South Wales remained a penal settlement, it was impractical to allow a more democratic system of government. Once the transportation of convicts was ended, however, relatively rapid progress was made on each of the three major strands of Australian parliamentary democracy: self-government, representative government, and responsible government.

3.Responsible Government in the Colonies

Under an absolute monarchy, the government is appointed by the monarch, and is responsible to the monarch. The people are merely subjects. As Maddox explains, the British had been gradually been moving away from this type of government for hundreds of years. Under a responsible government, the rulers must answer to those affected by the ruler's decisions and policies. Such a link between the government and the citizens was absent in the early colony of New South Wales. The Governor was responsible to the British government, not the citizens of New South Wales. Before 1823 there was no mechanism for responsibility in government at all because there was no representative body that could hold the government accountable for its actions.

The extract from the 'Report of Select Committee on General Grievances', New South Wales Legislative Council, indicates a number of the issues at stake in 1844. It is important to note the source of this document. It was not written by those unable to vote, or those unable to participate in government, but by those within the Legislative Council. The Select Committee included some of the wealthiest and most influential members of colonial society, yet their discontent is apparent from the opening paragraph. You need to think about just why this was the case. The date of this extract is also significant. 1844 is two years after the Act that established the first Legislative Council containing elected members. Despite this, the Report indicates that the Legislative Council was not satisfied with the way the colony was being governed. Parts of the Report make the stronger claim that the 1842 Act had resulted in less responsibility in the government of New South Wales.

The Report was produced in an environment of deteriorating relations between the Governor, Sir George Gipps, and the Legislative Council. The major source of this tension was the issue of land. Gipps tried to introduce an element of government control and regulation over the expansion of squatters' flocks and herds onto Crown land. Predictably, this was resisted by powerful land-holding interests, who were well represented in the New South Wales Legislative Council, and on the Committee that produced this Report. (You will consider the some of the outcomes of the expansion of pastoralism in Week 11 on land and law.)

Read:Report. 1844. Select Committee on General Grievances, New South Wales Legislative Council.

Responsible government meant not only that the Governor and his administration ought to take account of the advice of the legislature, but also that the colonial government be released from any accountability to the Home Office in Britain, except on 'questions purely Imperial' or matters of appeal where the executive and legislature differ.

Given this historical background, any understanding of the evolution of Australian democracy must incorporate the concept of 'responsibility'. Early on, responsible government in New South Wales simply meant 'cabinet government' in which government was the responsibility of the Governor and his advisers in cabinet. With the creation of Legislative Councils comprising both appointed and elected members, responsible government came to mean government that was responsible to the legislature. Because of the number of seats that were appointed and the limited franchise for those who were elected, responsible government did not necessarily mean democratic government. That is, governments were not responsible to the wider population but only to representatives in parliament (Irving 1964). At this time, the term 'responsible government' essentially described the political practice of government that relied upon the support of a majority of members in the House of Assembly.

Responsible government lies at the core of the Westminster system of government that profoundly influenced the political institutions Australian colonies adopted. In the following reading, Parker takes up this issue and identifies two broad meanings of the term 'responsibility'.

Read:R.S. Parker, 1976. The meaning of responsible government. Politics 11(2): 178—84.

The first meaning of responsibility Parker describes as largely 'indefinable', in the sense that it carries connotations of rulers governing in the interests of the whole country and not narrow 'sectional interests' and also being guided by the values of 'prudence, integrity, objectivity, impartiality and steadiness'. In one sense, this concept of responsibility implies that subjects should leave the business of government in the hands of those who 'know best', namely the rulers (e.g. Monarch or Governor) themselves. It is this elitist concept of 'responsibility' that the Westminster system seeks to challenge. Parker proceeds to explain this second, and more important concept of responsibility as 'parliamentary accountability'.

