Australia is famed for "Ripping Yarns". It is our life-blood of cultural heritage. I love Constitutional Clarion for bringing those things to us. We are blessed.
Anne Twomey telling this amazing historic story with all the gusto of a loving school teacher and I'm all here for it. LOVE IT!! :) Thank you for this.
Wow! That was a cracker of a tale, and most amusingly narrated! I particularly liked the nominative determinism obviously at work behind the name of the pair to the member who had tripped over the balustrade… Thanks again.
May be my favourite constitutional clarion as yet! The idea of someone finding a ‘loophole’ for appointing a speaker in the standing orders is hilarious.
As always love your work. If you are interested could you explain the ability of a previous prime minister to secretly appoint himself to more than one ministerial position. How is this not illegal, how was this able to happen without the public knowing, is there anything in place to stop this happening again in the future?
Virginia Bell did a report explaining all of this, and yes, there have been changes made to prevent it happening again. Perhaps one day when I get the internal fortitude to revisit it, I will, but for the moment I'm a bit over it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Cheers for the response, can only imagine the amount of work that goes it to making these videos, it certainly looks like heaps.
My goodness! Parliamentary life in Australia is clearly very, erm, exciting at times! All this has reminded me of something that made me chuckle when I read it in the Wikipedia article on the Commonwealth House of Representatives: "Australian parliaments are notoriously rowdy, with MPs often trading colourful insults. As a result, the speaker often has to use the disciplinary powers granted to him or her under standing orders. Since 2015, Australian Federal Police officers armed with assault rifles have been present in both chambers of the federal Parliament." Admittedly the writer (it wasn't you by any chance was it, Anne?) introduced a judicious paragraph break between the last two sentences, but even so ...
Well, thank you. I honestly did not realise you are Anne Twomey, I've read your articles. Last time I commented, regarding matters missed by A.J. Brown, you mistook me for a lawyer. No, just a mere political science/policy nerd. I think your videos are probably more exciting to my crowd than the lawyers, truth be told.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Well I like what you are doing and more academics should be on youtube I think. In spite of technological improvements and massive capabilities of information sharing, we've ended up with just more enterainment and very little education. For what its worth, your videos are actually entertaining and I feel like you put a lot into how you present the information. Perhaps I should write to my former lecturers, who were very bright and say... maybe we try this?
I try to mix it up a bit! I'm trying to alternate between serious constitutional law, conspiracy stuff and a bit of fun history. People can learn quite a lot from a story, rather than a lecture.
Thank you Professor for putting all this together and relating it in an informative way. I already knew about McGowan/Holman's series of unfortunate events and diminishing majority. I also knew about the attempt to prorogue Parliament and considered it a legitimate procedural step for a govt. Can you please do a follow up video comparing the NSW situation with UK PM Boris Johnstone attempt to prorogue Parliament. I could not understand why the UK was seen as cowardly and found by a court (after the event)to be unlawful. I guess there is still a role for a fast car, to get it implemented before an oppositin could seek interim injunction pending legal challenge. Would also apprciate if you could deal with the question of whether NSW courts would consider a compaint about how the Legislative Assembly conducted its business.
Yes, the UK prorogation case was quite interesting. Happy to put that on my list of things to talk about in videos. Re complaints about how the LA conducts its business, this is an internal matter for Parliament. Courts treat internal parliamentary matters as non-justiciable (i.e. not something to be reviewed by a court), unless some kind of offence or legal wrong is committed (eg trespass) or there is a breach of the law concerning the passage of a law.
Nothing has changed in NSW. Thanks for a great tale. Are you arranging a speaking tour? Gilbert and Sullivan pales into insignificance in comparison to you. Great pub talk. Thanks Anne, you are a legend. And we are speechless.
Sometimes it does. But I wouldn't want to ignore completely the thoughtful committed politicians who try hard to improve things. People are too prone to put everyone in the same category, whereas my experience is that there is quite a range of politicians, from good to bad.
7:08 Another curiosity of mine is when/how long since a previous election may a government ask for parliament to be dissolved. What is the criteria and of the criterion referring to the duration since the previous election what this the threshold point?
