Australian Politics - Key Differences between the Senate and House of Representatives - Assignment Example

Australian Politics (Students Name) (Institution) (Date) 1. Key differences between the Senate and House of Representatives The Senate in Australia is also referred to as the Upper House. It’s normally made up of 76 senators who are elected to represent the States of Australia as well as the two territories. Also, the Senate passes crucial bills in Australia as well as scrutinising the activities of the government. Alternatively, the House of Representatives, which are also known as the Lower House, constitute 150 elected members. These members (also called MPs) represent each of the 150 federal electorates. One fundamental feature of the House of Representative relates to the fact that it constitutes the government representation by the party having the majority members. Therefore, the House of Representatives is formed to allow the citizens have representation through their representatives. 2. What is the Commonwealth government's most important role? The Commonwealth Government of Australia has a plethora of roles as provided within the constitutional framework. However, the most significant and more important role of this government is to ensure that the citizens have access to ordinary services such as proper education, proper security, health services and tranquility for investment. The Commonwealth government works so closely with various State governments which assist in implementing various policies of the central government. Essentially, the State government has individual and personal responsibility in respect of extending basic services to the constituents. However, this solely lies within the armpits of the Commonwealth government. The allocation of budget and the formulation of major federal policies in the two houses act as 6tyhe driving force towards the implementation of the Commonwealth policies and essential service provisions. 3. Who is your favourite prime minister and why? My favourite Prime Minister is Paul Keating. Paul who sat on the Prime Minister’s seat between 1991 and 1996 stands out among the rest due to his knowledge, skills, style of leadership and charismatic personality. One of the reasons which make him stand out regards his vast knowledge and sense of Economics. This enabled him to participate towards deregulation of the country’s Labor Market and also floating of the Australian dollar especially during his tenure as the treasure in the 1980s. These economic moves shielded the country from plunging into Global Financial Crisis of 2007/2008. The second reason relates to the kind of ideologies propagated by Paul Keating. He believed in a multicultural Australian society and the doctrine of Republicanism to include other races. This was evident during his push towards avocation of rights and recognition of Indigenous Australian. Lastly, his oratory skills make him as one of the best debaters Australia has ever had. He used his oratory skills to engage in parliamentary debates and to move crucial policies for the benefit of Australians. 4. Describe the 1975 constitutional crisis The 1975 constitutional crisis, also referred to as Dismissal, occurred on 11th November 1975. It all began when Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam who hailed from Australian Labor Party (ALP) was dismissed from office by Governor-General Sir John Kerr. The dismissal of Whitlam saw the installation of Malcolm Fraser as the Prime Minister. Whitlam came into power by a majority of votes from the opposition. Therefore, his dismissal led the opposition to refrain from passing crucial finance appropriation bills aimed at financing the activities of the government. However, the deadlock was passed when Kerr rallied his troops to pass the crucial bills for government’s progress. Despite the success in passing the bills, some changes remained within the constitutional order such as the retaining of the power to block supply by the Senate as well as the powers of the Governor-General to dismiss ministers. 5. How do governments formulate policies? The policy making and formulation process follow two primary axes. The first one relates to the Vertical axes which deal with hierarchical relationships of various departments and authorities. This process of formulation policies is instrumental in making technical and strategic goals by the government. For example, it involves the executive coming up with a policy which is further ratified and implemented by the lower administrative level in the country. The other process involves the horizontal axes. This corresponds to policy formulation and implementation through bargaining, compromise and negotiation. It involves the government making decisions which have assent and approval by the citizens such as through voting. For example, it entails the use of referenda procedures to formulate or amend some policies within the constitution. Besides, this policy formulation procedure is instrumental in the manner of bringing together various decisions and agreements to foster a common objective of the government. 