Another fascinating human interest story rescued from the dry pages of the law reports. Must have been personally very hard on all the proper officials concerned, at both NSW and Federal level, to see the rule of law being trashed. Far more dramatic and exciting than even the events surrounding the dismissal of the Whitlam Government, and little remembered in today’s Australia. Closest we came to civil war since the Eureka Stockade. Truckloads of State cash evading Commonwealth officialdom, protected by riflemen, indeed! What great TV it would make! 😊 Many thanks, once again, to the Constitutional Carry-on for a vibrant and colourful story engagingly told.
I love these videos and I’m looking forward to seeing a video on the John curtin government and how it passed the bill putting all income tax powers to the commonwealth and the high court challenge by South Australia in 1942.
I remember talking to Jack Lang when I was a little kid, my grandma was a “heavy” in the Labor Party, I thought he was a Great Man but bombastic. I also remember taking to the Evatt kids, I wasn’t that impressed despite being told they were a great hope for the party (remember these were the Menzie years). I should note, my family were bankrupted in theGreat Depression and suffered from a great bitterness at the ‘failures” of the government in the Depression years.
Wow, State politics could certainly get dramatic in those days, lol. A (hijacked) cash State economy to defy Cth laws on interest repayments, how very novel indeed. Lang was certainly a unique character if nothing else, lol. Looking fwd to the final episode. I'm enjoying this series immensely, thank you Professor. 👍🌟
Lang had a point, in that by 1932 the only country that was paying off war loans without discount, offset, or suspension was Australia. It was unconscionable that the British parliament was in complete support with bond holders and treasury against Australia while allowing every other debtor, including itself to default. Furthermore the British were accepting payments from Australia that were properly due to the Americans who had lent £96.0M to Britain for Australia in 1917.
Perhaps it worth recalling that the British Government sent Sir Otto Niemeyer to Australia to enforce payment of interest owed on loans granted by British lenders to Australian borrowers, at the same as they were negotiating with US lenders of loans to British borrowers for an interest payments holiday. Truly, where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit.
@@mindi2050Otto was the agent of the British parliament who had voted that the Australians ‘needed to learn a lesson’ about their war loans. This was after Australia had spent all its reserves on a war for the Empire and Britain had defaulted on its American and Canadian loans.
@@seanlander9321 True, but in reality all countries protect and put their own nations (or states) interests first. This is what Sir Otto, on behalf of the British and Jack Lang, on behalf of NSW were both doing. Although in the case of Jack Lang, whatever his motivation, he wasn't supposed to breach constitutional rules in the process. As for Sir Otto, it was astonishing to read that he believed that Australia's main job was to help look after Britain - even if it was to our own detriment.
@@mindi2050 That argument would have some strength if the British hadn’t singled Australia out as the only country that was refused any relief on war loans. The 1917 loan was equivalent to half of Australia’s GDP and had only been borrowed from Britain rather than America because the British had threatened to exclude Australia from the global credit system operated from London.
Australian politics is so exciting! That sort of thing could not really happen in the UK system until recently, because it is not (or has not been) a federal system. But I suppose it would in theory be possible now for that sort of clash to arise between the Westminster government and one or more of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland (Westminster and Edinburgh were gearing up for such a clash over an independence referendum a while ago, but in the end it all died down again).
We've arrived at the high point of the Lang Government! A cash-based state economy. Love Lang's broad interpretation of constitutional law. Would the Commonwealth have the head of power now for the passing of the Financial Emergency (State Legislation) Act 1932? Was McTerninan J the last High Court judge appointed prior to the amendment of s 72 of the Constitution (and he had no age limit on his retirement)? Thanks Prof Toomey.
What years (19 ) did he sit on the bench? With all due respect, I made it to the interview as Maintenance Officer HCA within the Marshall's Office. Very close to sitting "on the bench MYSELF".
Morning professor, would you consider doing a video looking at a topic like the abolition of a capital gains tax concession (i.e. just get rid of it for everyone - not necessarily linked to current policy, because it's evolving, clearly), and how that would effect existing property owners. I'm thinking that if a party said "yep, it's zero concession now, even though you purchased your property in good faith 10 odd years ago"... this feels like effectively like retrospective taxation to me and I'm wondering if there would be a constitutional law remedy - you know "it's the vibe". Could this be why governments likely grandfather such schemes? Not only because it means existing people who are affected go "oh well, I'm right", but also because without grandfathering the Commonwealth would likely lose a legal challenge. Thank you.