Parker's reference to the 'popular house of parliament' is important. It recognises that in the Westminster model, the government is formed in the lower, or popularly elected house of parliament. In practice, this means the government must be able to command a majority of votes, or the 'confidence' of the lower house in order to retain its ability to govern. Once this majority is lost, it is obliged to resign. Two questions are pertinent here. Where does the upper house fit into this picture? And by what mechanism will majorities in the lower house be formed?

In the 1850s, and much of the remainder of the 19th century there was great instability in colonial government as the meaning of 'responsible government' in the Australian context became more clearly defined. Much of this instability was characterised by conflict between the lower and upper houses as Legislative Councils sought to exert their influence over the governments formed in the Legislative Assembly. The uneasy relationship between the two houses has been a feature of Australian parliamentary democracy (federal and state) from its inception.

While Australian colonies adopted Westminster traditions of government as an outcome of their status as British colonies, a major departure was the introduction of written constitutions. Each colony framed its own Constitution in the 1850s. Each stipulated a bi-cameral (two-house) parliament, with a lower house or 'Legislative Assembly' elected on a wide male suffrage, and an upper house or 'Legislative Council' that comprised members nominated by the Governor, or elected on a much narrower suffrage. In 1855 Robert Lowe, a member of the House of Commons, claimed that colonial government by 'oligarchical cliques' had been transformed into 'the most advanced democracies in the world' (Greenwood, 1955: 102).

Yet, we need to consider how accurate Lowe's statement proved to be. More particularly, we need to ask just how 'responsible' the new colonial governments were. Although the New South Wales Constitution was drafted in 1853, it had to wait until 1855 for passage by the British parliament. This constitution was a very conservative document that presumed that the Legislative Council would control any democratic excesses of the Legislative Assembly. Although the franchise for the lower house was extended, it still greatly favoured the wealthier sections of society, as well as those living in rural areas.

In Victoria, when the government tried to extend voting rights to gold miners in 1853, the plan was blocked by the Legislative Council. The Ballarat Reform League, a political group based in the goldfields lobbied Victorian Governor, Charles Hotham for the abolition of the gold licence, as well as a series of democratic reforms bearing a strong similarity to the People's Charter. Although a number of these demands were met following the uprising at Ballarat in November 1854, the place Eureka occupies in the history of Australian democracy has been generally exaggerated and romanticised. The 'radicalism' of Eureka was rapidly absorbed into a more moderate liberal style of citizenship. Peter Lalor, a prominent Eureka leader later became a member of the Victorian Legislative Council, and a House of Representatives electorate is named in his honour.

In general, the Australian colonies made rapid progress in improving the equality of its citizens' democratic rights. South Australia proved to be the most adventurous colony in pursuing democratic principles. Its constitution provided for triennial parliaments, manhood suffrage, and no property qualifications for members of its Legislative Assembly. It introduced the secret ballot and ended plural voting in 1856. While other colonies were somewhat slower in adopting these processes, as a whole, Australia far surpassed Britain in its democratic achievements.

In an official letter to the British Secretary of State to the Colonies, Governor Bowen offers a number of reasons why democracy in Queensland was unlikely to be dangerous and why manhood suffrage could be viewed as a patriotic measure. Also read the account by the vsiting English writer, Anthony Trollope.

Read:Bowen, G.F. [1860] 1988. Letter to Secretary of State for the Colonies Newcastle, and A. Trollope. 1873. Democratic Queensland. In W.R. Johnston ed. A Documentary History of Queensland. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 307—11.

By 1860, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales all had close to full manhood suffrage, yet in Britain only about one fifth of adult males had the vote by this date.

4.Australian Federal Democracy: Colonial Background

A new dimension to the meaning of citizenship was added in the late 19th century as feelings of an Australian nationalism began to intensify. As one commentator (Greenwood, 1955: 146) has noted, Australian nationalism contained a set of distinctive social values motivated by a belief in equality of opportunity, and a conviction that Australians had a right to the good life. This complex mix of ideas and emotions was partly an 'apprehension of present reality, partly aspiration towards an ideal future in Australia.' Republicanism, labourism, socialism and patriotism were all elements of this nationalist sentiment and were part of a further stage in the evolution of Australian democracy towards a federal system of government.

