Following on from
this article
: if you didn't know Australia was a parliamentary system, and you read
SSR
, then you could be excused for thinking we have a presidential one. It is all
Keating, Howard, Rudd, Greiner, Carr, Bracks, Kennett
etc
Even blogs with a strong constitutional focus cannot avoid talking about politics in a presidential/gubernatorial manner.
We may as well formalise constitutionally what we are all doing anyway and separate the executive out of parliament so that the President/Governor can be directly elected.
What would this mean for an Australian Government?
The executive would be a separate branch to the legislative with the President elected and the cabinet appointed with the consultation of the Senate.
Executive bodies and institutions would be established and maintained by legislation.
The legislative would be represented by parliament as a bicameral (two-houses) body. The Senate would remain of federal character, with representation divided by states, and the House national in character.
The Senate would be prohibited from introducing money bills. That would remain the House's authority. But more importantly the Executive and Cabinet would be prohibited from being representatives in the legislative bodies.
The final important innovation is a Bill of Rights that prohibits parliament from legislating over liberties and denying executive force over those same enumerated liberties.
None of this is new and we are almost there already - other than making the Prime Minister (or Executive) directly elected and a Bill of Rights - we have all the other components existing right now.