Jack Lang was a mentor to a young Paul Keating. Keating's father had also seen Jack Lang as the hero of the Labor Party. Others saw Jack Lang as ruthless and calculating.
I'm conflicted in my opinion of the Lang Government. On the one hand, he seemed to be following Keynesian economics before it became widely accepted and if he had managed to implement his economic policies, it probably would have helped his state's economy. On the other hand, however, he did not seem to place any real value on his own word (per how he had lied to de Chair about his intention to abolish the Legislative Council) nor on the rule of law (as evidenced by his defiance of a court decision). Neither of which I can support, so I guess overall my opinion of Lang is negative. Reminds me of the Whitlam Government on the federal level, I support many of his government's policies, but I also do not support the scandals that plagued his government, nor do I support his reducing the independence of the public service and I also do not support his appointment of Lionel Murphy to the High Court, given his misconduct and political bias in the job. I think it is for the best that our judiciary remain as politically independent as possible, otherwise we may end up in a situation similar to the US with their federal Supreme Court. The judiciary should make decisions based on facts and the law, with as little room for their personal opinions and biases to influence their decisions as possible.
In most Westminster parliamentary systems, prorogation of the parliament occurs at the ends of sessions and prior to dissolution and the start of an election. Is there a scenario in our nation’s laws that would allow the prime minister to go to the governor general and prorogue parliament? This has occurred a number of times in Canada as a way to kill bills or stop political damage due to government scandals and embarrassment. Canada’s PM can stop the work of parliament for a time and choose when a new can start again. A speech from the throne is read out by the GG outlining a new agenda, and a confidence vote is had.
I'm curious if NSW, as a state, voted in favour of the referendum. Because it seems to me that there's an argument that if a state voted against a provision that overrides the state constitution, that provision might be unenforceable.
Yes, NSW approved the referendum re s 105A and financial agreements. No, it is not necessary for a State to approve a referendum that affects its Constitution, unless it relates to the borders of the States or its representation in Parliament (see the penultimate paragraph of s 128 of the Constitution).
Ha! But not always enough! One of the half dozen or so major dramas that played out during the 2nd Lang Government (1930-32) involved the run on the Government Savings Bank of NSW, which had to close its doors in April 1931 after scaremongers (including former Premier and then Opposition leader Tom Bavin) incorrectly claimed that Lang was about to seize GSB deposits in order to prop up NSW Government finances. The GSB did not crash as such (it's assets exceeded its liabilities), but it just didn't have the cash at hand to meet the unprecedented call on deposits, and the cash strapped NSW Government was unable to meet its guarantee to support the GSB because it’s own coffers were close to empty. It's a long and complex story, and the GSB depositors eventually regained full access to their deposits in February 1932, after the GSB was in effect taken over by the Commonwealth Bank...but until then, GSB depositors had only very limited access (ie. almost no access) to the funds in their accounts, which caused widespread distress, etc. I gather Bavin was slapped over the wrist for his actions, but regardless, the whole episode would undoubtedly have worked to heighten the sense of crisis that then gripped NSW, and it cannot but have helped fuel the perception Lang's adversaries sought to promote, that Lang was driving the State towards a trainwreck (which I tend to think he was...but in fairness I don't think he can be directly blamed for the collapse of the GSB and the widespread hardship that it caused). I'm not 100% on this, but at the time I think Australian banks operated under the 25% gold reserve requirement...not that this helped the GSB.
One luv, CC you are awsom.
Hear hear!
too true
Another fascinating human interest story rescued from the dry pages of the law reports. Must have been personally very hard on all the proper officials concerned, at both NSW and Federal level, to see the rule of law being trashed. Far more dramatic and exciting than even the events surrounding the dismissal of the Whitlam Government, and little remembered in today’s Australia. Closest we came to civil war since the Eureka Stockade. Truckloads of State cash evading Commonwealth officialdom, protected by riflemen, indeed! What great TV it would make! 😊 Many thanks, once again, to the Constitutional Carry-on for a vibrant and colourful story engagingly told.
