Kia ora Anne, very much enjoyed this, and I'm a big fan of your channel in general. I'm a political historian (lecturer of history at Curtin Uni) and I have a bunch of historical datasets on Aus/NZ politics. As it happens, one of them is on the heads of government who have held office while members of an upper house of an Aus/NZ parliament. You might enjoy some details from this: - hopefully I haven't accidentally missed someone, but by my count there have been 20 people who have served as heads of govt while sitting in upper houses of Aus/NZ, all men. There has been at least one in every Australian state, plus Gorton as you mention, and four in NZ prior to it abolishing its upper house. - Qld had one premier in the Legislative Council prior to its abolition: George Thorn in 1876. He resigned to obtain a seat in the Assembly, but he did meet the Council as premier first. - George Waterhouse was not only premier of two separate polities (SA and NZ), but also both times he did so from the upper house. - Tasmania has the strongest history of premiers sitting in the upper house. For the first 40 years of responsible government, the premier was more often an MLC than an MLA, including multiple examples of one MLC succeeding another as premier. The longest unbroken stretch of MLCs serving as premier of Tasmania was from January 1863 to November 1872. - Richard Dry, premier of Tasmania 1866-69, is the only premier to die in office while an MLC - Adye Douglas, an MLA when he became premier of Tasmania in 1884, decided to transfer TO the Legislative Council. I'm not joking, though I didn't believe it myself at first. Why? His whole ministry sat in the Assembly, so he went to the Council to represent it there. - The longest-serving MLC as premier anywhere was Philip Fysh, also Tasmania's last upper-house premier. He served over five years: March 1887 to August 1892. - Of these 20 men, 11 served from the upper house for longer than a year. - As well as the unusual Waterhouse situation above, two others served non-consecutive terms from the upper house: Frederick Whitaker (NZ) served two terms almost 20 years apart, both longer than a year; Henry Ayers (SA) served FIVE, of which three were over a year long while the other two were only about a month each. Waterhouse's term in SA was almost two years, 1861-63, but his term in NZ lasted less than five months in 1872-73; Julius Vogel, leader of government business in the House, took control of the policy agenda and sidelined Waterhouse. (Not unusual for Vogel, who also totally dominated William Fox's ministry of 1869-72, and who became premier himself later in 1873.) In short, an intriguing and unusual bunch! I'm glad you covered Hal Colebatch. The role of the Fremantle Lumpers Union means that I like to joke that Colebatch got in office because of the flu and left office because of the FLU. Cheers, André
I have just finished reading Bethia Foott’s ‘Dismissal of a Premier (The Philip Game Papers)’ following your series on the dismissal of Jack Lang in 1932. A fascinating read, with a number of interesting contradictions between the historical record and the opinions of the main characters in subsequent decades.
Yes, it's an interesting book, particularly as it was written by a family member, rather than an academic or historian, so it gives quite a different perspective.
It's really an irritant now, but it was included in the Constitution in the 1890s and it's too hard to amend the Constitution to get rid of it. The idea behind it was that a Member of Parliament should have their sole allegiance to Australia, and not be influenced by some other foreign power or have a ready escape option to another country if things go bad.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Am I right in thinking that back when the Constitution was drafted, at a time when there was only a single British subject status for the whole of the empire, and a single undivided crown over all, there would have been much less difficulty with people who were born in say the UK or NZ taking office in Australia, because in those days they would not have counted as having allegiance to a foreign power?
I think Anne is quite right to draw the distinction between what is technically permitted and what is needed in practice. In the UK the only real requirement is that the PM (like the government in general) must have the confidence of the Commons; so in theory anybody whom they were prepared to follow could be PM, whether sitting in the Lords or the Commons or neither, but in today's climate it would be more or less unimaginable for the Commons to agree to have a PM who was not in the Commons or at least standing for the Commons (which is technically the status of any PM during an election). At the other end of the scale it's common to have at least one junior minister in each government department to be a member of the House of Lords, so that they can defend relevant areas of government policy in Lords debates, and of course one senior government minister (the leader of the House of Lords) is required to be a member of the Lords by the very nature of their duties.
In the modern-day UK, all the major parties have rules in their own Constitutions requiring their Leaders to be Members of the House of Commons. We've seen this somewhat recently when Jo Swinson, who was Leader of the Liberal Democrats lost her constituency in the 2019 General Election and so immediately vacated the Party Leadership too. It would be a very weird scenario if somebody who wasn't the Leader of a major party commanded the confidence of the Commons, but anything can happen. I think if some outsider was appointed Prime Minister they would seek that the House of Commons (and perhaps even the Lords) explicitly expressed their confidence in them to clear up any doubt.
not all Major parties technically, as Plaid and the SNP don't have such a rule. Though I admit I am nit picking, Reform and the Greens also don't require it. Though it is arguable if Reform is a Major party right now, it is certainly major in terms of vote share.
@carus6280 By major I pretty much just meant Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives - the parties that have actually formed UK Governments. Obviously SNP and Plaid prefer to have their Leaders in their respective devolved Parliaments.
As an American born and bred, I have wondered when reading British history, how a member of the British Lords could be Prime Minister. I could understand the situation when the Prime Minister needed the confidence of the Crown as much or perhaps more so than that of the Commons. But as the electoral reforms of the 1800’s took hold, and the Crown became more of a figurehead; while at the same time, at least to my outside understanding, retaining significant powers and privileges. I just assumed Royal confidence was no longer important or relevant. I thought the reason Churchill was appointed rather than Lord Halifax, was the Commons didn’t want him. Churchill was, I thought, imposed on the Crown over quiet objections as he was apparently distrusted by the King and many of his advisers. I could not “square the circle” so to speak. Your video helped a lot.
Glad it was helpful. There were no doubt many other reasons re the choice between Halifax and Churchill at such a critical time, but the House was a contributing factor.
When the Fomer Prime Minister David Cameron was appointed as Foreign Secretary in 2023 he was made a Member of the House of Lords. That he was not accountable to the Commons was highly controversial, and work was underway to change the rules, or perhaps use ancient rules to summon him to appear before the Bar of the House of Commons. But nothing ever came of it, and it's irrelevant now that the Conservatives lost the election. While he was Foreign Secretary, one of the Ministers of State in the FCDO took the unusual honorific title of "Deputy Foreign Secretary", and he would speak in the Commons on Lord Cameron's behalf. But the questioning was often pointless as the Deputy hadn't been the person who actually took the meeting or went on the foreign trip they were talking about.
