Why We Should Not Codified In The Australian Constitution

881 Words4 Pages
The foundation of any nation is established within its constitution, in Australia it serves as the most supreme document of statehood within its sovereignty. The basis of government, law, and federation are prescribed inside, while other concepts such as the separation of powers can be inferred. Not all nations possess a constitution however, and instead subscribe to conventions, unwritten practices that are considered so cardinal that they do not need codification. The United Kingdom is built upon these customs and names its practices as the Westminster System which Australia is modelled upon despite the existence of a constitution. The two work in conjunction to form the Australian legal system and thus there are numerous elements not codified in the constitution and are established through convention. The most notable is the head of government which is constitutionally the Governor-General but is instead…show more content…
In theory, this provides a substantial weakness as there is technically nothing which requires conventions to be practiced in comparison to what is codified within the constitution. As aforementioned, breaches of conventions are rare in Commonwealth nations, thus there is no formal judicial process for punishment, although typically a loss of popular support can be identified in addition to scathing criticism from all sides of the political sphere. In Australia however, the Governor-General is constitutionally appointed by the British monarch thus if a king or queen was permissive enough the Governor-General could establish themeself as head of government without any legal repercussions or barriers outside of a referendum. In order to avoid a scenario such as this, recording conventions in the constitution would allow the legislature to create ways to prevent violations and maintain the established status

    More about Why We Should Not Codified In The Australian Constitution

      Open Document