A Canadian Governor-General, when pondering this question, concluded that around the 6 month mark was the point when a new election could be contemplated. The real question, however, is whether the wishes of the voters in the previous election have been respected and given effect - there needs to be some kind of effort taken to do so. But if it is impossible (eg a Speaker cannot be chosen, after many tries, so Parliament cannot sit) then a new election can be called.
No, I don't think they used that term. Maybe the technical Australian term should be 'waffle on'. I used the term filibuster, as it is a simple description for what was occurring, and one with which people might now be familiar - but I did think twice about it. That's why I put it in writing on the screen.
It's on the channel description in the 'about' section. My name is Anne Twomey and I'm a Professor Emerita at the University of Sydney (which means I'm unpaid, but they still claim credit for me!)
Crazy to think that parliament could take so many twists and turns! On a separate note, I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will be disappointed that this video has nothing to do with the legality of lockdowns, freedom of movement, or application of the constitution relevant to their "sovereign citizen" status. 😂
Hi Professor Even back in 1910 "the press" was upholding the Westminster system? Was pairing in the house Constitutional. Where did that custom or law evolve. 🌏🇦🇺
Pairing has been used for a long time in the UK, so no doubt we got it from there. It is based on convention, rather than any formal rules. It is necessary to manage Parliament effectively when people are sick or Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have to attend important events. MOAD has written an explanation about it: www.moadoph.gov.au/explore/stories/democracy/pairing-up-what-is-pairing-in-parliament. In the UK, it has been traced at least back to 1730, although it is not clear when it developed. There is a discussion of its history here: historyofparliamentblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/01/pairs-and-proxies/.
Certainly a ripping yarn, and worth telling, sadly Im not surprised this happened in a NSW state parliment. I also for some strange reason I had visions of a certain national party member, and deputy prime minister
There is no doubt that the NSW Legislative Assembly was and is, a Bunyip Parliament. But Qld and Victoria have seen worse behaviour, and only my unfamiliarity with other States’ history prevents me from commenting on them as well. Alas, the hoped for improvement in decorum and manners when women first entered Parliament has not occurred - indeed, recent evidence in the WA Supreme Court from Linda Reynolds suggests the reverse.
What section of the Constitution are you referring to? One you made up, or section 79, which provides "The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as the Parliament prescribes." (which includes as many as ONE)
"Now this remains the practice today: whenever a government resigns in Australia, its resignation does not take effect immediately, in fact it only takes effect once the new government is about to be sworn in so there's no gap during which there are no ministers in office" Does this only apply to resignations or is this at play when a government is ousted: is it possible for there to be no ministers in that case? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_vote_of_no_confidence#Westminster_systems
Good question. If a Government is dismissed, then for practical reasons it may be dismissed with immediate effect. That is why the vice-regal officer who dismisses the Government must be confidant that a new Government can immediately be formed and that its leader is prepared to accept office and be sworn in. In 1975, Fraser arrived early and was waiting in an ante-room while Whitlam was dismissed. He was sworn in immediately afterwards.
Australia is famed for "Ripping Yarns". It is our life-blood of cultural heritage. I love Constitutional Clarion for bringing those things to us. We are blessed.
You are most welcome.
Utterly hysterical and brilliant. Professor Twomey spins this historical yarn in a very entertaining way. 🤣
Glad you enjoyed it.
Anne Twomey telling this amazing historic story with all the gusto of a loving school teacher and I'm all here for it. LOVE IT!! :) Thank you for this.
Wow! That was a cracker of a tale, and most amusingly narrated! I particularly liked the nominative determinism obviously at work behind the name of the pair to the member who had tripped over the balustrade…
Thanks again.
Cracker: riding on the sheep back again?
No one could have made up a name like 'Mr Fell'! Truth is stranger than fiction.
May be my favourite constitutional clarion as yet! The idea of someone finding a ‘loophole’ for appointing a speaker in the standing orders is hilarious.
Does anyone know of any good reads on this topic?
You have waaaay too much fun with the idiosyncracies of the Australian parliaments! Fascinating stuff! Thanks.
Got to find the fun somewhere!
Indeed. Thanks
As always love your work.
If you are interested could you explain the ability of a previous prime minister to secretly appoint himself to more than one ministerial position.
