The purpose of this paper is to explore whether the small changes in relative population size of major metropolitan areas are mirrored in the size of the China links at each city. Over time, the role and vitality of a gateway depend upon the character of trade relationships and the pathways of global con-nections. A set of new type of global connections can stimulate activity at a new gateway, which could be felt in an expansion in its economic functions and in turn lift its importance as a city within Australia. There is some evidence that Melbourne is making small gains with reference to Sydney in international students, tourism and resident numbers, but the difference remains substantial. One particular role of Melbourne (acknowledged as the nation’s leading container terminal) was not expressed in the part it played in the import of Chinese manufactured goods. This could be because Port Botany in Sydney is expanding its role, or because some of the imports move by air freight and Sydney airport is the major freight gateway to Australia. These trends suggest that connections with China maybe contributing to some change in the roles that Sydney and Melbourne play within Australia. Another aspect of interest to this paper is the relative position of Brisbane and Perth. Overall it seems Brisbane has experienced a stronger role in the links analysed here, apart from the effect of mining industry on Western Australia and Perth. This is probably linked to the “east coast bias” that was detected in some previous research on connections to China and is expressed in student numbers, tourists and air passengers. It seems Brisbane’s role in the nations has been reinforced by its China links.
Based on a large-scale survey conducted in several Japanese ethnic language schools in Sydney in 2015, this paper aims to review multiple dimensions of the degree of social cohesion of the contemporary Japanese ethnic community in Australia. Looking at several indices such as economic, political, and cultural integration; and daily experiences of the respondents in everyday life, it will attempt to describe the social profile of the Japanese ethnic community, questioning the generic perception of the community as a coherent body of middle-class migrants in Australian society. Along with references to follow-up individual in-depth interviews with some of the respondents in the survey, as well as a comparative analysis with outcomes of a national survey on social cohesion of the Australian population conducted annually, it will draw attention to the ways in which a particular sense of social cohesion with Australian society is constructed by Japanese with a differentiated sense of belonging to the local community, country of residence (Australia), and nation of origin (Japan). It will also focus on the communal diversity of the Japanese community resulting from a majority of women in cross-border marriages and their newer generations living and growing up in multi-cultural family circumstances, which may eventually lead to a need for advocacy related to their re-identification as a possible ethnic group of migrants that should be involved in an inclusive migration settlement policy in Australia.
This research examines the Australian law and justice effort as a part of Official Development Assistance (ODA) and its fundamental strategy as a foreign policy, to clarify the main features of the Australian approach to law and justice assistance. The main question that this study addresses is how can the Australian law and justice assistance be distinguished from that of other bilateral donor organizations? This research analyzes the policy framework of Australian aid on law and justice from the late 1990s to the present through a comparative perspective.The analysis is based on two previous studies, which are Schimmelfennig’s framework for the rule of law assistance and Nicholson and Hinderling’s analysis of the donor’s role. Schimmelfennig conducted valuable research on comparative analyses of the rule of law “aid policy” among major Western donors, which comprise the United States, the European Union, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. In his research, the matrix for the rule of law assistance policy has been drawn for comparative analysis through each major bilateral donor’s role in the promotion of rule of law as well as the potential source of variation in aid. The matrix consists of the following four components: content, or concepts and components of rule of law promotion policies; organizational setup and institutional context, strategies, and instruments; budget and expenses; and target regions and countries. This research applies Austral-ian experiences and policy of law and justice assistance to Schimmelfennig’s matrix to crystalize the Australian approach.By exploring Australian strategy on aid and law and justice assistance, the research described the Australian law and justice assistance narrative, which has been based on regional security interests and geographical contiguity. With regard to future pathways of Australian law and justice assistance, how-ever, policy and strategies are in the process of change under the new aid paradigm, which prioritizes economic development. Also, the Australian aid strategy has reached a critical point, and the Australian aid context has experienced significant changes to its structure and budget. Thus, the paradigm shift emphasizes economic development for Australia as a principle of legitimacy for Australian aid, a situa-tion which can also influence the law and justice assistance narrative on traditional objectives for peace and stability in post-conflict states.
This paper examines the possibility and implication of Section 58 of the Australian Constitution. This section provides the Governor-General discretionary power when legislation passed by the both Houses of Parliament is presented for royal assent. According to this section, the Governor-General can give assent, withhold assent, or reserve it at “the Queen's pleasure”. The Governor-General can return it to the parliament possibly with amendments which s/he may recommend, and with which the parliament may have to deal. While it may well be a common practice for legislation to be given royal assent under the constitutional monarchy, Australia stands out as its constitution says nothing about cabinet’s advice and/or approval. Section 58 has been seen as a mere formality; assent has always been given by convention, and the bill can be returned to the parliament for amendment if drafting errors are found. At the same time it should be noted that the Governor-General’s discretionary power is referred to only in section 58. However, the advent of a minority government in 2010 shed new light on section 58. Under a minority government, it is possible for the Opposition and cross bench members to have their bill pass through both houses of parliament and present it to the Governor-General for royal assent. If one follows the principle of responsible government, the Governor-General should seek advice from the cabinet, which in turn may ask the Governor-General not to give assent. If one follows that of representative government, the Speaker of the House of Representatives would advise the Governor-General to give assent regardless of whatever the cabinet’s view would be. Section 58 can also be read as a clear separation of power between the executive and the legislature. While it is not an issue under the parliamentary system, it may become relevant in the future if Australia chooses to become a Republic, especially one with a directly elected president. This paper will use primary and secondary sources as well as interviews with key players such as constitutional experts and Clerks of the House of Representatives and the Senate.