@@uingaeoc3905 Yes, but times change. Carrington was Foreign Secretary over four decades ago. Carrington was also already a Member of the Lords, unlike Cameron who was ennobled especially to become Foreign Secretary.
Very interesting. Could you do a piece on the Governor General’s role following Holt’s disappearance, the McEwen appointment and ultimately how Gorton became PM?
Yes, that's right. At the other end of his term in office, he lost his seat. There was an interesting question as to whether he should continue as Premier during the period of uncertainty about who would form a government. He resigned as Premier two weeks after losing his seat, when it became clear that the Opposition could form a government.
*So very interesting Anne* I was hoping you would include Harold Holt's situation, as it was a matter I recall quiet vividly. 🙂 On another somewhat connected note - may I ask - what are the rules & protocols involving a member of the Royal Family visit to parliament ? 🤔 Are they allowed to enter the Lower House or the Senate ? and would they be within their rights to sit in the Speaker's chair to deliver a speech to the members ?
As in the UK the monarch can only enter the upper house, the House of Lords and as such the rule/convention applies to Australia. So the GG opens parliament from the Senate. So if the monarch addresses parliament it would be from the Senate. The last king to sit in the speaker's chair was Charles I. Members of the royal family have no constitutional position except as Lords they could not enter the lower house as far as I'm aware.
There are special chairs at the back of the Australian Senate chamber which can be used by the monarch (and their spouse) if present, or (more usually) by the Governor General when present, or by special guests (usually representatives of other countries, I think) to sit in if invited to address Parliament. These are separate from the chair normally used by the President of the Senate, although I've noticed from video coverage that at openings of Parliament the President sits in the special chair while the Senate is waiting for the GG to arrive. But if you mean what would happen if some other member of the royal family apart from the monarch were to visit, I assume it would depend on whether they were considered to be officially representing the monarch (in which case they would be seated like the monarch) or not (in which case how they were seated would presumably depend on what the reason was for inviting them into the Parliament building).
Thanks. As someone with dual nationality I believe that any person like me with non-singular loyalty should automatically be disqualified from any public office. The PM should also hold a seat in the main (lower) house of parliament.
Curzon was passed over for PM in 1923, when the ailing Bonar Law stood down. George V appointed Stanley Baldwin instead of Curzon, despite his experience, because a peer would be inappropriate as PM when there was a Labour Party opposition-and the King didn't like him.
Quite a few “Westminster” style governments allow for specific cabinet positions - attorney general comes to mind - to be appointed from outside the parliamentary membership. Which has been effective - but also been open to some opportunities of corruption.
Yes, sometimes there is insufficient expertise within the government's cohort of parliamentarians to fulfil a specialised role, like Attorney-General. Another approach (as is done in Australia) is to appoint a Solicitor-General from qualified senior counsel, who can do the technical legal advising, while the Attorney-General (who is a politician) deals with the policy side.
I work at Old Parliament House as a tour guide and I had a similar question - why can't government form in the upper house. I came to the Senate can't do monetary bills then it wouldn't work to have government there because then the government can't fund anything. I was really just curious if a bloc in the Senate could hypothetically challenge the lower house for government status. In regard to your question about the PM, if it were possible for government to form in the upper house then the PM could be a senator maybe!
so UK "expert" here not Australian. We have had goverments form in the Upper House. As was mentioned by the Professor in the 1800s this was actually normal. What we do is that when a minister is appointed, there is a second person appointed to speak for the Government in the other place, today this is normally in the Lords. So there are always two people, and each house can hold the relevant department to account. The biggest example of this recently is Lord Cameron (the former PM). He was made Foreign Secretary in the Lords and an MP was appointed in the Commons to fill his role there, in matters like Foreign Secretary's Questions. He would appear himself in the Lords to answer questions from the peers. So in the UK at least it would be perfectly legal to reverse the current order and have all the ministers in the Lords, though this would inevitably raise big questions in areas like democracy. It did cause a bit of a kefuffle as the Shadow Secretary was in the commons so there was no direct exchanges between the two iirc. You could end up with the shadow cabinet in one house and the actual cabinet in the other.
The same practice applies in Australia of the Minister in one House being 'represented' by another Minister in the other House for the purposes of accountability. But nonetheless, in the UK government is formed by the person who commands the confidence of the lower House because that is the representative House chosen by the people and the House that controls appropriations. In Australia, while the Senate is elected (unlike the House of Lords), the representation in the Senate reflects federal interests, with each State being represented by the same number of Senators despite its population, so primacy in relation to the formation of government and control over money bills rests with the lower house, the House of Representatives, which more directly represents the population as a whole.
I seem to recall Barrie Unsworth being elected NSW Premier by the ALP caucus while a member of the Legislative Council and then moving to the lower house in a by election. I think it was for Rockdale… or is my memory faulty?
Thanks. Yes, another good example. He became Premier on 4 July 1986, while still a member of the Legislative Council. He resigned from the Legislative Council on 15 July and was elected to the Legislative Assembly on 2 August 1986.
Though not the PM at the time, there is the recent and interesting case of David Cameron (former UK PM) being made a Lord so he could become Foreign Secretary.
Yes, in the UK there is greater flexibility about bringing in Ministers with particular expertise, as they can be easily appointed to the House of Lords. It doesn't work in Australia, as the Senate is fully elected.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 When the Gillard Labor government needed a new foreign minister in a hurry, wasn't the solution to "persuade" a controversial senator to retire and then appoint Bob Carr in his place, with Carr immediately becoming a member of Cabinet? That strikes me as a close parallel with the David Cameron case.
Yes, it's similar to that extent. But you do have to have someone willing to stand down to give someone else the opportunity to fill the vacancy - unlike the Lords, where you can just add an extra person. They also need to run for election when their term expires, if they want to stay, which the Lords do not need to do.
Given that both the lower and upper house both have an electoral mandate, it is (or ought to be) theoretically possible for the PM to sit in either house. The problem with the House of Lords was the absence of that democratic accountability.
It would make Question Time even more chaotic, I suspect; with someone always having to stand in for the PM and take their questions. It would make the deputy leadership role extremely demanding, particularly for a coalition with leaders from each coalition party involved. Such an arrangement would be unlikely to improve accountability.
In Australia most lower Houses are direct representatives of a particular electorate, face the people more often and as a result (IMO) are closer to the people that elected them. Most upper house members serve longer terms, and are elected with different methods like multi member regional seats (not always of equal population) or all state electorates with a form of proportional representation. Tasmania is an exception to this. There is no hard and fast rule about where a PM sits, but I think the lower house is by far the better option.