6. Has the role of prime minister in Australia changed over the past 20 years? The Prime Minister’s position in the last 20 years has been consistent and evolutionary in its roles. There have not been significant changes in the roles performed by Prime Ministers in Australia during these years. However, significant changes have been witnessed in the styles of leadership and approach to issues by the various incumbents of this position. For example, the activities of Malcolm Turnbull differ from those of Tony Abbott in regards to the leadership styles and principles employed by the two. This, therefore, determined the levels of achievements of the various prime ministers for the past 20 years despite the similar constitutional framework and regulatory policies within which to operate. Australia, has, however, continued to witness progress and improvement in the level of coordination between the roles of Prime Minster and those of the various Houses of Representatives. This has further improved service delivery to the citizens of Australia. 7. Should we regulate Lobbying in Australia? Why and how? Lobbying acts as a voice through which the citizens and the lobby groups front their agenda to the policy makers for considerations. It has been deemed as one of the ways to influence the policy making procedures and outcomes of a government through popular initiatives by the citizens. In Australia, lobbying requires tight regulation. One of the reasons for the need to regulate the lobby groups is to prevent them from malicious activities by influential politicians or person in the government. Besides, they need to be regulated so as to represent the interest of every grassroots individual and not only the rich who can afford to finance the lobby activities. The regulation can take the form of policy statements and codes of conducts. One of the essentials of such codes of conducts is the integrating of disclosure principles which compels these lobby groups to disclose their funding and expenditure. This makes them devoid of rich influencers who may have a different sinister objective. 8. Criticisms commonly made of the way Australia media reports on politics The Australian media has been perceived by many antagonists as vehicles boarded for personal achievements of political gains. Many people have perceived the media as having a relatively biased manner of reporting especially in regards to political issues. For example, a lot of critics argue that the media ownership contribute significantly towards giving sufficient airplay to a particular poetical party or individual. Most of this biased reporting coalesce around financial abilities and media perception of a particular candidate. This has been touted as one of the ways through which the Australian media prevents the citizens from having an equal chance to interrogate the politicians and make informed choices. Besides, it has been criticised for extreme biased in the mode of advertisement and coverage of political events in the country. 9. What issues does the power of Australian media organisations raise in the democracy? Democracy exists when there is an equal chance of participation, decision making and also access to information. The Australia media fraternity has been perceived as key bottlenecks towards the attainment of democratic space in the country. participation in political activities and the right to vote given consistent information is one of the democratic activities prevailing in a country. However, the manner in which the media operators report on issues regarding politics in the country has been viewed as biased democratically. For example, the biased perception and favouritism towards a particular party or a contestant lead to partial patterns of political coverage and reporting. It’s common to see a media house propagate much of a certain political party’s agenda as opposed to other competitors. This, therefore, prevents the citizens from having a uniform pool of political views to enable them engages in election processes. 10. Assessment of Wayne Swan’s comment that lobbying is a ‘poison threatening the future prosperity of the great mass of good-hearted Australians”. Lobbying has practical expectations which include the representation of the public’s demands regarding major decisions of the government. It an effective tool when under good regulation and legitimate objectives. However, it remains as a poison in the lives of future citizens due to the current manner of regulations and involvements of ill-intended participants. Lobbying has been adopted as one of the tools used to pursue any criticism someone the government achievements and procedures. It’s normally employed by rich and ill-intended politicians who aim at achieving personal gains. For example, a lobby group may be financed to push an electoral reform aimed at benefiting a particular political party at the behest of the masses. This trend kills the future development of the country as well as the existence of the future existence of Australia. 11. How has a high concentration of media ownership affected politics in Australia? A concentration of media ownership refers to a process whereby fewer individuals or even organisations have control of shares or control of the mass media. It always exists when the media houses are controlled and dominated by few individuals or organisations. Australia stands at 41 positions in regards to Press Freedom. This low ranking position is attributed to the great extent of Concentration of media ownership in the country. Practically, the print media in the country has been under the dominance of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and John Fairfax Holdings. These two major players constitute Australian Broadcasting Corporation alongside two other groups. Further, John Fairfax Holdings owns the Rural Press Limited that serves in all States and Territories. Besides, the