14
Australia’s Distinctive Governance
Westminster, Ottawa, and Canberra Contrasted
J. R. Nethercote
The practice of Westminster governance throughout the world resembles
observance of traditions within the various provinces of the Anglican Church.
According to Article 34 of the Articles of Religion,‘It is not necessary that
Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one and utterly alike; for at all times
they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of
countries, times, and men’s manners...’. This chapter is an exploration of
that diversity in the realm of government and politics, highlighting that
which is particular to Australia (mainly the Commonwealth), but showing
how it is distinguished from similar practice elsewhere, notably in the UK
itself and Canada, the other great federation of the Westminster world. It is
especially by reference to the UK and Canada that the distinctiveness of
Australia’s framework and structures can be most clearly revealed. The
approach here tends to highlight the contrasts and differences between the
major Westminster polities, rather than the more usual practice that stresses
comparison, likeness, and similarity.
Australian government is usually regarded, with good reason, as being
derived from that of Westminster and modelled upon it. As at Westminster,
the defining characteristic of government in Australia, in the states as well
as the Commonwealth, is the selection of the principal executive officers of
government, the ministers of state (by whatever designation), from the
parliament. Other features of Australian government, such as a non-partisan
public service, also reflect those of Britain. But the essential, Westminster
natureoftheregimestemsfromtheintimaterelationshipbetweenthe
legislatureandtheexecutive,andtheformaldependenceofthelatter
upon the former.