How is this not illegal, how was this able to happen without the public knowing, is there anything in place to stop this happening again in the future?
Virginia Bell did a report explaining all of this, and yes, there have been changes made to prevent it happening again. Perhaps one day when I get the internal fortitude to revisit it, I will, but for the moment I'm a bit over it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Cheers for the response, can only imagine the amount of work that goes it to making these videos, it certainly looks like heaps.
My goodness! Parliamentary life in Australia is clearly very, erm, exciting at times! All this has reminded me of something that made me chuckle when I read it in the Wikipedia article on the Commonwealth House of Representatives: "Australian parliaments are notoriously rowdy, with MPs often trading colourful insults. As a result, the speaker often has to use the disciplinary powers granted to him or her under standing orders. Since 2015, Australian Federal Police officers armed with assault rifles have been present in both chambers of the federal Parliament." Admittedly the writer (it wasn't you by any chance was it, Anne?) introduced a judicious paragraph break between the last two sentences, but even so ...
Well, thank you. I honestly did not realise you are Anne Twomey, I've read your articles. Last time I commented, regarding matters missed by A.J. Brown, you mistook me for a lawyer. No, just a mere political science/policy nerd. I think your videos are probably more exciting to my crowd than the lawyers, truth be told.
Well, there's lots of politics in there. Constitutional law is essentially about politics and power, which is why it is so interesting.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 And a whole bunch of conventions... amirite (as the young folk would say) :|D
@@michaeldavis8103 Yes, plenty of those too, especially when it comes to executive power.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Well I like what you are doing and more academics should be on youtube I think. In spite of technological improvements and massive capabilities of information sharing, we've ended up with just more enterainment and very little education. For what its worth, your videos are actually entertaining and I feel like you put a lot into how you present the information. Perhaps I should write to my former lecturers, who were very bright and say... maybe we try this?
Fascinating!
The lease to freehold part is worth a follow-up visit if ever it can get past the mafia-like types.
I'm surprised but pleased that you wrote an article for Quadrant.
I write for publications across a pretty wide spectrum - which is important for public education.
I love this. You make this stuff fun.
I try to mix it up a bit! I'm trying to alternate between serious constitutional law, conspiracy stuff and a bit of fun history. People can learn quite a lot from a story, rather than a lecture.
Thank you Professor for putting all this together and relating it in an informative way.
I already knew about McGowan/Holman's series of unfortunate events and diminishing majority.
I also knew about the attempt to prorogue Parliament and considered it a legitimate procedural step for a govt.
Can you please do a follow up video comparing the NSW situation with UK PM Boris Johnstone attempt to prorogue Parliament.
I could not understand why the UK was seen as cowardly and found by a court (after the event)to be unlawful.
I guess there is still a role for a fast car, to get it implemented before an oppositin could seek interim injunction pending legal challenge.
Would also apprciate if you could deal with the question of whether NSW courts would consider a compaint about how the Legislative Assembly conducted its business.
Yes, the UK prorogation case was quite interesting. Happy to put that on my list of things to talk about in videos.
Re complaints about how the LA conducts its business, this is an internal matter for Parliament. Courts treat internal parliamentary matters as non-justiciable (i.e. not something to be reviewed by a court), unless some kind of offence or legal wrong is committed (eg trespass) or there is a breach of the law concerning the passage of a law.
Great knowledge. Thanx for this.
Nothing has changed in NSW. Thanks for a great tale. Are you arranging a speaking tour? Gilbert and Sullivan pales into insignificance in comparison to you. Great pub talk. Thanks Anne, you are a legend. And we are speechless.
I'm lucky that the politicians provide such comic material.
"Rabble", describes our current Federal and many of our State governments.
Sometimes it does. But I wouldn't want to ignore completely the thoughtful committed politicians who try hard to improve things. People are too prone to put everyone in the same category, whereas my experience is that there is quite a range of politicians, from good to bad.
7:08 Another curiosity of mine is when/how long since a previous election may a government ask for parliament to be dissolved. What is the criteria and of the criterion referring to the duration since the previous election what this the threshold point?