Interesting that the executive must maintain the confidence of a particular house of the legislature. How does this square with the separation of powers doctrine?
In a system of responsible government there is a degree of merging of the executive and Parliament, as the executive is drawn from the Parliament. It is accepted that there is not a full separation of powers between the executive and Parliament due to this.
I don't know of any country in which the separation of powers is complete. One reason is another constitutional principle, that there should be 'checks and balances' between the different branches of government.
@@Shalott63 I agree and understand that there are checks and balances. However, it is not a check on the power of the executive to draw it from the legislature. A check on the power of the executive would be to appoint department heads with the advice and consent of the legislature. Checks and balances are not incompatible with separation of powers.
@@jasperpendlebury4551 Perhaps to draw government ministers from the legislature is not in and of itself a check, but in the Westminster system not only is the consent of the legislature (more specifically, of the lower house) required for ministers to be appointed, it is also required for them to continue in office. In the USA (for example), an officer of state can't be removed by any authority outside the executive without the rather difficult process of impeachment, which rarely succeeds. In the Westminster system, a simple majority vote in the lower house could remove any or all ministers at any time, which it seems to me is a much greater check on them than simply requiring the legislature's consent to their appointment. Although the various Westminster-style systems consider the principle of separation of powers (and apply it fairly rigorously to the judiciary), the way the system has developed means that separation of the executive was not the goal, rather bringing the executive (originally of course the monarch, and now those actually controlling the monarch's powers) under some sort of communal control was the goal, which took centuries of struggle including a bloody civil war. We simply don't trust the executive enough to leave them to their own devices. How far the Westminster system works in practice to control executive misbehaviour is I suppose open to debate; but surely no more so than how far the US system achieves the same end.
In the UK there is an expectation that anyone with Ministerial Responsibility is a member of (and so is accountable to) one of the Houses of Parliament. So, from time to time, when the Prime Minister wishes to make somebody a Minister from outside of Parliament, they have to recommend that the King makes them a Life Peer (and so a Member of the House of Lords). This happened most recently with Poppy Gustavason (now the Baroness Gustafsson) who was appointed as Minister of State for Investment. I guess the question would become whether a PM from outside of Parliament could recommend themselves for a Peerage. But even if they did, there would be an expectation that they would run for a seat in the Commons at the earliest possible opportunity.
Fascinating as it seems that absence of Constitutional instruction will give way to practical application of Governances unless successfully challenged thus creating precedence but would this then be used as instruction? I really enjoy this channel it has a wonderful vibe about it 🙂
I have a question: do the people of Australia have the right under the constitution to seek accountability of the government BEFORE they pass laws that might affect the people? There seems to be many laws passed by the government that should require further scrutiny eg the misinformation and disinformation bill. We the people don’t seem to have any say in controversial bills being put forward.
Irrespective of the state or federal parliaments the fundamental sticking point is the question. Is the prime minister (or premier) of the government responsible, in the most reasonable of definitions. Some have been, but they have been very thin on the ground.
It is a rule that the participants accept as binding upon them, but which is not legally binding (i.e. you cannot enforce it in a court, but everyone accepts that you should comply with it). A constitutional convention is ordinarily derived from a fundamental constitutional principle or gives effect to it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901I disagree that conventions are not legally binding. For example, the bounds of the power of the PM to advise a prorogation to the monarch is a convention one-there are no written laws governing this but nonetheless would by convention, not use this to stop parliamentary scrutiny. However, the UKSC nonetheless ruled that, in the second Miller case, that this was a justiciable issue, and indeed decided that the PM’s advice was unlawful.
@@Angel33Demon666 No, the UKSC did not enforce a convention regarding prorogation. It instead determined the legal limits of a prerogative power - something it has done since the 1600s. (Although there have been arguments that courts in Canada have given legal effect to conventions, and courts do respect conventions when interpreting the law.)
@@Angel33Demon666 The Australian Federal Constitution gives the power to prorogue Parliament to the GG without any qualifications. It's not a convention.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 wasn't Miller 1 based, in part, on a legislative provision that Parliament couldn't be prorogued if the intention of that prorogation was to stifle the ability of Parliament to debate? I don't think I've worded this question particularly well, so may come back to it later once I've given it some thought.
The UK has another quirk in the House of Lords which has arch bishops appointed by the monarch. Technically, I understand, that allows the unelected Archbishop of Canterbury to be appointed PM, which would make his Sunday schedule quite busy and also allow him an extra seat at a coronation. The same applies for Royals who sit in the House of Lords, which would be interesting if Harry for instance decided to one up Dad or big brother and try his hand at being PM.
4:28 i didn't believe the claim he was a New Zealand citizen to be accurate. If it were true, New Zealand would have made the entire population of Samoa, New Zealand citizens also.
Do Ministers even spend that much doing MP stuff beside showing up to answer questions? I imagine they spend most of there time in there departmental office On a more related topic it might be interesting to some that the so called Confederate States of America had a provision in there constitution that its cabinet members held seats solely for the purpose of being questioned by congress . Thanks for the excellent video Prof Twomey !
In Australia, Prime Ministers and Premiers are pretty active in Parliament. There is Question Time every day that Parliament sits, and they also speak in debates on bills and other matters.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I suppose I thought they only showed up for question time. Thanks for your answers! I suppose having to explain basic Australian stuff to foreigners was not what you signed up for but were better for it
The issue of the PM being a member of the lower house by convention must surely be more one of appearance or perception than real substance and practicality. It doesn't require formal questioning in parliament to determine the quality of a PM's performance. In the cases of majority party governments the PM is chosen and sacked based on the party's wishes and discussions are held out of view from the public. I would argue that the reason is based on group dynamics and self-interest. If the perception is that a PM comes from the lower house, and most members in the lower house harbour some ambition of becoming PM, then it is in the lower house members interest to ensure all PM's continue to come from the lower house as this increases their chances, no matter how remote, of becoming PM.
"The issue of the PM being a member of the lower house by convention must surely be more one of appearance or perception than real substance and practicality". It makes sense that the Prime Minister should come from the lower house, because it's from the House of Representatives that the government is formed. So to me it just seems practical that the Leader of the government should be in the lower house.
@ question : I wrote to the Electoral Commissioner in Oct asking about the requirements for a Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR). Received a response last week saying "there is no mechanism in Australia for a citizens initiated referendum to occur.". Is this correct?