The movement for federation was prompted by a growing awareness of the common problems that confronted most of the colonies. These included 'external' problems of immigration and defence as well as 'internal' or interstate issues concerning transport, communications, free trade and labour. A core motivation of the movement was that a national government could best deal with such problems. The possibility of federation raised the institutional problem of the possible division of powers between the federal government and those of the states. A 'unitary' system, like that operating out of Westminster in Great Britain, with power concentrated in a central, national government, held no appeal to a collection of independent colonies. The colonies were only interested in handing over a limited set of their powers to a national government, while retaining extensive power for themselves.

The first official intercolonial conference (the National Australasian Convention) to give detailed attention to creating a possible federation of the Australian colonies was held in Sydney during March and April 1891. Henry Parkes, the Premier of New South Wales, was made the president of the convention. The relative powers to be given to the two Houses of the new Federal parliament was a major point of contention. In addition to the enumeration of separate powers for states and Commonwealth, those favouring states rights argued in support of a bicameral parliament, comprising a House of Representatives and a Senate in which the latter would be given sufficient constitutional power to protect the interests of the states. Supporters of the Westminster model of responsible government favoured a strong House of Representatives with significantly greater powers than the Senate. Supporters of states rights, which were in some cases also the rights of minorities, wanted a Senate with equal, or almost equal power to the House of Representatives. A federation in which powers would be shared between a federal government and a series of state governments became the preferred model. The following extract indicates the kinds of issues at stake in the debates of the time.

Read:Thynne. 1844. Extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the National Australasian Convention, Sydney.

After a second National Australasian Convention held in March (Adelaide), in September 1897 (Sydney) and January—February 1898 (Melbourne), a draft constitution was prepared by delegates from the colonies. In 1899, after further negotiations leading to an amended bill, all colonies, except Western Australia, passed referendums approving the constitution. As a consequence, on 5 July 1900 the British Parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which united those colonies under a federal constitution, and which made provision for the entry of new states. After a referendum on 21 July 1900, Western Australia also decided to join the federation and the Commonwealth Constitution came into effect on 1 January 1901.

By adopting a federal system of government, however, Australia took another major step away from the Westminster system. Writing in the context of the debate over whether Australia ought to become a republic, Alun Preece (1994) summarises the extent of the British influence upon the Australian constitution. Nonetheless, he also indicates the complementary influence of American and even Swiss political ideas and practices.

Read:Preece, A.A. 1994. The British influence on the Australian constitution. In M.A. Stephenson and Clive Turner eds. Australia: Republic or Monarchy? St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 132—45.

Debate about the 'mix' of American and British influences in Australia's federal democracy has been a constant feature in academic and political forums. In the next reading, James Warden takes up a number of these issues concerning the historical origins of the federal system of government framework in Australia.

Read:J. Warden, 1992. Federalism and the design of the Australian constitution. Australian Journal of Political Science. Special Issue: 143—58.

While the Australian federal system of responsible government is clearly a hybrid, to call it the 'Washminster' system is somewhat misleading. The term suggests that the Australian system of government is a type of political mutation or oddity rather than a coherent and appropriate response to the particular historical problems that the constitutional designers confronted. Campbell Sharman (1990), however, offers an apt description of the main components of Australia's political heritage:

Australia should be seen as having acquired three governmental traditions: a British parliamentary tradition now characterised by executive dominance of the parliamentary process; a colonial tradition characterised by the evolution of six autonomous political communities, a familiarity with entrenched constitutions, judicial review, and strong bicameralism; and an American tradition through which Australia's colonial experience of self-government was adapted to accommodate a federal union.

