A Federal Republic

Abstract

This provocative book, first published in 1995, argues that Australia is already a federal republic rather than a constitutional monarchy. It argues that by adopting a federal constitution in 1901 Australians ensured their status as a sovereign people. While the book does not deny the parliamentary and monarchic elements of the Australian system, it calls for a positive reassessment of the Constitution. Brian Galligan forcefully argues that the Australian Constitution has primacy over the other political institutions of the nation. The book considers fundamental issues that arise in discussion of the Constitution and federalism, including the role of the Senate, the possibility of a bill of rights, the way the High Court fits into the current system and the nature of governmental relations. This book will overturn the orthodoxies of much informed opinion and will challenge republicans and monarchists alike. Brian Galligan's unique perspective as a political scientist throws light on many aspects of federalism and will stimulate wide debate.

Accountability in Multi-level Governance: The Example of Australian Federalism

“…Under such a system, more weight is likely to be given to the virtues of divided authority and multiple channels of accountability (Radin 2002). In Australia, too, liberal constitutionalists who value the checks and balances of federalism are more likely to emphasise the accountability gains that federalism offers (Galligan 1995). But theirs is a minority view.…”

“…Federal divisions of authority, where two constitutionally independent levels of governmentcentral and provincial -work together on common policies or problems, can therefore be counted as a species of networked governance. In this light, however, federalism as a species of networked governance fits only with those aspects of federalism that exhibit features of 'concurrent' federalism involving overlapping responsibilities (Galligan 1995;Painter 1998). It does not apply to those areas of government that fit the theory of 'coordinate' federalism, where each level of government operates separately within its own sphere of activity (though each separate jurisdiction may itself exhibit aspects of networked governance, for example, between its different government departments and agencies and between each government and non-government organisations).…”

Unfinished Business: Confirming Australia's Constitution as an Act of Political Settlement

“…Far from being, constitutionally, a frozen continent, there has been a massive deviation from the compact or covenant which constituted Australia as a limited, federal union. Federalism was not intended by the founding fathers to be a half-way house to a unitary state (Galligan 1995;W arden 1993;Davis 1995). Now, however,`the real nature of the federal balance ¼ is largely a matter for political decision at the Com m onwealth level' (Dawson 1984, 355).…”

“…This group also expresses strong respect for the existing Downloaded by [Nova Southeastern University] at 04:34 27 December 2014 Constitution, especially its federal character (see esp. Galligan 1995;Davis 1995). They are largely opposed to a m ajor overhaul.…”

Multi-level Governance: Conceptual challenges and case studies from Australia

“…Federal divisions of authority, where two constitutionally independent levels of governmentcentral and provincial -work together on common policies or problems, can therefore be counted as a species of networked governance. In this light, however, federalism as a species of networked governance fits only with those aspects of federalism that exhibit features of 'concurrent' federalism involving overlapping responsibilities (Galligan 1995;Painter 1998 …”