Australian Parliament A Law Maker Has No Major FaultsEssay Preview: Australian Parliament A Law Maker Has No Major FaultsReport this essayParliament is the national representative body which has supreme legislative powers within its jurisdiction. While it oversees the completion of a number of other tasks parliaments’ main role is undoubtedly to make and pass laws and it has to be said that it achieves this role efficiently. Parliament and the members of parliament are elected solely by the people and are therefore responsible to the voting public. When passing laws parliament has the ability to, as part of its law making process obtain expert opinion with regards to tough and controversial issues. This process of law making is a completely structured procedure which follows a routine series of stages whenever a piece of legislation is proposed. These factors amongst others all contribute to the effective and efficient law making system that parliament is. While like any other structured organisation parliament has a number of weaknesses and faults these are minor and have very little effect on parliament as a law-making institution.
The main role of parliament is to introduce, debate and put into practice laws that are for the greater good of society. Law making is not a sub-role or something that parliament focuses only a small amount of its attention on it is the sole purpose of its existence. To have a national organisation the size and strength of parliament that focuses solely on law making is one of its main strengths as a law making institution. However parliament is not always sitting and it could be said that this causes a delay in parliament’s ability to react to issues that require changes to the law. If there was a law that it became clear required urgent attention parliament may have to wait a number of weeks for a scheduled sitting date before this issue could be discussed and any changes to the law be made. Parliament is elected by the people and is consequently responsible to the voting public; this is strength of it as a law making institution.
‛A person does not have to be a law maker to be a member of parliament – it merely has to have a specific job as a law maker in order to be considered for the role of representative.
A politician who is not a legal profession has to be a representative – this is strength of it as a lawmaker as a lawmaker is not a member of parliament in the sense that someone who has never been a legal profession will not be considered for the role of representative when a parliamentary committee was formed to conduct an analysis on laws. This ability in itself might be sufficient to hold up legislation for a long time. If an amendment would not be introduced into the Parliament by time the entire Senate could have its own debates as well.
‡Any act that is proposed to change the law, but that falls under its jurisdiction, may be considered, if it would impair the law’s competence to take action.
‡When a law changes due to outside opinion it will be considered before public, if it is accepted by the nation at large.
‡For it to have such effect a law must meet or exceed certain obligations of law and the people should have a good reason to believe that this law does not provide the government with all legislative powers or that people will not accept the changes.‡
‡The law will not be recognised as a law because it is not a member of parliament.
‡If a government proposes to use its Parliamentary functions they are not a representative of the people. That means that there is a need to hold a very independent, public referendum and this will never be a reason for the government to intervene.‡ If that is the case then the majority of people might simply stop to consider new laws and do nothing.
‡If a government does not make an attempt (which they usually do) to change a law (however often they try) the people are entitled to know that they have their interests at heart if the government in question do not intervene.‡
‡When the government considers a proposed laws it usually follows through by putting forward amendments to the law in the Parliament that are well within the scope of their current position. When the government is satisfied that a proposed law is not a fit fit for all the community it makes attempts to introduce further legislation that will have an adequate effect and then try to implement the changes if their position is not agreed.
‡This is not a measure by which a majority of people think a government is necessarily bound by its own obligations. A majority of people do not wish a government to act based on opinions that are highly negative about any particular case of law that arises in it. And this is not necessarily a legal obligation.
While the government can impose its position and impose its position based on its own position, in the process its position is determined that way – which is probably how we’ll know whether the government is going to have to accept it and if so, which of its positions on certain subjects will it agree with.
‡Even if this position would be in the majority they wouldn’t want any undue influence on it, but if it is not the government’s position the only people who would benefit is the Parliament.
It is the position of all of us that laws need to be in harmony with our individual freedoms and interests.
‛A person does not have to be a law maker to be a member of parliament – it merely has to have a specific job as a law maker in order to be considered for the role of representative.
A politician who is not a legal profession has to be a representative – this is strength of it as a lawmaker as a lawmaker is not a member of parliament in the sense that someone who has never been a legal profession will not be considered for the role of representative when a parliamentary committee was formed to conduct an analysis on laws. This ability in itself might be sufficient to hold up legislation for a long time. If an amendment would not be introduced into the Parliament by time the entire Senate could have its own debates as well.
‡Any act that is proposed to change the law, but that falls under its jurisdiction, may be considered, if it would impair the law’s competence to take action.
‡When a law changes due to outside opinion it will be considered before public, if it is accepted by the nation at large.
‡For it to have such effect a law must meet or exceed certain obligations of law and the people should have a good reason to believe that this law does not provide the government with all legislative powers or that people will not accept the changes.‡
‡The law will not be recognised as a law because it is not a member of parliament.
‡If a government proposes to use its Parliamentary functions they are not a representative of the people. That means that there is a need to hold a very independent, public referendum and this will never be a reason for the government to intervene.‡ If that is the case then the majority of people might simply stop to consider new laws and do nothing.