I love these videos and I’m looking forward to seeing a video on the John curtin government and how it passed the bill putting all income tax powers to the commonwealth and the high court challenge by South Australia in 1942.
What a great historical journey you are taking us on. I'm really enjoying this series. Thank you
I remember talking to Jack Lang when I was a little kid, my grandma was a “heavy” in the Labor Party, I thought he was a Great Man but bombastic. I also remember taking to the Evatt kids, I wasn’t that impressed despite being told they were a great hope for the party (remember these were the Menzie years). I should note, my family were bankrupted in theGreat Depression and suffered from a great bitterness at the ‘failures” of the government in the Depression years.
Wow, State politics could certainly get dramatic in those days, lol.
A (hijacked) cash State economy to defy Cth laws on interest repayments, how very novel indeed.
Lang was certainly a unique character if nothing else, lol.
Looking fwd to the final episode.
I'm enjoying this series immensely, thank you Professor. 👍🌟
Lang had a point, in that by 1932 the only country that was paying off war loans without discount, offset, or suspension was Australia. It was unconscionable that the British parliament was in complete support with bond holders and treasury against Australia while allowing every other debtor, including itself to default. Furthermore the British were accepting payments from Australia that were properly due to the Americans who had lent £96.0M to Britain for Australia in 1917.
Perhaps it worth recalling that the British Government sent Sir Otto Niemeyer to Australia to enforce payment of interest owed on loans granted by British lenders to Australian borrowers, at the same as they were negotiating with US lenders of loans to British borrowers for an interest payments holiday. Truly, where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit.
Yes, Sir Otto insisted that Australia (presumably unlike his own country) must honour our debts.
@@mindi2050Otto was the agent of the British parliament who had voted that the Australians ‘needed to learn a lesson’ about their war loans. This was after Australia had spent all its reserves on a war for the Empire and Britain had defaulted on its American and Canadian loans.
@@seanlander9321 True, but in reality all countries protect and put their own nations (or states) interests first. This is what Sir Otto, on behalf of the British and Jack Lang, on behalf of NSW were both doing. Although in the case of Jack Lang, whatever his motivation, he wasn't supposed to breach constitutional rules in the process.
As for Sir Otto, it was astonishing to read that he believed that Australia's main job was to help look after Britain - even if it was to our own detriment.
@@mindi2050 That argument would have some strength if the British hadn’t singled Australia out as the only country that was refused any relief on war loans. The 1917 loan was equivalent to half of Australia’s GDP and had only been borrowed from Britain rather than America because the British had threatened to exclude Australia from the global credit system operated from London.
I love the comparison to Scrooge McDuck’s money bin. The thought of swimming in money sounds good😂
Gripping storytelling! Looking forward for the finalé!
Australian politics is so exciting! That sort of thing could not really happen in the UK system until recently, because it is not (or has not been) a federal system. But I suppose it would in theory be possible now for that sort of clash to arise between the Westminster government and one or more of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland (Westminster and Edinburgh were gearing up for such a clash over an independence referendum a while ago, but in the end it all died down again).
I do concur.
Reference acknowledged
I’m enjoying this, thank you 💕
We've arrived at the high point of the Lang Government! A cash-based state economy. Love Lang's broad interpretation of constitutional law.
Would the Commonwealth have the head of power now for the passing of the Financial Emergency (State Legislation) Act 1932?
Was McTerninan J the last High Court judge appointed prior to the amendment of s 72 of the Constitution (and he had no age limit on his retirement)?
Thanks Prof Toomey.
What years (19 ) did he sit on the bench?
With all due respect, I made it to the interview as Maintenance Officer HCA within the Marshall's Office. Very close to sitting "on the bench MYSELF".
Great stuff! Thanks.
You're welcome.
Great research !!
Can’t wait for the next instalment. The fact that Joe Lyons was the PM has to be the caustic cherry on top!
Thanks.
