The Role of Parliament in Australia - Case Study Example

Parliamentary Accountability Student’s Name: Institution: Date: Parliamentary Accountability Introduction The role if parliament in Australia has come under a lot of scrutiny from different interest groups. Parliamentary accountability gives lawmakers the power to monitor, investigate and audit government processes to ensure they conform to existing laws.The parliamentary mode of governance used in Australia has similarities with other governance systems in other commonwealth member countries (Dowding & Lewis 2012). As a result, various political representatives in parliament have been given more responsibilities to make laws on behalf of other citizens and monitor the government to ensure it discharges its mandate more effectively. This paper will examine whether the parliament remains an effective accountability system in Australia. Responsibility and accountability All governments have to be responsive to a particular body which is required to represent the interests of the majority in any country. The parliamentary system ensures that key decisions which are made by the government are given more consideration to ensure that parliamentary representatives are able to assess their consequences on other citizens living in an area. As a result, this ensures that government officials understand specific duties they are required to perform. The parliament has over the years sought to increase its control over important decision making processes in government (Lindell & Bennett 2001). As a result, parliamentary representatives are heavily involved in political processes which have ramifications on the way Australian citizens live as they go about their daily duties. Political representatives have to work harder to gain favour with the public to ensure laws which are made and enforced are able to address their concerns and satisfy their political expectations. Parliamentary accountability in Australia allows the parliament to play its watch dog role over the executive in matters that have a lot of consequence for the government (Loney 2008). The parliament has to be involved in formulating government policy and all representatives have to support or oppose policies being implemented to ensure they exercise their democratic right freely. Since the parliamentary system borrows heavily from the Westminster parliamentary systems, more individuals in the house of the representatives have a duty to play in making sure that the government follows the law put in place as it executes its functions. Therefore, the government is expected to set a positive trend by exercising good governance in the manner it performs its duties in the country. For parliament to play its role more effectively, all members have to create internal systems that make them divide different tasks they are expected to perform more effectively. They need to find out the best methods in which they can propose and implement specific policy improvements to ensure they meet standards of good parliamentary practice. For instance, to parliamentary oversight committees make it possible for the parliament to perform its accountability role in the country more effectively. Moreover, parliamentary oversight committees make it possible for parliament to have specialised internal units which focus on specific functions to ensure that they meet and satisfy the expectations of various interest groups in the country (Griffith 2005). Parliamentary oversight committees can perform legislative functions, public accounts and finance functions, budgetary functions, policy and administrative functions. They can also be involved in the supervision of various bodies created by the government which have been chosen to perform various administrative roles in the country. The legislative oversight committees ensure that the government does not violate the rights of people as it discharges its functions in the country. Public accounts committees are formed to monitor government expenditure to ensure that monies which have been set aside for various budgetary purposes are spent on the right purposes. Budgetary, policy and administrative committees are used to make sure that the executive conforms to the letter and spirit of the constitution as it performs its duties (Jacobs & Jones 2009). More importantly, this ensures that the executive understands what it is expected to do to ensure public funds are spent on projects that have viable benefits for the public. Therefore, oversight committees enable the parliament to allocate various specialised roles to its members who understand the specific expectations they need to satisfy (Uhr 1998). As a result, senators and members of parliaments are able to listen to the views of organisations and individuals who have more understanding about the matters being raised. This approach improves the quality of governance in the country because people from the public and private sectors are able to influence the manner in which important policies in the country are formulated. Select oversight committees are able to discharge the functions of parliament within the shortest time possible and this ensures that parliament completes it legislative agenda within a specific period of time (McGee 2002). In the long term, parliament is able to review various issues taking place in the country to ensure that the interest of the public is safeguarded. For parliament to remain relevant, it has to find a way in which it completes different legislative functions within a specific time period. Therefore, it is important for parliamentarians to take note of time limits within which they are expected to work under to ensure they improve the manner in which they manage their time. This approach ensures that parliament performs its role more competently to ensure that it can hold all members of the executive to account for their performance and roles as expected by