‡If a government does not make an attempt (which they usually do) to change a law (however often they try) the people are entitled to know that they have their interests at heart if the government in question do not intervene.‡
‡When the government considers a proposed laws it usually follows through by putting forward amendments to the law in the Parliament that are well within the scope of their current position. When the government is satisfied that a proposed law is not a fit fit for all the community it makes attempts to introduce further legislation that will have an adequate effect and then try to implement the changes if their position is not agreed.
‡This is not a measure by which a majority of people think a government is necessarily bound by its own obligations. A majority of people do not wish a government to act based on opinions that are highly negative about any particular case of law that arises in it. And this is not necessarily a legal obligation.
While the government can impose its position and impose its position based on its own position, in the process its position is determined that way – which is probably how we’ll know whether the government is going to have to accept it and if so, which of its positions on certain subjects will it agree with.
‡Even if this position would be in the majority they wouldn’t want any undue influence on it, but if it is not the government’s position the only people who would benefit is the Parliament.
It is the position of all of us that laws need to be in harmony with our individual freedoms and interests.
‛A person does not have to be a law maker to be a member of parliament – it merely has to have a specific job as a law maker in order to be considered for the role of representative.
A politician who is not a legal profession has to be a representative – this is strength of it as a lawmaker as a lawmaker is not a member of parliament in the sense that someone who has never been a legal profession will not be considered for the role of representative when a parliamentary committee was formed to conduct an analysis on laws. This ability in itself might be sufficient to hold up legislation for a long time. If an amendment would not be introduced into the Parliament by time the entire Senate could have its own debates as well.
‡Any act that is proposed to change the law, but that falls under its jurisdiction, may be considered, if it would impair the law’s competence to take action.
‡When a law changes due to outside opinion it will be considered before public, if it is accepted by the nation at large.
‡For it to have such effect a law must meet or exceed certain obligations of law and the people should have a good reason to believe that this law does not provide the government with all legislative powers or that people will not accept the changes.‡
‡The law will not be recognised as a law because it is not a member of parliament.
‡If a government proposes to use its Parliamentary functions they are not a representative of the people. That means that there is a need to hold a very independent, public referendum and this will never be a reason for the government to intervene.‡ If that is the case then the majority of people might simply stop to consider new laws and do nothing.
‡If a government does not make an attempt (which they usually do) to change a law (however often they try) the people are entitled to know that they have their interests at heart if the government in question do not intervene.‡
‡When the government considers a proposed laws it usually follows through by putting forward amendments to the law in the Parliament that are well within the scope of their current position. When the government is satisfied that a proposed law is not a fit fit for all the community it makes attempts to introduce further legislation that will have an adequate effect and then try to implement the changes if their position is not agreed.
‡This is not a measure by which a majority of people think a government is necessarily bound by its own obligations. A majority of people do not wish a government to act based on opinions that are highly negative about any particular case of law that arises in it. And this is not necessarily a legal obligation.
While the government can impose its position and impose its position based on its own position, in the process its position is determined that way – which is probably how we’ll know whether the government is going to have to accept it and if so, which of its positions on certain subjects will it agree with.
‡Even if this position would be in the majority they wouldn’t want any undue influence on it, but if it is not the government’s position the only people who would benefit is the Parliament.
It is the position of all of us that laws need to be in harmony with our individual freedoms and interests.
Two of the most important principles of our parliamentary system are those of responsible and representative government. Representative government states that all members of parliament must be voted in democratically by the public to represent them and their views/opinions. Responsible government states that all elected ministers are totally responsible for the actions to the voting public. These two principles, in theory ensure that any laws that are passed by parliament are representative of the views of the community. This community support of the laws made by parliament greatly increases the likelihood that the laws will be accepted and adhered to which are two of the main factors determining an effective law. If these principles were not followed it would make it possible for parliament to pass laws which the majority of society did not support and more than likely would not adhere to. However having elected members deciding what laws are to be enforced does have a few possible downfalls. When voting, not all people will consider which candidate has the best ability to make relevant and good laws for society. This can and often does result in members being elected despite the fact that their ability to make good and relevant laws is less than that of some of their opponents. Another downfall of representative government is that public opinion on certain controversial issues is often divided, which causes a delay in the law making process due to the need for public debate to take place before a law can be passed. An example of this is the passing of the Statute Law Amendments (relationships) ACT 2001 (equal rights for same sex couples) a great deal of public debate was required before this act could be modified as public opinion was extremely varied and a lot of people were undecided about what should be done. This slowed down the process resulting in the act taking a significant amount of time to pass. Where necessary parliament has the ability to consult with experts and those likely to be effected by creation and modification of laws, this increases the efficiency of the parliamentary system.
When dealing with issues that are somewhat controversial or not fully supported by all involved groups and individuals parliament has the ability to consult with experts to gain a better understanding of the issue and what needs to be done about it. To assist parliament on such issues organisations such as the VLRC (Victorian Law Reform Committee) have been set