What are your thoughts on Steffan Ganghof’s semi-parliamentary system concept? and do you think that Australia’s system of government needs to be labeled better or is the label Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy sufficient? On a side note I think that it makes most sense that a system so heavily inspired and influenced by the UK should ensure that the PM who is generally ex officio the first lord of the treasury should be a member of the house where supply bill originate and I think in an Australian context that whilst John Gorton bucked the trend for PMs there should be rules that require the Treasurer to be or become a member of the House of Reps whilst if the PM is a senator they should resign and should have three months to become a member of the house of reps. As always it’s a real treat to watch your videos :)
They aren't elected specifically as Prime Ministers; they are elected by their party as party leader, and if their party wins (or already has) a majority in the lower house then they are appointed PM by the Governor General on behalf of the monarch. If no party has a majority, then it's more complicated and the GG has to work out who is most likely to be acceptable to the House. (This is an expansion of @mizzyroro's rather more succinct reply.)
Prime Ministers, along with all Ministers, are appointed by the Governor-General under section 64 of the Constitution. Convention requires that the person appointed be whoever commands the confidence of the lower House (or, in the case of a hung Parliament, whoever is most likely to command the confidence of the House). That convention was known and recognised by those who wrote the Constitution, but they very deliberately did not turn such conventions into constitutional requirements. They preferred to retain the flexibility of convention. Technically, we do not 'elect' the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is only elected to Parliament as a Member by his or her constituents. The people elect both Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister is then appointed on the basis that he or she commands the confidence of the lower House, which is customarily shown by being the leader of the party or coalition which holds a majority of seats in that House.
Since 1911 the House of Commons has "financial privilege", meaning the House of Lords has no power over the spending/raising of money. The Prime Minister is the "First Lord of the Treasury", so it would be nonsensical and unacceptable for them to run the Treasury from a Chamber with no financial privilege.
Even before 1911 the financial powers of the House of Lords were very limited; money bills could not originate there and they had no power to emend them. Technically they still had the power to reject them altogether, but it was widely regarded as a convention that they would not, so when they did so in 1911 it caused a constitutional crisis. So the question of financial supply was not really crucial, partly because the PM was not directly responsible for financial matters and partly because the government is a body not a single person, and other ministers (especially of course the chancellor of the exchequer) could steer financial legislation through the Commons. I could also point out that the archaic title of the PM (first lord of the Treasury) which has been cited more than once in the comments does include the word 'lord' ... Since 1911 it has really been the changed status of the HoL generally that has been the crucial factor in abandoning the practice of having PMs sitting in the Lords, as well as the rise of the Labour Party, who would be less willing than the other parties to agree to such a thing regardless of the status of the HoL.
PS Whether it was appropriate/convenient for a prime minister to sit in the Lords had in fact been debated since at least the 1770s. There is a good short article on PMs in the Lords on the UK government website at history.blog.gov.uk/2013/04/24/prime-ministers-in-the-house-of-lords/
though reiterated in 1911 the power of the purse was in the hands of the commons from 1689, meaning that the First Lord of the Treasury was not in the Commons despite that house having Power of the Purse. Though money bills are the privilege of the Commons there is no legal reason that the First Lord of the Treasury must be a member of that house, especially if the Second Lord of the Treasury (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is a member. If that was a paticular issue then the Prime Minister does not have to be First Lord of the Treasury as that is really just a symbolic title and it could theoretically be given to the Chancellor or some other minister. The Constitution of the UK is very flexible so if the Government really wanted to sit in the other place then they could.
In New South Wales, there was controversy when Michael Egan, a member of the upper House, was appointed as Treasurer. The rules were changed to allow him to present the budget from the lower House. As always, each Minister is represented by another Minister in the other House to allow some accountability, but the degree of accountability is diminished, because the representing Minister usually is not across all the relevant detail.
@Queensland is the only State that doesn’t have an Upper House. Also doesn’t the UK only have first past the post voting? No preferential voting? And you don’t wonder how that impacts the state of your democracies? But guess it doesn’t matter because the major political parties are interchangeable.
It used to have an upper house - the Legislative Council. The Labor Party argued that it was undemocratic, as it was a completely unelected body - that is, all its members were *appointed* by the Governor on the advice of the Premier. The Labor Party had also found it to be politically obstructive to its own interests. Rather than simply arranging for it to be an elected body, the Premier "Red" Ted Theodore wanted it abolished. He waited until the Governor had resigned through ill-health and then asked his short-term replacement to appoint enough new Councillors to give the Government a Labor majority. With a majority (known as the "suicide squad") secured, the Legislative Council voted itself out of existence in 1921. The abolition bill was given Royal Assent in March 1922, and ceased to exist on the 23rd of March.
@steelcrown7130 @ thank you. So why not have it reinstated? Especially after Joh Bjelke-Petersen? And nearly thirty years of Labor? It clearly benefits those in power when in power.
@@KryCaNe In the UK, the Westminster Parliament, which also deals with English matters is first past the post. Wales is fully proportional representation. Scotland has first past the post constituency seats with regional list seats that are proportional Northern Ireland is Single Transferrable Vote.
Why are you so heavy on the use of "he or she" when you're referring to unspecified people? Apart from being an absolute mouthful, and the fact that the use of singular "they" in English predates the use of singular "you", it also creates specific legal loopholes if actually applied. There are people validly and legally recognised under Australian law as being neither male nor female, thus cannot be accurately described as either "he" or "she". Any text using that phrasing thus specifically does not apply to these people.
Kia ora Anne, very much enjoyed this, and I'm a big fan of your channel in general. I'm a political historian (lecturer of history at Curtin Uni) and I have a bunch of historical datasets on Aus/NZ politics. As it happens, one of them is on the heads of government who have held office while members of an upper house of an Aus/NZ parliament. You might enjoy some details from this:
- hopefully I haven't accidentally missed someone, but by my count there have been 20 people who have served as heads of govt while sitting in upper houses of Aus/NZ, all men. There has been at least one in every Australian state, plus Gorton as you mention, and four in NZ prior to it abolishing its upper house.
- Qld had one premier in the Legislative Council prior to its abolition: George Thorn in 1876. He resigned to obtain a seat in the Assembly, but he did meet the Council as premier first.
- George Waterhouse was not only premier of two separate polities (SA and NZ), but also both times he did so from the upper house.
- Tasmania has the strongest history of premiers sitting in the upper house. For the first 40 years of responsible government, the premier was more often an MLC than an MLA, including multiple examples of one MLC succeeding another as premier. The longest unbroken stretch of MLCs serving as premier of Tasmania was from January 1863 to November 1872.
