Was the Lang dismissal constitutionally justified?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 жов 2024
- This is the last in a series of videos on the Lang dismissal. It addresses the arguments that have been made which have criticised the decision by the Governor, Sir Philip Game, to dismiss the NSW Lang Labor Government.
In particular it addresses the argument that the Governor usurped judicial power by determining the existence of illegality before using it as the ground for the exercise of the reserve power of the dismissal of the government.
It also addresses the argument that the Governor should only have acted if he had been advised to perform an unlawful act - not when the illegality did not involve him personally.
Thank you for the series of videos on the Lang Dismissal. They’ve been most interesting and illuminating.
Really enjoyed this series!! Someone get the ABC to turn into a full length doco starring professor Twomey!
Thank you Prof. Twomey, again so informative and enlightening indeed. I cant wait till Victorian politics gets its turn to be highlighted in another of these brilliant series of yours. 👍🌟
If the Commonwealth considered Lang had breached Commonwealth law by issuing those directions to state public servants, why didn't the Commonwealth go to the High Court to seek a decision confirming Lang was acting illegally? That could have guided Gaine in his thinking.
Thank you Professor Twomey. Very interesting series.
The last few days I've been constantly checking my UA-cam notifications to see if this video had been posted. I don't say this to point out my impatience, but rather to point out how much I've grown to enjoy your videos. Truthfully, I've grown to value them more than I value the videos of most other channels, even those with really high-quality and aesthetically pleasing animations like Kurzgesagt. I think it shows your natural talent for educating and entertaining others.
As for the specific contents of the video, I think this is further support for why vice-regal representatives should have a team of advisors (including legal and political advisors) to advise them on the use of their reserve powers. Although, you made an excellent point in your previous comment that governments might not want this because it means they have more sources of advice besides the ministry, which could be seen as a threat to ministerial power.
I've heard that the public service in Westminster systems is meant to be independent of the government, but that the Australian public service has lost a lot of its independence from the government since the Whitlam Government of the 1970s. Not sure if there's enough constitutional issues to discuss with regards to this topic for a future video, but thought I'd suggest it as a possible topic nonetheless.
This series of five videos was excellent. Engaging and accessible to all audience. Would recommend to law students and those just interested in history generally.
Prof Twomey for Governor!
A really fascinating series Professor Twomey, thank you for producing them.
For me, the Governor’s actions were justified as they were endorsed by the voters who decided not to return Mr. Lang’s government.
The same with Mr. Whitlam’s government in 1975.
I'm sorry that this Lang Government series has come to an end, it's been wholly engrossing. Hearing these histories being lucidly and judiciously recounted has been like learning the lore for the Australian Constitutional Cinematic Universe (ACCU)(TM) ;) Looking forward to the next thrilling installments!
Great story about Australia's history. Have there been any dramatizations of the events around Lang's dismissal?
Very well argued. Thank you.
So long as a dismissal is always proceeded by a General Election I don’t see any harm in a governor or any viceregal officer using their reserve powers in the manner that you described, since at the end of the day that is one of the great strengths of our system is that in cases where a particular political party is unable to act appropriately there are people who are loyal not to a political party but who are loyal to maintaining our constitutional system of government.
Also whilst the lang government is less of a politically controversial topic do you think that the Governor General has a duty to ensure that at the very least all mps are notified when instruments of appointment are issued for any member of the Executive council? And that there should be firmer protections put in place so that whilst perhaps it might be argued that there are some extraordinary set of circumstances where it might be appropriate to appoint a minister in secret (i don’t even know how that would be consistent with the principle of Responsible government), it would seem that a decision like this should be made in consultation with the leader of the opposition and perhaps all MHR’s and Senators need to be informed as well since these does seem to be a very dangerous precedent
Also another question is what do you think are the key load bearing constitutional structures are in the Australian system like I know how the general system works but I’m still unclear about if there are any weaknesses that people with bad intentions might try to exploit and as such what safeguards can be put in place so that we can make our political system even more robust so that future generation’ can enjoy the same freedoms and privileges that we enjoy today.
