Today's system of party, rather than parliamentary, government is the result of gaps left in the Commonwealth Constitution.
This paper explores the implications of this folly for the Commonwealth Constitution.
The argument of the paper follows the conventional wisdom: that the Executive dominates and controls the Parliament as a consequence of a disciplined two-party system.
The founders debated at length theoretical and operational concerns such as the composition of the Executive, alternative federal models, the election of Ministers, and, importantly, notions of responsible government.
This paper explores how this decision was taken, and the consequences which emerged after the first decade of Federation.
Since 1910 there have been occasional flickers of hope for a revival of Parliament as a more significant part of the political system, often centring on the role of the Senate or a growing scope for committee input.
PM Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow Agon Maliqi discussed how to bolster domestic constituencies for liberal democracy in the Western Balkans.
A panel of experts elaborated on larger regional and geopolitical trends and ways to counter the influence of authoritarianism.
A Steering Committee comprising Professor Geoffrey Lindell (Chair), the Hon. John Bannon and Dr John Uhr assist DPL with the management of the project.
Major Issues Introduction The Founders' Vision The Formative Years 1901-1910 Evolution 1910-2000 Contemporary Expectations The Prospect for Reform Assessing The Vision Endnotes List of Tables Table 1: Party Representation in Parliament Table 2: Government Changes 1901-10 Major Issues The relationship between the Executive and the Parliament is the buckle which joins a system of government.