- Richard Dry, premier of Tasmania 1866-69, is the only premier to die in office while an MLC
- Adye Douglas, an MLA when he became premier of Tasmania in 1884, decided to transfer TO the Legislative Council. I'm not joking, though I didn't believe it myself at first. Why? His whole ministry sat in the Assembly, so he went to the Council to represent it there.
- The longest-serving MLC as premier anywhere was Philip Fysh, also Tasmania's last upper-house premier. He served over five years: March 1887 to August 1892.
- Of these 20 men, 11 served from the upper house for longer than a year.
- As well as the unusual Waterhouse situation above, two others served non-consecutive terms from the upper house: Frederick Whitaker (NZ) served two terms almost 20 years apart, both longer than a year; Henry Ayers (SA) served FIVE, of which three were over a year long while the other two were only about a month each. Waterhouse's term in SA was almost two years, 1861-63, but his term in NZ lasted less than five months in 1872-73; Julius Vogel, leader of government business in the House, took control of the policy agenda and sidelined Waterhouse. (Not unusual for Vogel, who also totally dominated William Fox's ministry of 1869-72, and who became premier himself later in 1873.)
In short, an intriguing and unusual bunch! I'm glad you covered Hal Colebatch. The role of the Fremantle Lumpers Union means that I like to joke that Colebatch got in office because of the flu and left office because of the FLU.
Cheers, André
Wow! Fantastic. So grateful for you passing this on.
Do you have a publication setting all this out? I'd love to be able to reference it in the future.
I have just finished reading Bethia Foott’s ‘Dismissal of a Premier (The Philip Game Papers)’ following your series on the dismissal of Jack Lang in 1932. A fascinating read, with a number of interesting contradictions between the historical record and the opinions of the main characters in subsequent decades.
I say “main characters” - mostly Lang, it has to be said.
Yes, it's an interesting book, particularly as it was written by a family member, rather than an academic or historian, so it gives quite a different perspective.
Most interesting, as always. Thanks, Prof. Why is the dual nationality concept so important to Australia?
It's really an irritant now, but it was included in the Constitution in the 1890s and it's too hard to amend the Constitution to get rid of it. The idea behind it was that a Member of Parliament should have their sole allegiance to Australia, and not be influenced by some other foreign power or have a ready escape option to another country if things go bad.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Am I right in thinking that back when the Constitution was drafted, at a time when there was only a single British subject status for the whole of the empire, and a single undivided crown over all, there would have been much less difficulty with people who were born in say the UK or NZ taking office in Australia, because in those days they would not have counted as having allegiance to a foreign power?
I think Anne is quite right to draw the distinction between what is technically permitted and what is needed in practice. In the UK the only real requirement is that the PM (like the government in general) must have the confidence of the Commons; so in theory anybody whom they were prepared to follow could be PM, whether sitting in the Lords or the Commons or neither, but in today's climate it would be more or less unimaginable for the Commons to agree to have a PM who was not in the Commons or at least standing for the Commons (which is technically the status of any PM during an election). At the other end of the scale it's common to have at least one junior minister in each government department to be a member of the House of Lords, so that they can defend relevant areas of government policy in Lords debates, and of course one senior government minister (the leader of the House of Lords) is required to be a member of the Lords by the very nature of their duties.
That was very interesting, Prof Twomey. I'm really enjoying your videos, thank you.
Glad you find them interesting.
In the modern-day UK, all the major parties have rules in their own Constitutions requiring their Leaders to be Members of the House of Commons.
We've seen this somewhat recently when Jo Swinson, who was Leader of the Liberal Democrats lost her constituency in the 2019 General Election and so immediately vacated the Party Leadership too.
It would be a very weird scenario if somebody who wasn't the Leader of a major party commanded the confidence of the Commons, but anything can happen.
I think if some outsider was appointed Prime Minister they would seek that the House of Commons (and perhaps even the Lords) explicitly expressed their confidence in them to clear up any doubt.
not all Major parties technically, as Plaid and the SNP don't have such a rule. Though I admit I am nit picking, Reform and the Greens also don't require it. Though it is arguable if Reform is a Major party right now, it is certainly major in terms of vote share.
@carus6280 By major I pretty much just meant Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives - the parties that have actually formed UK Governments.
Obviously SNP and Plaid prefer to have their Leaders in their respective devolved Parliaments.
As an American born and bred, I have wondered when reading British history, how a member of the British Lords could be Prime Minister. I could understand the situation when the Prime Minister needed the confidence of the Crown as much or perhaps more so than that of the Commons. But as the electoral reforms of the 1800’s took hold, and the Crown became more of a figurehead; while at the same time, at least to my outside understanding, retaining significant powers and privileges. I just assumed Royal confidence was no longer important or relevant. I thought the reason Churchill was appointed rather than Lord Halifax, was the Commons didn’t want him. Churchill was, I thought, imposed on the Crown over quiet objections as he was apparently distrusted by the King and many of his advisers. I could not “square the circle” so to speak. Your video helped a lot.
Glad it was helpful. There were no doubt many other reasons re the choice between Halifax and Churchill at such a critical time, but the House was a contributing factor.
When the Fomer Prime Minister David Cameron was appointed as Foreign Secretary in 2023 he was made a Member of the House of Lords. That he was not accountable to the Commons was highly controversial, and work was underway to change the rules, or perhaps use ancient rules to summon him to appear before the Bar of the House of Commons. But nothing ever came of it, and it's irrelevant now that the Conservatives lost the election.
While he was Foreign Secretary, one of the Ministers of State in the FCDO took the unusual honorific title of "Deputy Foreign Secretary", and he would speak in the Commons on Lord Cameron's behalf. But the questioning was often pointless as the Deputy hadn't been the person who actually took the meeting or went on the foreign trip they were talking about.
Lord Carrington was Thatcher's Foreign Secretary.
@@uingaeoc3905 Yes, but times change. Carrington was Foreign Secretary over four decades ago.
Carrington was also already a Member of the Lords, unlike Cameron who was ennobled especially to become Foreign Secretary.
Very interesting. Could you do a piece on the Governor General’s role following Holt’s disappearance, the McEwen appointment and ultimately how Gorton became PM?
I'll add it to the list.
An excellent exposition, as always. I remember discussing John Gorton's move from the Senate to the House when I was studying Constitutional Law.
I seem to remember Campbell Newman was defacto leader of the LNP without being a member of Qld Parliament.
But at that time, they were the opposition, not the government.
Yes, that's right. At the other end of his term in office, he lost his seat. There was an interesting question as to whether he should continue as Premier during the period of uncertainty about who would form a government. He resigned as Premier two weeks after losing his seat, when it became clear that the Opposition could form a government.
