Compare the distribution and exercise of political and legal power in Australia with one non-Westminster system

What this dot point is asking

The WACE syllabus requires a comparison between Australia's system and one non-Westminster system. The United States is the standard choice because its presidential model contrasts cleanly with the Westminster model on every key feature. SCSA wants genuine comparison (similarities and differences with reasons), not two separate descriptions placed side by side.

Origin and structure of the executive

In Australia the executive is fused with the legislature. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are members of Parliament who hold office only while they command the confidence of the House of Representatives. The head of state is the monarch, represented by the Governor-General, who acts on ministerial advice and holds reserve powers. In the United States the President is a separately elected head of state and head of government, chosen through the Electoral College rather than by Congress, and serving a fixed four-year term. The President is not a member of Congress and cannot be removed simply by losing a vote there.

Separation of powers

Australia has a partial separation: the legislative and executive branches overlap through responsible government, while only the judicial branch is strictly separated under the Boilermakers' principle. The United States applies a much stricter separation across all three branches, reinforced by checks and balances: the President can veto legislation, Congress can override a veto and controls funding, and the Senate confirms judicial and executive appointments. The result is that in the United States power is more deliberately fragmented, which can produce gridlock, while in Australia a government with a lower house majority can usually govern effectively, subject to the Senate.

Accountability of the executive

The mechanisms of accountability differ in kind. In Australia accountability is continuous and political: question time, ministerial responsibility, the confidence of the House, and the threat of losing government drive it. In the United States accountability is more legal and structural: fixed terms mean the President cannot be removed for losing a vote, so accountability runs through elections, congressional oversight, the courts, and the extraordinary process of impeachment. A government can change in Australia through a no-confidence motion or party room; a President generally cannot be removed mid-term except by impeachment for serious wrongdoing.

Constitutions and rights

Both countries have written, rigid constitutions enforced by a supreme court exercising judicial review, which is an important similarity. The key difference is rights protection. The United States Constitution contains an entrenched Bill of Rights that gives individuals enforceable rights against government, struck down by the Supreme Court when breached. Australia's Constitution protects only a few express rights and a small number of implied limits, relying instead on responsible government, the common law and ordinary legislation to protect rights. This makes the United States a strong example of constitutional rights protection and Australia an example of a system that largely trusts the political process.

Structuring the comparison

A high-scoring answer is organised by theme (executive, separation of powers, accountability, rights) and explicitly judges each: how they are similar, how they differ, and why. Conclude with an evaluation, for example that the United States fragments power more strongly and protects rights more explicitly, while Australia delivers clearer lines of accountability and more decisive government, with each model carrying trade-offs.