A Canadian Governor-General, when pondering this question, concluded that around the 6 month mark was the point when a new election could be contemplated. The real question, however, is whether the wishes of the voters in the previous election have been respected and given effect - there needs to be some kind of effort taken to do so. But if it is impossible (eg a Speaker cannot be chosen, after many tries, so Parliament cannot sit) then a new election can be called.
I would love a video on the calling & collection of the speaker
This illustrates the need for resourcefulness in the battle against the forces of reaction.
superb
Thanks.
4:20 was the actual word fillibuster used or is that an anachronistic application of the imported American term? This is quite a Murray Goot question.
No, I don't think they used that term. Maybe the technical Australian term should be 'waffle on'. I used the term filibuster, as it is a simple description for what was occurring, and one with which people might now be familiar - but I did think twice about it. That's why I put it in writing on the screen.
Although apparently Americans imported the term 'fillibuster' from elsewhere as well. Or "talking a bill to death" as I just read it described.
Can anyone give this well-informed academic's name please?
It's on the channel description in the 'about' section. My name is Anne Twomey and I'm a Professor Emerita at the University of Sydney (which means I'm unpaid, but they still claim credit for me!)
Crazy to think that parliament could take so many twists and turns!
On a separate note, I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will be disappointed that this video has nothing to do with the legality of lockdowns, freedom of movement, or application of the constitution relevant to their "sovereign citizen" status. 😂
We all need a sanity break sometimes.
Hi Professor
Even back in 1910 "the press" was upholding the Westminster system?
Was pairing in the house Constitutional. Where did that custom or law evolve.
🌏🇦🇺
@@johnfitzpatrick2469 I’m no professor Twomey, but i suspect it’s from house practice, probably from precedent from the uk?
Pairing has been used for a long time in the UK, so no doubt we got it from there. It is based on convention, rather than any formal rules. It is necessary to manage Parliament effectively when people are sick or Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have to attend important events. MOAD has written an explanation about it: www.moadoph.gov.au/explore/stories/democracy/pairing-up-what-is-pairing-in-parliament.
In the UK, it has been traced at least back to 1730, although it is not clear when it developed. There is a discussion of its history here: historyofparliamentblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/01/pairs-and-proxies/.
*What a delightful 'vignette'* -------------- It puts paid to the notion that ------ *Australian politicians are a boring lot* 😉🙂😊
US Politician John McCain once said of US politicians - Politics is Hollywood for ugly people.
@@keithad6485very applicable to Australian politicians.
@@keithad6485 Sadly - Hollywood is now ugly --- thanks to it's politics. 😑
USA elections are the entertainment division of the Military industrial complex
NSW has had a bit of a history of less than boring politicians in the nineteenth century. Check out Paddy Crick for some entertainment.
Certainly a ripping yarn, and worth telling, sadly Im not surprised this happened in a NSW state parliment. I also for some strange reason I had visions of a certain national party member, and deputy prime minister
There is no doubt that the NSW Legislative Assembly was and is, a Bunyip Parliament. But Qld and Victoria have seen worse behaviour, and only my unfamiliarity with other States’ history prevents me from commenting on them as well. Alas, the hoped for improvement in decorum and manners when women first entered Parliament has not occurred - indeed, recent evidence in the WA Supreme Court from Linda
Reynolds suggests the reverse.
Senator Reynolds exposing the fraud of Higgins shows great decorum.
Why are governments not adhering to the constitution why do wwe have star chambers instead of courts ?
What section of the Constitution are you referring to? One you made up, or section 79, which provides "The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as the Parliament prescribes." (which includes as many as ONE)
And Government continues to make poor decisions to this day.
First
"Now this remains the practice today: whenever a government resigns in Australia, its resignation does not take effect immediately, in fact it only takes effect once the new government is about to be sworn in so there's no gap during which there are no ministers in office"
Does this only apply to resignations or is this at play when a government is ousted: is it possible for there to be no ministers in that case? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_vote_of_no_confidence#Westminster_systems
Good question. If a Government is dismissed, then for practical reasons it may be dismissed with immediate effect. That is why the vice-regal officer who dismisses the Government must be confidant that a new Government can immediately be formed and that its leader is prepared to accept office and be sworn in.
In 1975, Fraser arrived early and was waiting in an ante-room while Whitlam was dismissed. He was sworn in immediately afterwards.