Interesting, this is actually something I have wondered about a few times thanks for the video.
You are most welcome.
*So very interesting Anne*
I was hoping you would include Harold Holt's situation, as it was a matter I recall quiet vividly. 🙂
On another somewhat connected note - may I ask - what are the rules & protocols involving a member of the Royal Family visit to parliament ? 🤔
Are they allowed to enter the Lower House or the Senate ? and would they be within their rights to sit in the Speaker's chair to deliver a speech to the members ?
As in the UK the monarch can only enter the upper house, the House of Lords and as such the rule/convention applies to Australia. So the GG opens parliament from the Senate. So if the monarch addresses parliament it would be from the Senate. The last king to sit in the speaker's chair was Charles I. Members of the royal family have no constitutional position except as Lords they could not enter the lower house as far as I'm aware.
There are special chairs at the back of the Australian Senate chamber which can be used by the monarch (and their spouse) if present, or (more usually) by the Governor General when present, or by special guests (usually representatives of other countries, I think) to sit in if invited to address Parliament. These are separate from the chair normally used by the President of the Senate, although I've noticed from video coverage that at openings of Parliament the President sits in the special chair while the Senate is waiting for the GG to arrive. But if you mean what would happen if some other member of the royal family apart from the monarch were to visit, I assume it would depend on whether they were considered to be officially representing the monarch (in which case they would be seated like the monarch) or not (in which case how they were seated would presumably depend on what the reason was for inviting them into the Parliament building).
Thanks. As someone with dual nationality I believe that any person like me with non-singular loyalty should automatically be disqualified from any public office. The PM should also hold a seat in the main (lower) house of parliament.
Thank you, very interesting.
Curzon was passed over for PM in 1923, when the ailing Bonar Law stood down. George V appointed Stanley Baldwin instead of Curzon, despite his experience, because a peer would be inappropriate as PM when there was a Labour Party opposition-and the King didn't like him.
Thanks for this, a real deep dive into the topic 👏🏻
Quite a few “Westminster” style governments allow for specific cabinet positions - attorney general comes to mind - to be appointed from outside the parliamentary membership. Which has been effective - but also been open to some opportunities of corruption.
Yes, sometimes there is insufficient expertise within the government's cohort of parliamentarians to fulfil a specialised role, like Attorney-General. Another approach (as is done in Australia) is to appoint a Solicitor-General from qualified senior counsel, who can do the technical legal advising, while the Attorney-General (who is a politician) deals with the policy side.
I work at Old Parliament House as a tour guide and I had a similar question - why can't government form in the upper house. I came to the Senate can't do monetary bills then it wouldn't work to have government there because then the government can't fund anything. I was really just curious if a bloc in the Senate could hypothetically challenge the lower house for government status.
In regard to your question about the PM, if it were possible for government to form in the upper house then the PM could be a senator maybe!
so UK "expert" here not Australian. We have had goverments form in the Upper House. As was mentioned by the Professor in the 1800s this was actually normal. What we do is that when a minister is appointed, there is a second person appointed to speak for the Government in the other place, today this is normally in the Lords. So there are always two people, and each house can hold the relevant department to account. The biggest example of this recently is Lord Cameron (the former PM). He was made Foreign Secretary in the Lords and an MP was appointed in the Commons to fill his role there, in matters like Foreign Secretary's Questions. He would appear himself in the Lords to answer questions from the peers. So in the UK at least it would be perfectly legal to reverse the current order and have all the ministers in the Lords, though this would inevitably raise big questions in areas like democracy. It did cause a bit of a kefuffle as the Shadow Secretary was in the commons so there was no direct exchanges between the two iirc. You could end up with the shadow cabinet in one house and the actual cabinet in the other.
The same practice applies in Australia of the Minister in one House being 'represented' by another Minister in the other House for the purposes of accountability. But nonetheless, in the UK government is formed by the person who commands the confidence of the lower House because that is the representative House chosen by the people and the House that controls appropriations. In Australia, while the Senate is elected (unlike the House of Lords), the representation in the Senate reflects federal interests, with each State being represented by the same number of Senators despite its population, so primacy in relation to the formation of government and control over money bills rests with the lower house, the House of Representatives, which more directly represents the population as a whole.
I seem to recall Barrie Unsworth being elected NSW Premier by the ALP caucus while a member of the Legislative Council and then moving to the lower house in a by election. I think it was for Rockdale… or is my memory faulty?
Your memory isn't faulty. He only just scraped in.
Thanks. Yes, another good example. He became Premier on 4 July 1986, while still a member of the Legislative Council. He resigned from the Legislative Council on 15 July and was elected to the Legislative Assembly on 2 August 1986.
Though not the PM at the time, there is the recent and interesting case of David Cameron (former UK PM) being made a Lord so he could become Foreign Secretary.
Yes, in the UK there is greater flexibility about bringing in Ministers with particular expertise, as they can be easily appointed to the House of Lords. It doesn't work in Australia, as the Senate is fully elected.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 When the Gillard Labor government needed a new foreign minister in a hurry, wasn't the solution to "persuade" a controversial senator to retire and then appoint Bob Carr in his place, with Carr immediately becoming a member of Cabinet? That strikes me as a close parallel with the David Cameron case.
Yes, it's similar to that extent. But you do have to have someone willing to stand down to give someone else the opportunity to fill the vacancy - unlike the Lords, where you can just add an extra person. They also need to run for election when their term expires, if they want to stay, which the Lords do not need to do.
Given that both the lower and upper house both have an electoral mandate, it is (or ought to be) theoretically possible for the PM to sit in either house. The problem with the House of Lords was the absence of that democratic accountability.
It would make Question Time even more chaotic, I suspect; with someone always having to stand in for the PM and take their questions. It would make the deputy leadership role extremely demanding, particularly for a coalition with leaders from each coalition party involved. Such an arrangement would be unlikely to improve accountability.
In Australia most lower Houses are direct representatives of a particular electorate, face the people more often and as a result (IMO) are closer to the people that elected them. Most upper house members serve longer terms, and are elected with different methods like multi member regional seats (not always of equal population) or all state electorates with a form of proportional representation. Tasmania is an exception to this. There is no hard and fast rule about where a PM sits, but I think the lower house is by far the better option.
Interesting that the executive must maintain the confidence of a particular house of the legislature. How does this square with the separation of powers doctrine?
In a system of responsible government there is a degree of merging of the executive and Parliament, as the executive is drawn from the Parliament. It is accepted that there is not a full separation of powers between the executive and Parliament due to this.
