the monarchy in Australia with a presidency. But the proposed change, when
it went to referendum, took the form of advocating a presidency in form
similar to the Governor-General, in effect a recasting and renaming of the
current office. Such a change would require new methods of selection and
appointment but there have otherwise been few calls for alteration. The recent
changes in Canada concerning vice-regal office have not attracted any interest
in Australia.
It has lately been realized that Cabinet government is livelier and more
active in Australia than in the UK or Canada. There is no inclination to wind
it back. Cabinet government, in its present form, has wide-ranging political
strengths apart from any considerations of doctrinal integrity. It facilitates
fostering high-level cohesion among ministers and provides a regular forum
for communication on the central questions at particular times.
The Constitution, and the method of amendment, has always been the
target of criticism. The Whitlam government, for example, sought to reduce
the state requirement for amendment from four to three, but there have been
few other specific suggestions for change. It is certainly the case that judicial
interpretation has proven to be more influential in adaptation (innovation)
than formal amendment; there have, however, been a number of other cases
where decisions of the Court have undone measures which, in practice, have
been effective; such an example is the Court’s decision in the late 1960s
concerning state revenue-raising. But many other apparent problems have
proven resolvable when there is political agreement. The art of forging polit-
ical agreement has lately been overlooked in Australia.
Answering questions about what differences Australia’s distinctive institu-
tional structures make presents greater difficulties. The course of public policy
in Australia, the UK, and Canada has been broadly similar throughout the
twentieth century, which suggests that the impact of particular institutional
arrangements is neither especially discernible nor decisive. Or, to put it
another way, perhaps general, sustained opinion is more influential than
the institutional framework. Parliament, ideally, is an important forum for
articulation of opinion; but it is not the only forum. Features (op-ed) pages of
newspapers have won a significant place in this respect. And current affairs
programmes on both radio and TV perform similarly, if not always with
perceptible benefit.
Whether a particular set of institutional structures works well depends upon
several considerations, including the policies being advocated and the inter-
ests seeking representation. The Australian Senate furnishes an illustration.
For many years Labor sought its abolition, seeing it as an obstacle to what it
deemed to be progressive legislation. But, under the Coalition governments
led by John Howard and Tony Abbott, it has been something of a bulwark
against change in the form of resisting measures to reduce the range and scope
Australia’s Distinctive Governance