the public. It must constantly monitor government functions to ensure they bring good outcomes to various groups of people in the country (Pelizzo & Stapenhurst 2013). As a result, this ensures that the overall quality of decision making in the country is held to a higher standard to make the public more satisfied with the manner in which the government discharges its duties. In some instances, the parliament may be required to conduct investigations to uncover more details about various issues that are taking place in government. Excesses of government officials as they discharge their duties may warrant parliamentary investigations to ensure the exact nature of the dealings which government ministers and other public officials are involved in are uncovered. As a result, the parliament may be able to liaise with other investigative arms of the government to obtain more details about the specific role played by government officials in various matters of national interest in different places (Cooper, Funnell & Lee 2012). The modern state is vast and consists of many government institutions which carry out a wide variety of functions. Therefore, an effective parliamentary system ensures that such institutions open themselves up to higher standards of accountability to ensure the reputation of the government is maintained. Government officials have to be ready to measure up to the expectations of the public. As a result, a parliamentary system needs to be able to deliver on the expectations of members of the public. An effective parliamentary system must also open itself up to scrutiny to make sure that members of the public are able to assess the performance of their elected representatives (Sawer, Abjorensen & Larkin 2009). This ensures that all elected officials are more willing to sacrifice their time and comfort to work harder to come up with viable solutions to various problems facing people. Therefore, for parliament to be effective, it needs its role to be clarified to different people in an area. This will make more people understand its significance in determining the political agenda to be followed in a particular country. Governments are expected to observe good governance as they discharge their functions in different places. Public participation in crucial governmental tasks needs to be encouraged to make more people feel that they are part of the process. Openness and transparency in government is an important issue that determines the relationships parliament has with other important government institutions (Roberts 2009). There are also other considerations which have to be looked at when the concept of good governance is discussed. The context in which accountability is referred to needs to be made clearer to ensure different stakeholders understand their roles and how they are expected to conform to them as they perform their duties. In a normal governance system, accountability is owed to courts, citizens, politicians and other civil society bodies which audit and monitor different issues in government. All these stakeholders are relevant to the governance process and they make it possible for a government to understand its responsibility to its citizens. Governments are usually held to account by the public through their vote and this gives rise to political accountability which is exercised through parliamentary representatives. The media and other external organisations hold the government to account by revealing information which is important to the public to stimulate debate. Therefore, for a parliamentary democracy to function effectively, audit systems need to be of high standards to encourage government officials to report their activities to various interest groups that have a stake in a political system. All public officials need to understand that it is important for them to answer directly to a certain body to show why they have chosen to follow a particular course of action (Russell & Milne 2011). Conclusion Parliamentary accountability is an important hallmark of democracy in any governance structure. It makes people understand their roles and responsibilities within government. References Cooper, K, Funnell, W, Lee, J 2012, Public sector accounting and accountability in Australia, New South Publishing, Sydney. Dowding, KM & Lewis, C 2012, Ministerial careers and accountability in the Australian commonwealth government, ANU E Publishing, Melbourne. Griffith, G 2005, ‘Parliament and accountability: the role of parliamentary oversight committees’, New South Wales Parliamentary Briefing Paper No 12/05. Jacobs, K & Jones, K 2009, ‘Legitimacy and parliamentary oversight in Australia: the rise and fall of two public accounts committees’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol.22, no. 1, pp. 13-33. Lindell, G & Bennett, R L 2001, Parliament: the vision in hindsight, Federation Press, Sydney. Loney, P 2008, ‘Executive accountability to parliament —reality or rhetoric?’, Australasian Parliamentary Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 157–165. McGee, D 2002, The overseers: public accounts committees and public spending, London, Pluto Press. Pelizzo, R & Stapenhurst, F 2013, Parliamentary oversight tools: a comparative analysis, Routledge, London. Roberts, J 2009, ‘No one is perfect: the limits of transparency and an ethic for ‘intelligent’ accountability’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 34, pp. 957-970. Russell, P & Milne, C 2011, ‘Adjusting to a new era of parliamentary government’, Report of a Workshop on Constitutional Conventions David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights Faculty of Law, University of Toronto February 3-4, 2011, pp. 1-15. Sawer, M, Abjorensen, N & Larkin, P 2009, Australia: the state of democracy, Federation Press, Sydney. Uhr, J 1998, Deliberative democracy in Australia: the changing place of parliament, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More