I don't know of any country in which the separation of powers is complete. One reason is another constitutional principle, that there should be 'checks and balances' between the different branches of government.
@@Shalott63 I agree and understand that there are checks and balances. However, it is not a check on the power of the executive to draw it from the legislature. A check on the power of the executive would be to appoint department heads with the advice and consent of the legislature. Checks and balances are not incompatible with separation of powers.
@@jasperpendlebury4551 Perhaps to draw government ministers from the legislature is not in and of itself a check, but in the Westminster system not only is the consent of the legislature (more specifically, of the lower house) required for ministers to be appointed, it is also required for them to continue in office. In the USA (for example), an officer of state can't be removed by any authority outside the executive without the rather difficult process of impeachment, which rarely succeeds. In the Westminster system, a simple majority vote in the lower house could remove any or all ministers at any time, which it seems to me is a much greater check on them than simply requiring the legislature's consent to their appointment. Although the various Westminster-style systems consider the principle of separation of powers (and apply it fairly rigorously to the judiciary), the way the system has developed means that separation of the executive was not the goal, rather bringing the executive (originally of course the monarch, and now those actually controlling the monarch's powers) under some sort of communal control was the goal, which took centuries of struggle including a bloody civil war. We simply don't trust the executive enough to leave them to their own devices. How far the Westminster system works in practice to control executive misbehaviour is I suppose open to debate; but surely no more so than how far the US system achieves the same end.
I know John Gorton who was a Senator in the upper house became Prime Minister in the aftermath of Holt's disappearance.
In the UK there is an expectation that anyone with Ministerial Responsibility is a member of (and so is accountable to) one of the Houses of Parliament. So, from time to time, when the Prime Minister wishes to make somebody a Minister from outside of Parliament, they have to recommend that the King makes them a Life Peer (and so a Member of the House of Lords).
This happened most recently with Poppy Gustavason (now the Baroness Gustafsson) who was appointed as Minister of State for Investment.
I guess the question would become whether a PM from outside of Parliament could recommend themselves for a Peerage. But even if they did, there would be an expectation that they would run for a seat in the Commons at the earliest possible opportunity.
A member of the House of Lords is not allowed to stand for election in the Commons, they have to renounce their Lords seat first.
Fascinating as it seems that absence of Constitutional instruction will give way to practical application of Governances unless successfully challenged thus creating precedence but would this then be used as instruction? I really enjoy this channel it has a wonderful vibe about it 🙂
Worth listening all through thank you
engaging and informative 8:30
interesting thanks 13:00
Glad you enjoyed it.
I have a question: do the people of Australia have the right under the constitution to seek accountability of the government BEFORE they pass laws that might affect the people? There seems to be many laws passed by the government that should require further scrutiny eg the misinformation and disinformation bill. We the people don’t seem to have any say in controversial bills being put forward.
Irrespective of the state or federal parliaments the fundamental sticking point is the question. Is the prime minister (or premier) of the government responsible, in the most reasonable of definitions. Some have been, but they have been very thin on the ground.
What does a convention, mean in law?
It is a rule that the participants accept as binding upon them, but which is not legally binding (i.e. you cannot enforce it in a court, but everyone accepts that you should comply with it). A constitutional convention is ordinarily derived from a fundamental constitutional principle or gives effect to it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901I disagree that conventions are not legally binding. For example, the bounds of the power of the PM to advise a prorogation to the monarch is a convention one-there are no written laws governing this but nonetheless would by convention, not use this to stop parliamentary scrutiny. However, the UKSC nonetheless ruled that, in the second Miller case, that this was a justiciable issue, and indeed decided that the PM’s advice was unlawful.
@@Angel33Demon666 No, the UKSC did not enforce a convention regarding prorogation. It instead determined the legal limits of a prerogative power - something it has done since the 1600s. (Although there have been arguments that courts in Canada have given legal effect to conventions, and courts do respect conventions when interpreting the law.)
@@Angel33Demon666 The Australian Federal Constitution gives the power to prorogue Parliament to the GG without any qualifications. It's not a convention.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 wasn't Miller 1 based, in part, on a legislative provision that Parliament couldn't be prorogued if the intention of that prorogation was to stifle the ability of Parliament to debate?
I don't think I've worded this question particularly well, so may come back to it later once I've given it some thought.
John Gorton intensifies
The UK has another quirk in the House of Lords which has arch bishops appointed by the monarch. Technically, I understand, that allows the unelected Archbishop of Canterbury to be appointed PM, which would make his Sunday schedule quite busy and also allow him an extra seat at a coronation. The same applies for Royals who sit in the House of Lords, which would be interesting if Harry for instance decided to one up Dad or big brother and try his hand at being PM.
Make a king out of him.
4:28 i didn't believe the claim he was a New Zealand citizen to be accurate. If it were true, New Zealand would have made the entire population of Samoa, New Zealand citizens also.
Do Ministers even spend that much doing MP stuff beside showing up to answer questions?
I imagine they spend most of there time in there departmental office
On a more related topic it might be interesting to some that the so called Confederate States of America had a provision in there constitution that its cabinet members held seats solely for the purpose of being questioned by congress .
Thanks for the excellent video Prof Twomey !
In Australia, Prime Ministers and Premiers are pretty active in Parliament. There is Question Time every day that Parliament sits, and they also speak in debates on bills and other matters.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I suppose I thought they only showed up for question time.
Thanks for your answers! I suppose having to explain basic Australian stuff to foreigners was not what you signed up for but were better for it
The issue of the PM being a member of the lower house by convention must surely be more one of appearance or perception than real substance and practicality. It doesn't require formal questioning in parliament to determine the quality of a PM's performance. In the cases of majority party governments the PM is chosen and sacked based on the party's wishes and discussions are held out of view from the public. I would argue that the reason is based on group dynamics and self-interest. If the perception is that a PM comes from the lower house, and most members in the lower house harbour some ambition of becoming PM, then it is in the lower house members interest to ensure all PM's continue to come from the lower house as this increases their chances, no matter how remote, of becoming PM.
Make your point.
@@johnfitzpatrick2469 Sorry, are you being sarcastic? What was unclear?
@chriswatson7965 No, not at all.
@@johnfitzpatrick2469 Then my point is the first sentence of my post.
"The issue of the PM being a member of the lower house by convention must surely be more one of appearance or perception than real substance and practicality". It makes sense that the Prime Minister should come from the lower house, because it's from the House of Representatives that the government is formed. So to me it just seems practical that the Leader of the government should be in the lower house.
I have a question - is this the right place to pose it!
Feel free. I try to answer, if I reasonably can.
@ question : I wrote to the Electoral Commissioner in Oct asking about the requirements for a Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR). Received a response last week saying "there is no mechanism in Australia for a citizens initiated referendum to occur.".
Is this correct?
What are your thoughts on Steffan Ganghof’s semi-parliamentary system concept? and do you think that Australia’s system of government needs to be labeled better or is the label Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy sufficient? On a side note I think that it makes most sense that a system so heavily inspired and influenced by the UK should ensure that the PM who is generally ex officio the first lord of the treasury should be a member of the house where supply bill originate and I think in an Australian context that whilst John Gorton bucked the trend for PMs there should be rules that require the Treasurer to be or become a member of the House of Reps whilst if the PM is a senator they should resign and should have three months to become a member of the house of reps. As always it’s a real treat to watch your videos :)
I'm not ashamed to say that I find the whole bloody thing confusing lol
Hello Professor,
What have you on; the disappearance of PM Holt?
🌏🇦🇺
Sir John Baxter.
It did raise some really interesting issues. Maybe I'll do a video on it one day.
Could you explain how THE CONSTITUTION indicates an Australian Prime Minister is elected?
There are no mention of parties.
Prime Ministers are appointed by the Governor General, as are all the other Ministers. It's all outlined in Chapter 2 of the Constitution.
A popular vote by mps... all mps
It doesn't.
They aren't elected specifically as Prime Ministers; they are elected by their party as party leader, and if their party wins (or already has) a majority in the lower house then they are appointed PM by the Governor General on behalf of the monarch. If no party has a majority, then it's more complicated and the GG has to work out who is most likely to be acceptable to the House. (This is an expansion of @mizzyroro's rather more succinct reply.)
Prime Ministers, along with all Ministers, are appointed by the Governor-General under section 64 of the Constitution. Convention requires that the person appointed be whoever commands the confidence of the lower House (or, in the case of a hung Parliament, whoever is most likely to command the confidence of the House). That convention was known and recognised by those who wrote the Constitution, but they very deliberately did not turn such conventions into constitutional requirements. They preferred to retain the flexibility of convention.
Technically, we do not 'elect' the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is only elected to Parliament as a Member by his or her constituents. The people elect both Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister is then appointed on the basis that he or she commands the confidence of the lower House, which is customarily shown by being the leader of the party or coalition which holds a majority of seats in that House.
Since 1911 the House of Commons has "financial privilege", meaning the House of Lords has no power over the spending/raising of money. The Prime Minister is the "First Lord of the Treasury", so it would be nonsensical and unacceptable for them to run the Treasury from a Chamber with no financial privilege.
Even before 1911 the financial powers of the House of Lords were very limited; money bills could not originate there and they had no power to emend them. Technically they still had the power to reject them altogether, but it was widely regarded as a convention that they would not, so when they did so in 1911 it caused a constitutional crisis. So the question of financial supply was not really crucial, partly because the PM was not directly responsible for financial matters and partly because the government is a body not a single person, and other ministers (especially of course the chancellor of the exchequer) could steer financial legislation through the Commons. I could also point out that the archaic title of the PM (first lord of the Treasury) which has been cited more than once in the comments does include the word 'lord' ... Since 1911 it has really been the changed status of the HoL generally that has been the crucial factor in abandoning the practice of having PMs sitting in the Lords, as well as the rise of the Labour Party, who would be less willing than the other parties to agree to such a thing regardless of the status of the HoL.
PS Whether it was appropriate/convenient for a prime minister to sit in the Lords had in fact been debated since at least the 1770s. There is a good short article on PMs in the Lords on the UK government website at history.blog.gov.uk/2013/04/24/prime-ministers-in-the-house-of-lords/
though reiterated in 1911 the power of the purse was in the hands of the commons from 1689, meaning that the First Lord of the Treasury was not in the Commons despite that house having Power of the Purse. Though money bills are the privilege of the Commons there is no legal reason that the First Lord of the Treasury must be a member of that house, especially if the Second Lord of the Treasury (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is a member. If that was a paticular issue then the Prime Minister does not have to be First Lord of the Treasury as that is really just a symbolic title and it could theoretically be given to the Chancellor or some other minister. The Constitution of the UK is very flexible so if the Government really wanted to sit in the other place then they could.
In New South Wales, there was controversy when Michael Egan, a member of the upper House, was appointed as Treasurer. The rules were changed to allow him to present the budget from the lower House.
As always, each Minister is represented by another Minister in the other House to allow some accountability, but the degree of accountability is diminished, because the representing Minister usually is not across all the relevant detail.
Why doesn’t Queensland have an Upper House? How is this a legitimate democracy?
It is the same in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
@Queensland is the only State that doesn’t have an Upper House.
Also doesn’t the UK only have first past the post voting? No preferential voting? And you don’t wonder how that impacts the state of your democracies? But guess it doesn’t matter because the major political parties are interchangeable.
It used to have an upper house - the Legislative Council.
The Labor Party argued that it was undemocratic, as it was a completely unelected body - that is, all its members were *appointed* by the Governor on the advice of the Premier. The Labor Party had also found it to be politically obstructive to its own interests. Rather than simply arranging for it to be an elected body, the Premier "Red" Ted Theodore wanted it abolished. He waited until the Governor had resigned through ill-health and then asked his short-term replacement to appoint enough new Councillors to give the Government a Labor majority.
With a majority (known as the "suicide squad") secured, the Legislative Council voted itself out of existence in 1921. The abolition bill was given Royal Assent in March 1922, and ceased to exist on the 23rd of March.
@steelcrown7130 @ thank you.
So why not have it reinstated? Especially after Joh Bjelke-Petersen? And nearly thirty years of Labor? It clearly benefits those in power when in power.
@@KryCaNe In the UK, the Westminster Parliament, which also deals with English matters is first past the post.
Wales is fully proportional representation.
Scotland has first past the post constituency seats with regional list seats that are proportional
Northern Ireland is Single Transferrable Vote.
Why are you so heavy on the use of "he or she" when you're referring to unspecified people? Apart from being an absolute mouthful, and the fact that the use of singular "they" in English predates the use of singular "you", it also creates specific legal loopholes if actually applied. There are people validly and legally recognised under Australian law as being neither male nor female, thus cannot be accurately described as either "he" or "she". Any text using that phrasing thus specifically does not apply to these people.
Any reading of a text referring to “he or she” will be taken to refer to any natural person, irrespective of gender identity.