Sharman (1990) describes Australia as a 'compound republic' by which he means that 'its institutional design relies predominantly on the dispersal of power to achieve individual liberty and governmental responsiveness.' For these reasons, Sharman also rejects the view that Australia is 'caught in some half-way house between competing views of constitutionalism'.

A number of these issues are evident in conflicting views over the significance and symbolism of the Australian flag. Ivor Evans, one of the winners of the national competition to design an Australian flag, recalls the meaning he attributes to the colours, the stars and the place of union flag. He stresses that loyalty to the British Empire was pre-eminent. Evans' sentiments were not supported by all Australians at the time. The magazine, the Bulletin, for example, was strongly republican and in 1901 one of its editorials criticised the evidence of British tradition in the flag. It predicted that with new political leaders, less attached to the British political heritage, a new flag would be possible.

Read:Evans, I. [1959] 1992. Loyalty to Empire took pride of place. Australian 30 April: 5, and Editorial. 1901. The national flag competition. Bulletin 28 September.

Perhaps without the same rancour, such debates have continued up to the present. Opinion remains divided over whether Australians ought to retain the basic design of 1901 or whether a new flag is needed that symbolises more clearly what Australians today stand for. Similar divergence of opinion remains over the most appropriate date to celebrate the national day and even over the best song for a national anthem.

5.Responsible Government and Australian Citizenship

Over recent years there are increasing signs that Australians are less content to let their governments just 'get on with the job of governing'. That is, there is some dissatisfaction with the operation of liberal representative democracy in Australia. The rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party may be one example of a changing attitude towards the relationship between citizens and government. Initially dismissed by the 'elites' (the mainstream politicians and the political media), as largely unrepresentative of broad Australian opinion, this view changed dramatically following the election of 11 One Nation members of parliament in the 1998 Queensland State election. While it is difficult to arrive at any neat explanation of such a complex movement, part of the appeal of Ms Hanson is her reluctance to 'join the politicians' club in Canberra.' In response to government criticism that she was rarely in the House of Representatives for divisions (parliamentary votes), the MHR for Oxley commented, 'I didn't come here to vote, I came here to make a difference.' That such a view is able to gather significant levels of support suggests declining faith in parliament as a central component in Australian responsible government. Linked to this may be a desire by Australian citizens to 'punish' their elected representatives for a perceived lack of responsibility. During 1998, an angry constituent confronted the Federal Primary Industries Minister, John Anderson in his electorate of Gwydir. 'I'm going to kick you and kick you and kick you until you do something', said the constituent. 'But why', asked the Minister. 'Because you have power and I have none!' was the reply (Rothwell 1998).

There is clearly a widespread view that the state of Australian democracy is not as healthy as it could be. Words such a 'cynicism', 'disillusionment' and 'disenchantment' are often used when describing Australians' attitudes towards politics and politicians. It is often suggested that a growing gulf may be opening up between governments, and the governed. Such sentiments have provoked much discussion over how best to increase the responsibility of Australian government to their citizens. Such concerns are evident in recurring debate over Citizen's Initiated Referendums (CIR).

Read:M. Macklin, 1995. The case for a citizen's initiative. Constitutional Centenary 4(4): 6—8,and
C. Puplick, 1995, The case against a citizen's initiative. Constitutional Centenary 4(4): 8—10.

Further evidence of a desire by Australians to express their citizenship in a more active manner was evident in debates over the form of an Australian republic. During the 1998 Constitutional Convention held to consider key aspects of a possible Australian Republic, there was significant support for the republican model in which the Head of State (President) would be appointed by popular, direct election. Although virtually every Federal MP at the Convention opposed it, the notion of direct election reflected the high level of support for the idea in the Australian community.

