Lawmaking Flashcards
Major party’s involvement with the religious discrimination bill
Liberal- Announced commitment to bill in Dec 2018, Withdrew bill from the senate in Feb 2022 due to internal opposition
Labor- Agreed to not oppose in the HOR but signalled they would seek to amend in the senate
Minor party’s involvement with the religious discrimination bill
Centre Alliance:- Rebekah Sharkie moved amendments to repeal exemption in s58 of the sex discrimination act, Supported by 5 liberal MP’s crossing the floor to vote with centre alliance as well as labor and independents
Individuals’ involvement with the religious discrimination bill
Professor George Williams- Wrote a submission to the parliamentary joint committee of human rights that the bill shouldn’t be enacted due to its failure to protect students from expulsion from school due to sexuality
Philip Ruddock- Chaired the religious freedom review panel in 2018, Found little evidence Christians are being persecuted in Australia
Pressure group’s involvement with the religious discrimination bill
Australian Christian Lobby- Called for bill to be scrapped as amendments even though they had close ties with Scott Morrison
Law council of Aus- Gave evidence in Jan 2022 at parliamentary joint committee on human rights public hearing into the bill
Strengths of individuals in lawmaking
Uphold democratic principles, Rise of independent movement, Strongest/significant influence when bringing constitutional cases (parliament can’t abrogate)
Weaknesses of individuals in lawmaking
Courts- Expensive, Standing
Parliament- Difficult to achieve majority support when not part of a political party (especially in HOR)
Opportunities of individuals in lawmaking
Courts- Can create new precedent or cause Parliament to introduce/change a law
Parliament- Private members bills aren’t backed by political party’s, Can support and capitalise on minority gov to undermine gov- Medevac, Increased number or teals that Albanese looks to
Threats of individuals in lawmaking
Courts- Only around 13% of cases successfully reach the high court
Parliament- Government dominance of legislative agenda- 0/379 passed bills were private member bills in 46th parliament
Examples of individuals lawmaking in parliament (3)
Medevac- inspired by a PMB, David Pocock wanted 16 recommendations added to the climate change bill, Helen Haines lead a joint committee that looked into the NACC, Antony Green made a submission to a committee to abolish group ticket voting which influenced the act that passed in 2016
Examples of individuals making constitutional law (7)
Aliens power defined (cannot be overruled)- Love and Thoms (2020), Limits to freedom of political communication- Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery (2019), Comcare v Banerji (2018), Mabo and Wik, Timber Creek, Sharma v Ministre for Environment
Internal lawmaking by individuals
HOR- Independents during minority government 2018-2019, Kerryn Phelps’ private member bill inspired senate amendments to the government bill which were passed in the HOR with support of other independents Julia Banks and Andrew Wilkie
Senate- independents on crossbench, only 1 in the 46th parliament
Private members’ bill- Same sex marriage amendment 2017
External lawmaking by individuals
‘Maeve’s Law’- mitochondrial donation laws, Rosie Batty led to legislation at commonwealth and state level- Family law Amendment bill (2017), Migration amendment bill (2016), Antony Green- 2016 senate voting reform to abolish group ticket voting
Mitochondrial donation law reform bill
2021, Known as ‘Maeve’s law’, Legalised mitochondrial donation in March 2022, Reproductive technology is designed to help parents avoid passing on a potentially fatal disease
Strengths of political parties in lawmaking
Party/coalition can dominate legislative agenda with majoritarian mandates, Balance of power mandate helps negotiation- religious discrimination bill, higher education reforms, medevac repeal
Weaknesses of political parties in lawmaking
Tyranny of majority- minor parties and opposition have reduced impact
Tyranny of minority- hold balance of power
Opportunities of political parties in lawmaking
Minor parties and coalition agreements or minority government negotiations, Internal government conflict- 5 liberals crossed the floor in the religious discrimination bill, Minority government, Senate holds balance of power
Threats of political parties in lawmaking
Parliament- Hostile senate is a threat to government legislation, Minority gov in the HOR threatens the ability to pass gov legislation, Like-minded minor parties in senate with balance of power- medevac repeal, higher education reforms
Effectiveness of minor parties in parliament
Medevac repeal passes in the senate with the support of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Jacqui Lambie Network, Greens, One Nation and Jacqui Lambie combined with the Labor party to block the government’s fair work amendment, Rebekah Sharkie from centre alliance proposed a successful amendment to the sexual discrimination act that would see transgender students better protected under the act
Ineffectiveness of minor parties in parliament
Jacquie Lambie network and the Greens were unable to prevent the higher education support amendment bill from passing due to the support of One Nation and Centre alliance, Greens and centre alliance were unable to stop the medevac repeal from passing due to support from One Nation and Jacquie Lambie’s ‘secret deal’, Greens failed to pass their climate emergency declaration bill in the HOR, it was initiated by Adam Bandt and seconded by Zali Steggall however it didn’t move past the second reading speech phase
Examples of political parties lawmaking in parliament
Major party- climate change bill, NACC, no successful private member bills in the 46th parliament
Minor party- coalitions force compromises such as on climate change bill where the liberals wanted a goal for 2030 but nations didn’t, no goal was specified
Opposition- medvac passes against the liberal government
Minor parties- Bandt adding amendments to climate change bill (43% is minimum)
Court cases by political parties
Communist party case (1951)- High court rules that the law outlawing the Australian communist party was ultra vires, Day (a member the family first political party) v electoral commissioner for SA (2016)- Dismissed senator day’s arguments and upheld validity of changes to the electoral amendment act (2016)
Strengths of pressure groups in lawmaking
Form an important link between the people and the parliament (anyone can join a pressure group, not everyone can vote), Facilitate a ‘check’ by the judiciary on the actions of the legislative- Minister for the environment v Anjali Sharma (2022)
Weaknesses of pressure groups in lawmaking
Not directly involved in the lawmaking process which limits their impact, May require significant financial resources especially when influencing lawmaking in the courts (Students who sued the Commonwealth regarding Climate change were represented pro bono by David Barnden from equity generation lawyers)
Opportunities of pressure groups in lawmaking
Lobbying- especially influential if there is a close relationship with the political decision makers- ACTU (close ties to labor) and jobkeeper in 2020, Can make issues election issues- climate 200 groups and ‘teal independents’, Submissions to parliament via committee stage or inquiries, Bring court action- Minister for the environment v Anjali Sharma
Threats of pressure groups in lawmaking
Disproportionate influence to those they represent, Some pressure groups are seen to act like quasi-political parties due to their close ties- Getup! and Labor
Examples of pressure groups lawmaking in parliament (2)
ACTU put many recommendations to the Liberal government regarding the proposed jobkeeper policy and some were added such as that the legislation is time limited, applies to only eligible workers and protects pay rate, Any person/group can send in submissions with their worries and recommendations surrounding the proposed policy
Submissions received by the senate committee
Examples of pressure groups lawmaking in the courts (2)
Rowe and Anor v Electoral Commissioner- Rowe (supported by GetUp!) argued to change the period of time that people could enrol to vote after it was shortened to 3 days following the issue of the writs when it was previously 7 days
The High court found it unconstitutional meaning up to 100,000 more citizens could vote in the 2010 election
GetUp Ltd v Electoral Commissioner- Federal court argued that electronic voting enrolment wasn’t consistent with the Commonwealth Electoral Act meaning Sophie Trevitt who had enrolled online couldn’t vote Judge Perram determined that her online enrolment was valid and should be counted setting precedent for all citizens being able to enrol online