I really have enjoyed this series each episode has been really thorought provoking :)
I'm all for governors and the GG being able to exercise the reserve powers - as a last resort. Although I just don't see the necessity in the 21st Century (especially post Australia Act) of them representing the non-resident monarch.
Very well summed up. Cheers.
Professor Twomey, very good video as always. I can imagine being a vice regal officer must be like being in charge a of nuclear plant .most of the time routine and maybe even boring but when you do have to act its horrifying !
I do have a question I hope you can entertain. Has there every been a case where the PM and GG were on the same side during a crisis or in cahoots to do something questionable? would they basically be unstoppable? it seems like overall vice regal officers tend to be in the right when it comes to such crises.
thank you for the wonderful video and i look foward to the next one
It was an effective blocking of supply.
Thanks.
This won't be your favourite comment, but is there something wrong with revolution? In my, non-lawyer mere policy books, it sounds a lot like big change....
@@michaeldavis8103 The risk with revolution is that more often than not revolutions lead to destabilising the political system take for example perhaps five really famous historical examples of trying to bring about change to a government through violence, the assassination of Julius ceaser was an attempt to resore the republic instead it allowed Augustus to establish the principate, the English Civil War destroyed the office of King and whilst this might sound great to republicans you need to remember that it was replaced with a military dictatorship that was fortunately destabilised after the death of Cromwell, the Russian revolution, arguably the incompetence of their system brought this about but when you overthrew the system instead of making reform you essentially enabled criminals like Joseph Stalin (someone who was a member of a gang at the time) to rise to power since the provisional government was dealing with two many stresses to effectively govern the worlds largest polity (by geographical area), the French Revolution is literally famous for killing many of its own revolutionary leader perhaps most famously a figure like Ropespierre, and lastly the American revolution which to large degree was relatively successful but the issue is that during a revolution you create chaos whereby the system that will apear on the other side is almost impossible to control and as such it’s always better to try and regulate changes to a government so that for example a democracy doesn’t accidentally create conditions whereby it is unable to maintain the institutions that preserve that democracy and that’s why revolution is extremely risky as a political process
While I believe there's a need to update some of our constitutional arrangements (especially at the Commonwealth level). I'd take stable evolution over revolution any day.
Hello Professor from Sydney. Isn't that ironic. Will the political parties "stand" on the ballet sheet candidates able to run a good government.
🌏🇦🇺
I can’t help but flinch at the thought of a governor (or governor-general) dismissing an elected government. 🤔😖🥸 Thanks for this series. Fascinating.
but persistent illegality? robodebt ? what you do if the government refuses to recognise the jurisdiction of the AAT and Federal Courts as dead mutton and his mates did with a number of federal court decisions related to Robodebt? it all sounds very similar "its the public servants fault"
@@Bristolcentaurus Good points all, but it doesn't ameliorate my flinch. The very idea that an unelected official can remove an elected government scares me, whether I support the party holding power or not. It suggests that our democracy was a gift given from on high, a gift that could just as easily be taken away. If the monarchy's a powerless figurehead, why do we need the Governor (or GG) to sign laws passed by the elected government? We're still playing the children's game of power, handed down from god to the monarch.
I say ... bugger that for a joke. 🤨🤔🧐
@@CraigPMiller having the governor sack the government is the antithesis of democracy but in most of the historic situations i can think of it triggers a new election and the voters can endorse the governments action or not as they choose
There has to be some remedy when a Government is unable to obtain supply but refuses to go to an election. If not the Governor, then who? Gilbert & Sullivan’s solution was The Public Exploder….
@@glennsimpson7659 1) in a state scenario - if there is no supply who pays the public servants wages? including the police - which party is likely to get to this extreme and be prepared to carry the consequences? If you cant guarantee supply can you guarantee the continuing confidence of the house - a no confidence motion is a trigger for the withdrawal of the governors commission and the government falls
2) the basis of your description resulted in the Kihemlani loans scandal Whitlam and the ALP tried to raise funds for the government other than by a supply bill - members of the ALP misled parliament this resulted in the outright blocking of supply by the Libs which was was the initial catalyst for Whitlam's sacking - the loans were 'illegal' together with the lack of supply led Kerr to act as he did