Daily Mail and General Trust stand out as the largest owner of radio networks in the country. It currently owns more than 60 radio stations. These facts prove the great extent of concentration of media ownership exists in the country. The increase in the concentration of media ownership in Australia has had consequences on the political scene of the country. The media industry is tasked with the mandate of impartially informing and educating the public on the matter so of concern such as political matters. This duty extends beyond the limitations of perceptions, funding or prominence in the society. Equally, the public has a right to receive such information which enables them to make informed choices regarding crucial matters affecting the country. Therefore, the role occupied by the media in the political space is the duty to inform the public on the politics of the country without biases or partiality. This is however not the case in Australia due to the concentration of media ownership. One of the effects of media concentration in Australian politics regards the decrease in the democratic space of such media houses due to private funding. The operations of privately funded media organisations coalesce around and about the source of funding. In many cases, these media houses are funded by the individuals who own them or the organisations which manage and control the media houses. Practically, the source of funding will influence the information aired through these media houses. In many cases, the ability of the media to have a wide range of political information and perspective to present to the public is considerably reduced due to the private ownership. This has been termed as a setback towards the achievement of equal political information presented by the media to the public. The other effect regards the level of impartiality of these privately owned media concerning presentation of political concerns in the country. One of the objectives of the media in any free democracy is to have an impartial political opinion and perception. This is translated into the manner of relaying political news and information to a greater extent. Therefore, media concentration has been viewed as a means of propagating partial political coverage and presentation of political opinions in the country. For example, it’s common to witness scenarios in which a particular media station gives much airplay and support to a political party due to perception, funding or lack of concurrence with the competition party. In such cases, the public is treated to the one-sided political news. They are denied the chance to have wide political alternatives and means so as to choose their preferred candidate. Therefore, this includes the fair play in the country In the 2013 elections, media concentration played many roles in advocating for the policies of certain politicians and individuals in the country. For example, Rupert Murdoch who is the CEO of News Corp significantly used the media to sway the voters towards Tony. For example, the use of headlines such as “Australia needs Tony” and “Kick this Mob [Labor] out” in the Daily Telegraph newspapers was aimed to sway the voters against Mob. These actions are unethical and contrary to the regulations governing the activities of the media in reporting. The concentration of media is largely blamed for such political advertisements and biased use of the media by the owners to partially propagate the views of other political parties at the behest of the competitors. The greatest casualties, in this case, regard the public who are made to believe on the issues and policies of a single political party without alternatives. Further, this move is increasingly affecting the political space of the nations with many making less informed choices and political decisions. Media concentration has equally been used by the wealthy politicians to advance their policies in a relatively biased manner. In many cases, these privately owned media organisations require money from their owners to run the operations. During the political periods, many politicians who wield many financial abilities pay handsomely to have these media stations help them in advocating their concerns. Therefore, it’s common to see the wealthy politicians have much airplay as opposed to those who can’t afford to pay. Additionally, the unbalanced political ground makes the less fortunate politicians less relevant regarding receiving publicity. This is opposed to instances when the media ownership was not vested in the hands of private individuals or organisations. The issue of soliciting for funds and having much preference for the wealthy would not be a great concern. This has therefore led to unequal reporting field in Australia in regards to political concerns. Presently, the country is dominated by few individuals and organisations with the ability to manage and control the available media houses. The challenge, in this case, is demonstrated on the extent to which a politician is rich or is liked by a particular media management. The political activities require publicity as a stepping stone towards pushing an individual to political vantage points. It’s possible to relate the many politicians who fail to succeed in attaining various positions to the levels of unbiased reporting and perception in the media industry. In conclusion, the high levels of partiality, biases and favoritism on particular politicians has led to the erosion of a uniform democratic space in Australia. Read More