Morning professor, would you consider doing a video looking at a topic like the abolition of a capital gains tax concession (i.e. just get rid of it for everyone - not necessarily linked to current policy, because it's evolving, clearly), and how that would effect existing property owners. I'm thinking that if a party said "yep, it's zero concession now, even though you purchased your property in good faith 10 odd years ago"... this feels like effectively like retrospective taxation to me and I'm wondering if there would be a constitutional law remedy - you know "it's the vibe". Could this be why governments likely grandfather such schemes? Not only because it means existing people who are affected go "oh well, I'm right", but also because without grandfathering the Commonwealth would likely lose a legal challenge. Thank you.
That's great thanks. Keating was sympathetic to Lang for some reason.
Jack Lang was a mentor to a young Paul Keating. Keating's father had also seen Jack Lang as the hero of the Labor Party. Others saw Jack Lang as ruthless and calculating.
I'm conflicted in my opinion of the Lang Government. On the one hand, he seemed to be following Keynesian economics before it became widely accepted and if he had managed to implement his economic policies, it probably would have helped his state's economy. On the other hand, however, he did not seem to place any real value on his own word (per how he had lied to de Chair about his intention to abolish the Legislative Council) nor on the rule of law (as evidenced by his defiance of a court decision). Neither of which I can support, so I guess overall my opinion of Lang is negative.
Reminds me of the Whitlam Government on the federal level, I support many of his government's policies, but I also do not support the scandals that plagued his government, nor do I support his reducing the independence of the public service and I also do not support his appointment of Lionel Murphy to the High Court, given his misconduct and political bias in the job. I think it is for the best that our judiciary remain as politically independent as possible, otherwise we may end up in a situation similar to the US with their federal Supreme Court. The judiciary should make decisions based on facts and the law, with as little room for their personal opinions and biases to influence their decisions as possible.
In most Westminster parliamentary systems, prorogation of the parliament occurs at the ends of sessions and prior to dissolution and the start of an election. Is there a scenario in our nation’s laws that would allow the prime minister to go to the governor general and prorogue parliament? This has occurred a number of times in Canada as a way to kill bills or stop political damage due to government scandals and embarrassment. Canada’s PM can stop the work of parliament for a time and choose when a new can start again. A speech from the throne is read out by the GG outlining a new agenda, and a confidence vote is had.
Yes, there is a power to prorogue in Australia. It happens more commonly at the State level, than the Commonwealth level.
I'm curious if NSW, as a state, voted in favour of the referendum. Because it seems to me that there's an argument that if a state voted against a provision that overrides the state constitution, that provision might be unenforceable.
Yes, NSW approved the referendum re s 105A and financial agreements. No, it is not necessary for a State to approve a referendum that affects its Constitution, unless it relates to the borders of the States or its representation in Parliament (see the penultimate paragraph of s 128 of the Constitution).
Back in those days, banks actually had real money on hand in reserves.
Ha! But not always enough!
One of the half dozen or so major dramas that played out during the 2nd Lang Government (1930-32) involved the run on the Government Savings Bank of NSW, which had to close its doors in April 1931 after scaremongers (including former Premier and then Opposition leader Tom Bavin) incorrectly claimed that Lang was about to seize GSB deposits in order to prop up NSW Government finances. The GSB did not crash as such (it's assets exceeded its liabilities), but it just didn't have the cash at hand to meet the unprecedented call on deposits, and the cash strapped NSW Government was unable to meet its guarantee to support the GSB because it’s own coffers were close to empty. It's a long and complex story, and the GSB depositors eventually regained full access to their deposits in February 1932, after the GSB was in effect taken over by the Commonwealth Bank...but until then, GSB depositors had only very limited access (ie. almost no access) to the funds in their accounts, which caused widespread distress, etc. I gather Bavin was slapped over the wrist for his actions, but regardless, the whole episode would undoubtedly have worked to heighten the sense of crisis that then gripped NSW, and it cannot but have helped fuel the perception Lang's adversaries sought to promote, that Lang was driving the State towards a trainwreck (which I tend to think he was...but in fairness I don't think he can be directly blamed for the collapse of the GSB and the widespread hardship that it caused).
I'm not 100% on this, but at the time I think Australian banks operated under the 25% gold reserve requirement...not that this helped the GSB.