The election of more Independents members to parliaments; a trend towards minority governments at State level; calls for the direct election for the President of an Australian republic; support for Citizens' Initiated Referendums; and the popularity of 'anti-politician' politicians are all indicators that many Australians are unhappy with the present operation of responsible government. Many citizens no longer seem prepared to limit their civic participation simply to voting in elections. That is, we can see many aspects of a more civic republican and participatory attitude towards citizenship and democracy.

Conclusion

For responsible government to be effective, citizens must feel they are connected to government. After the 1996 federal election, it was common to hear parliamentarians talk about the need to 'listen to the people' more carefully. Such comments were an admission that the accountability that lies at the heart of responsible government was lacking. Throughout their history, Australians have demonstrated faith in a system in which government is accountable to parliament, which in turn is answerable to the citizens in fair, free and regular elections. Australians have rarely adopted more radical methods of exercising citizen's rights. Yet, Australian voters have often indicated their readiness to remind their elected representatives of the need for the system to be more responsible to their concerns. If there is a gulf between governments and citizens, responsibility rests on both sides. While there may be a need to give elected politicians a 'wake-up' call now and then, there is also a need for citizens to accept and understand their role as responsible participants in the democratic system. We will return to the issue of responsible government, the rights and responsibilities of citizens in more detail in Study Week 6. There we will consider further some of the reasons why Australian political institutions are thought to be unresponsive to citizens' needs.

Review for Week 4

Before proceeding, you ought to review your understanding of this week's topic by:

(a) checking your responses to the Study Exercises against those supplied in the Study Guide, and

(b) reading again the documents for this week and completing the related Study Tasks in the Workbook, for which there are no answers provided.

References

Bowen, G.F. [1860] 1988. Letter to Secretary of State for the Colonies Newcastle. In W.R. Johnston ed. A Documentary History of Queensland. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 307—9.

Greenwood, G. ed. 1955. Australia: A Social and Political History. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Hirst, J. 1988. The Strange Birth of Colonial Democracy. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Irving, T.H. 1964. The idea of responsible government in New South Wales before 1856. Historical Studies 11(42): 192—205.

Macklin, M. 1995. The case for a citizen's initiative. Constitutional Centenary 4(4): 6—8.

Maddox, G. 1996. Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice. 3rd edn, Melbourne: Longman.

Lovell D, McAllister, I. Maley, W. and Kukathas, C. eds. 1998. The Australian Political System. 2nd edn. Melbourne: Longman.

Parker, R.S. 1995. [1976] The meaning of responsible government. In Lovell et al. The Australian Political System, pp. 196—201.

Preece, A.A. 1994. The British influence on the Australian constitution. In M.A. Stephenson and Clive Turner eds. Australia: Republic or Monarchy? St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 132—45.

Puplick, C. 1995. The case against a citizen's initiative. Constitutional Centenary 4(4): 8—10.

Report. 1844. Select Committee on General Grievances, New South Wales Legislative Council. In C.M.H. Clark, ed. 1950. Select Documents in Australian History 1788—1850. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, pp. 365—367.

Rothwell, N. 1998. Bushwacked. Weekend Australian 18—19 July: 21.

Sharman, C. 1990. Australia as a compound republic. Politics 25(1): 1—5.

Thynne. 1891. Extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the National Australasian Convention Sydney March—April. In C.M.H. Clark, ed. 1955. Select Documents in Australian History 1851—1900. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, pp 488.

Trollope, A. [1873] 1988. Democratic Queensland. In W.R. Johnston ed. A Documentary History of Queensland. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 310—11.

Warden, J. 1992. Federalism and the design of the Australian constitution. Australian Journal of Political Science. Special Issue: 143—58.

Internet and On-Line Resources

Below is a list of web-sites relevant to this week's course material. These sites should be of use in completing the study and research exercises for this week.

Australian Governments' Entry Point:

Commonwealth Parliamentary Library:

Constitutional Centenary Foundation

Glorious Revolution of 1688:
Quite general website - basic broad overview, but little primary information.

Prime Minister of Australia:

The Australian Constitution for Beginners: