I just saw this video, and I am very much enjoying these videos. It should be noted that during the time of the Coronation of King Charles III and all the state governors and the Governor General being in London, the former Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrove AK CVO MC acted in the capacity of Administrator of the Commonwealth
It does seem odd naming a swimming pool after Prime Minister Holt. But then a former Victorian Premier had the Bolte Bridge, a major road, named after him after killing a farmer driving with his blood samples going missing afterwards. At least Harold Holt had contributed to the swimming community.
A more "meaty" exploration of government in a crisis in Britain can be found in an episode of the Duncan Campbell documentary series "Secret Society" entitled "In Time Of Crisis."
A really fantastic explanation. Speaking of this issue, it does remind me quite a bit of the unique changes made during April/May 2023, when all of the State Governors and GG we’re out of the country for the coronation and David Hurley was made Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth. A rather fascinating and unique arrangement that, while only for about a fortnight, was rather bizarre, and would be fascinating to have the legal advice made public for. (Informally, I think it was an inexplicable and faulty move of constitutional grounds, but it definitely makes for a fascinating bit of trivia)
Yes, it was interesting. I can see why they did it - they wanted someone in the seat who knew all the practices and the rules and would keep things ticking over without a fuss. Section 4 of the Constitution provides for the Commonwealth to be administered, in the absence of the Governor-General, by 'such person as the Queen may appoint' - and in this case the monarch did make the appointment.
@alexpentland5462 "Speaking of this issue, it does remind me quite a bit of the unique changes made during April/May 2023, when all of the State Governors and GG we’re out of the country for the coronation and David Hurley was made Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth." The then His Excellency General the Honorable David Hurley was the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia from the First of July 2019 to First of July 2024. I think you are referring to the former Governor General, General the Honorable Sir Peter Cosgrove who was appointed as the Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia while the Governor General and the Governors of the States were attending the Coronation of King Charles The Third. As a Canadian, I prefer the Australian system of using the State Governors as Administrators than the Letters Patent Creating the Office of the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada that designates the Chief Justice of Canada as Administrator. I see it as a conflict of interest as Administrator exercises Executive Powers on the advice of Ministers responsible to the House of Commons, whilae the Chief Justice presides over the Supreme Court of Canada, and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are entrenched in the Constitution of Canada pursuant to the Constitution Act 1982, Part One. However, there was nothing wrong with Chief Justice Richard Wagner's administration of the Government of Canada from January to July 2021.
One thing that I would like to add concerns the continuity of the Federal Executive Council. Many of the powers of the G-G are limited under §63 to the G-G acting on the advice of the FEC, and crucially §32 provides that the issuance of writs for elections for the House of Representatives is one of these powers of "the Governor-General in Council". Under §64 all the ministers of state must be appointed to the FEC, and it is the custom that only serving ministers are summoned to or attend the meetings of the Federal Executive Council (which are formalities). But when ministers lose office, or even their seats in Parliament, they are not ordinarily expelled from the FEC. The Cabinet of the day, consisting of serving ministers, is technically a committee of the FEC. So, supposing a catastrophe that exterminated Parliament, and therefore the Cabinet, the G-G or administrator could summon such surviving former ministers as were available to meet as the FEC and advise him or her to issue the writs to elect a new House of Reps.
Yes, that's right. Although I imagine that in the circumstances the Governor-General would want to be careful to summon former members in such a way as to avoid any appearance of political bias. But it would certainly be a way of seeking advise from wise elders and trying to gain a political consensus of how to deal with the crisis.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Just so. That would preserve the appearances better than appointing new councillors to give the required advice - but since appointing coucillors is a power of the G-G rather than of the G-G in Council, even that is available as a last resort.
Although this is untypical in the case where all current mps, senators and the GG suddenly disappear forever, presumably a Governor recieves a dormant commision, however my question is would that Administrator act on the advice of members of a previous cabinet (given that it can be argued that they are still members of the executive council) Also cases like this seem to show that our system would have been at a real detriment if we just bunged on a President in 1999 I really don’t think our system works very well if you combine the role of monarch and GG and you only outline how they are to be appointed... For example in cases where the President is incapacitated does the President (using the powers of the monarch) appoint an administrator (in line with section 4)? Once again amazing video :)
Yes, former Ministers technically remain members of the Executive Council, so they could be called upon in a an emergency/catastrophe scenario, if needed. The problem is that the only precedents we have concern coups/invasions (eg Grenada and Fiji) when there are disputes about who is entitled to exercise executive power, so there is little to draw upon. There is some recognition, however, that a Governor-General does hold reserve powers to act in an emergency - but only for the purpose of restoring constitutional governance. As for a republic - yes, it is important to build in provisions to deal with sudden vacancies in the office of head of state. But if you retain the role of State Governors, then you could draw on essentially the same chain of command.
Thanks Dr Twomey, great video. Hopefully someone will make a disaster movie putting this to use (: Have you made a video regarding a potential conflict between the Houses and High Court? While reading HoR Practice I daydreamed a scenario where the Governor General has to intervene to prevent the improper dismissal of justices, and how they may have to act on advice from former members of the house or on their own to dismiss the house or form a non populist government. I wonder what your take on this is (:
I really like our Westminster representative democracy with a monarch as head of state. But I hate what's happening to us. The pollies aren't working for us anymore and changing the vote colour doesn't do anything. It's always more of the same.
Does it complicate matters that the GG is Commander in Chief of the ADF ( on behalf of the sovereign ). If there were a coup / major civil unrest so parliament could not function could he/she call out the ADF ? Should this influence the appointment of an Administrator / GG with a military background.
its funny how you praised judges and there suitability and then "my husband is a judge" .I don't that mean in a negative fashion to be clear. Just genuinely hilarious and I actually agree. I actually think our own supreme court should have some military power. holt might actually be the most famous prime minister of Australia internationally due to his um accident. And the swimming pool. Probably more the swimming pool. some questions Theoretically could not a prime minister write a letter of advice (not sure on the exact mechanism)and instruct the GG to follow it in case of his death or the cabinet dying like the UK PMs submarine letters? For the dismal didn't charteis tell Kerr the queen would delay acting on that advice? In Grenada after the coup and invasion the GG took power would that be precedent? he did however ask the queen first .bit awkward if she said no . as always great video!
Judges are bound by precedent from higher courts. If they don't follow those precedents, they get overturned on appeal. It is only when you get to the very highest court that the Justices have a broader field of discretion. Even then, they are supposed to follow established methods of legal reasoning and fundamental constitutional principles. It's not the free-for-all that people imagine. Most judges frequently make decisions where they really don't like the outcome, but they have no choice because they are bound to apply precedent and uphold the law.
That's a pity. While no system is perfect, and every country can learn a lot from others, Australia is actually very good in terms of the independence and fairness of its electoral system. While the use of Governors-General and Governors is eccentric, and could be improved, it still operates fairly well in practice. There are plenty of worse systems around the world! The fact that Australia has one of the oldest continuing Constitutions in the world and has never had a revolution or civil war shows that it has managed its system of governance pretty well.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 your awesome video explaining lobbies showed that their interactions could be improved to the point they don't have our politicians waiting in line with hands out. I eagerly awaiting the release on the 30th April.. released on the 7 may and reintroduces day passes and recommends lobbies do better at pointing their names in the register. It seems no one is interested in doing better and would prefer the corruption and foreign lobbies to continue. Thank you for the work you do to bring a clearer picture to what our government does and doesn't do
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Could you imagine a $25/hour worker being 7 days late and have little to nothing to show for it? We expect far more from people we pay far less
"Has anyone in Australia thought about and prepared for how to deal with a catastrophe where the government and the parliament are wiped out?" Yes, frequently. I'd throw the biggest party I could afford to.
The State Constitutions are essentially continuations of colonial Constitutions that (like the UK at the time) did not adopt a full separation of powers.
Is there a constitutional way the Australian people can dispose of a current Government that is clearly not acting on behalf of the Australian people. Our current Government is clearly working with an foreign influence is this not treasonous?
On which planet the gifting of a zero-cost honour to visiting royals, VIP's, and PM's would be an "eccentric" thing to do. Just imagine doing something as eccentric as giving Paul Keating a knighthood of the White Elephant. Anne, those little quips are an insight into the republicanism behind the supposed non-partisanship.
I think you will find that on a recent ABC documentary many of Abbott's Liberal Party colleagues regarded it as an eccentric act. This is a pretty common view.
And on which planet, would you expect an educated person giving insigbt into her area of expertise be expected not to have political views. Is this any more than nitpicking? I doubt it.
@@7ismersenne, thank you for the input. The political views of Dr Twomey are significant as the subtext of the irrationally subjective quip about issuing a knighthood in the Order of Australia. The subject quip "eccentric" has no standing in fact, history, or in the establishment of the Order of Australia. "Eccentric" might be better applied to the irrational refusal to issue such knighthoods given the explicit provision for them, their historical and contemporary usage, their usage through the Commonwealth of Nations and their incredible value for money as a recognition of merit, the honour of a "Sir" or "Dame" costs the taxpayer zero dollars but helps to fuel the volunteer community that the nation depends upon. It is also eccentric that leaders of the republican agenda are also so fond of the knighthoods received as honours from other countries. It is more eccentric when you realise that orders of knighthood are not exclusively a monarchist thing - the French Legion of Honour for example. Hence my comment about "which planet" as you would either be from another planet (ignorant of the detail) or deceitful to express that a knighthood is eccentric. Dr Twomey's quip is gratuitous and purposefully politicising a topic that is only mocked in Australia by republicans in the spurious belief that it advantages that agenda - and is also clearly an extension of mocking Tony Abbott and the knighthood for Prince Philip. If one seeks to be a politically neutral academic trying to be an educator then slipping in political agendas without expressly acknowledging them makes the claim a farce. If however Dr Twomey wishes to be a political pundit then her comments would be clearly understood in their proper context and there would be no foul. In answer to your quip, I expect honesty and academic rigour from 'educated' persons. Only the uneducated or dishonest would demand otherwise.
The political parties in this country are private clubs with memberships, the position of Prime Minister is a public office, so how can a CEO of a private organisation be elected to a public office?? You either serve the people or your private organisation anything else is a conflict of interest.
Why do we in Australia call Charles " Charles III ). He is the king of Australia independent of being king of England, so since he is the first King Charles of Australia. ( He would be King Charles 1 of Scotland)
As I've explained before, this was also an issue with Elizabeth II. PM Whitlam wanted the "II" removed from her title in Australia, but she disagreed and won. She did not want to reopen the issue of her title in Scotland, which had previously arisen in litigation. Charles has followed the same lead.
Those you have instructed in the classroom move by the passage of time into the corridors of power, taking with them the accumulated wisdom of the ages. I still fondly recall Prof Les Zines whenever constitutional law is discussed, and he certainly influenced me when I was a public servant in Canberra
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent Video. Thank you for posting, this channel deserves way more views!
I quite agree!
THANKS MADAM, you did clarify and solidified the basis on the constitutionality of my claims.
I just saw this video, and I am very much enjoying these videos. It should be noted that during the time of the Coronation of King Charles III and all the state governors and the Governor General being in London, the former Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrove AK CVO MC acted in the capacity of Administrator of the Commonwealth
Yes - it was an unusual arrangement, but a sensible one in the circumstances.
It does seem odd naming a swimming pool after Prime Minister Holt. But then a former Victorian Premier had the Bolte Bridge, a major road, named after him after killing a farmer driving with his blood samples going missing afterwards. At least Harold Holt had contributed to the swimming community.
another good one
Thank you that was very interesting and informative.
Nice video, I enjoy watching your content 😃
A more "meaty" exploration of government in a crisis in Britain can be found in an episode of the Duncan Campbell documentary series "Secret Society" entitled "In Time Of Crisis."
Thanks - I'll look out for it.
A really fantastic explanation. Speaking of this issue, it does remind me quite a bit of the unique changes made during April/May 2023, when all of the State Governors and GG we’re out of the country for the coronation and David Hurley was made Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth. A rather fascinating and unique arrangement that, while only for about a fortnight, was rather bizarre, and would be fascinating to have the legal advice made public for. (Informally, I think it was an inexplicable and faulty move of constitutional grounds, but it definitely makes for a fascinating bit of trivia)
Yes, it was interesting. I can see why they did it - they wanted someone in the seat who knew all the practices and the rules and would keep things ticking over without a fuss. Section 4 of the Constitution provides for the Commonwealth to be administered, in the absence of the Governor-General, by 'such person as the Queen may appoint' - and in this case the monarch did make the appointment.
@alexpentland5462
"Speaking of this issue, it does remind me quite a bit of the unique changes made during April/May 2023, when all of the State Governors and GG we’re out of the country for the coronation and David Hurley was made Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth."
The then His Excellency General the Honorable David Hurley was the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia from the First of July 2019 to First of July 2024. I think you are referring to the former Governor General, General the Honorable Sir Peter Cosgrove who was appointed as the Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia while the Governor General and the Governors of the States were attending the Coronation of King Charles The Third.
As a Canadian, I prefer the Australian system of using the State Governors as Administrators than the Letters Patent Creating the Office of the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada that designates the Chief Justice of Canada as Administrator. I see it as a conflict of interest as Administrator exercises Executive Powers on the advice of Ministers responsible to the House of Commons, whilae the Chief Justice presides over the Supreme Court of Canada, and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are entrenched in the Constitution of Canada pursuant to the Constitution Act 1982, Part One.
However, there was nothing wrong with Chief Justice Richard Wagner's administration of the Government of Canada from January to July 2021.
One thing that I would like to add concerns the continuity of the Federal Executive Council. Many of the powers of the G-G are limited under §63 to the G-G acting on the advice of the FEC, and crucially §32 provides that the issuance of writs for elections for the House of Representatives is one of these powers of "the Governor-General in Council". Under §64 all the ministers of state must be appointed to the FEC, and it is the custom that only serving ministers are summoned to or attend the meetings of the Federal Executive Council (which are formalities). But when ministers lose office, or even their seats in Parliament, they are not ordinarily expelled from the FEC. The Cabinet of the day, consisting of serving ministers, is technically a committee of the FEC. So, supposing a catastrophe that exterminated Parliament, and therefore the Cabinet, the G-G or administrator could summon such surviving former ministers as were available to meet as the FEC and advise him or her to issue the writs to elect a new House of Reps.
Yes, that's right. Although I imagine that in the circumstances the Governor-General would want to be careful to summon former members in such a way as to avoid any appearance of political bias. But it would certainly be a way of seeking advise from wise elders and trying to gain a political consensus of how to deal with the crisis.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Just so. That would preserve the appearances better than appointing new councillors to give the required advice - but since appointing coucillors is a power of the G-G rather than of the G-G in Council, even that is available as a last resort.
Although this is untypical in the case where all current mps, senators and the GG suddenly disappear forever, presumably a Governor recieves a dormant commision, however my question is would that Administrator act on the advice of members of a previous cabinet (given that it can be argued that they are still members of the executive council)
Also cases like this seem to show that our system would have been at a real detriment if we just bunged on a President in 1999 I really don’t think our system works very well if you combine the role of monarch and GG and you only outline how they are to be appointed... For example in cases where the President is incapacitated does the President (using the powers of the monarch) appoint an administrator (in line with section 4)?
Once again amazing video :)
Yes, former Ministers technically remain members of the Executive Council, so they could be called upon in a an emergency/catastrophe scenario, if needed. The problem is that the only precedents we have concern coups/invasions (eg Grenada and Fiji) when there are disputes about who is entitled to exercise executive power, so there is little to draw upon. There is some recognition, however, that a Governor-General does hold reserve powers to act in an emergency - but only for the purpose of restoring constitutional governance.
As for a republic - yes, it is important to build in provisions to deal with sudden vacancies in the office of head of state. But if you retain the role of State Governors, then you could draw on essentially the same chain of command.
Thanks Dr Twomey, great video. Hopefully someone will make a disaster movie putting this to use (:
Have you made a video regarding a potential conflict between the Houses and High Court? While reading HoR Practice I daydreamed a scenario where the Governor General has to intervene to prevent the improper dismissal of justices, and how they may have to act on advice from former members of the house or on their own to dismiss the house or form a non populist government. I wonder what your take on this is (:
Now that is a nightmare scenario! No, I haven't worked through this type of controversy, and hope very much that I never need to do so.
The real question is: who do we get to play Kiefer Sutherland's part?
Russell Crowe does the Keifer and Cate Blanchette should do Gevernor General
I really like our Westminster representative democracy with a monarch as head of state. But I hate what's happening to us. The pollies aren't working for us anymore and changing the vote colour doesn't do anything. It's always more of the same.
Does it complicate matters that the GG is Commander in Chief of the ADF ( on behalf of the sovereign ). If there were a coup / major civil unrest so parliament could not function could he/she call out the ADF ? Should this influence the appointment of an Administrator / GG with a military background.
its funny how you praised judges and there suitability and then "my husband is a judge" .I don't that mean in a negative fashion to be clear. Just genuinely hilarious and I actually agree. I actually think our own supreme court should have some military power.
holt might actually be the most famous prime minister of Australia internationally due to his um accident. And the swimming pool. Probably more the swimming pool.
some questions
Theoretically could not a prime minister write a letter of advice (not sure on the exact mechanism)and instruct the GG to follow it in case of his death or the cabinet dying like the UK PMs submarine letters?
For the dismal didn't charteis tell Kerr the queen would delay acting on that advice?
In Grenada after the coup and invasion the GG took power would that be precedent? he did however ask the queen first .bit awkward if she said no .
as always great video!
Professor, what is your view if judges were to act in accordance with their political views as is now happening in the US?
Judges are bound by precedent from higher courts. If they don't follow those precedents, they get overturned on appeal. It is only when you get to the very highest court that the Justices have a broader field of discretion. Even then, they are supposed to follow established methods of legal reasoning and fundamental constitutional principles.
It's not the free-for-all that people imagine. Most judges frequently make decisions where they really don't like the outcome, but they have no choice because they are bound to apply precedent and uphold the law.
As much as I enjoy your videos, I think I'm slowly learning to have a strong distaste for the existing systems of Australian governance.
That's a pity. While no system is perfect, and every country can learn a lot from others, Australia is actually very good in terms of the independence and fairness of its electoral system. While the use of Governors-General and Governors is eccentric, and could be improved, it still operates fairly well in practice. There are plenty of worse systems around the world! The fact that Australia has one of the oldest continuing Constitutions in the world and has never had a revolution or civil war shows that it has managed its system of governance pretty well.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 your awesome video explaining lobbies showed that their interactions could be improved to the point they don't have our politicians waiting in line with hands out. I eagerly awaiting the release on the 30th April.. released on the 7 may and reintroduces day passes and recommends lobbies do better at pointing their names in the register. It seems no one is interested in doing better and would prefer the corruption and foreign lobbies to continue.
Thank you for the work you do to bring a clearer picture to what our government does and doesn't do
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Could you imagine a $25/hour worker being 7 days late and have little to nothing to show for it? We expect far more from people we pay far less
"Has anyone in Australia thought about and prepared for how to deal with a catastrophe where the government and the parliament are wiped out?"
Yes, frequently.
I'd throw the biggest party I could afford to.
Why doesn’t separation of powers apply at the State Level?
The State Constitutions are essentially continuations of colonial Constitutions that (like the UK at the time) did not adopt a full separation of powers.
After Harold Holt died
Is there a constitutional way the Australian people can dispose of a current Government that is clearly not acting on behalf of the Australian people. Our current Government is clearly working with an foreign influence is this not treasonous?
The Constitution provides for regular elections to change the government.
On which planet the gifting of a zero-cost honour to visiting royals, VIP's, and PM's would be an "eccentric" thing to do. Just imagine doing something as eccentric as giving Paul Keating a knighthood of the White Elephant. Anne, those little quips are an insight into the republicanism behind the supposed non-partisanship.
I think you will find that on a recent ABC documentary many of Abbott's Liberal Party colleagues regarded it as an eccentric act. This is a pretty common view.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thus the widening disconnect between the political class and the public is illustrated.
And on which planet, would you expect an educated person giving insigbt into her area of expertise be expected not to have political views. Is this any more than nitpicking? I doubt it.
@@aussiereuben1 "widening disconnect" or merely you pontificating? Give us a break.
@@7ismersenne, thank you for the input. The political views of Dr Twomey are significant as the subtext of the irrationally subjective quip about issuing a knighthood in the Order of Australia. The subject quip "eccentric" has no standing in fact, history, or in the establishment of the Order of Australia. "Eccentric" might be better applied to the irrational refusal to issue such knighthoods given the explicit provision for them, their historical and contemporary usage, their usage through the Commonwealth of Nations and their incredible value for money as a recognition of merit, the honour of a "Sir" or "Dame" costs the taxpayer zero dollars but helps to fuel the volunteer community that the nation depends upon. It is also eccentric that leaders of the republican agenda are also so fond of the knighthoods received as honours from other countries. It is more eccentric when you realise that orders of knighthood are not exclusively a monarchist thing - the French Legion of Honour for example. Hence my comment about "which planet" as you would either be from another planet (ignorant of the detail) or deceitful to express that a knighthood is eccentric. Dr Twomey's quip is gratuitous and purposefully politicising a topic that is only mocked in Australia by republicans in the spurious belief that it advantages that agenda - and is also clearly an extension of mocking Tony Abbott and the knighthood for Prince Philip. If one seeks to be a politically neutral academic trying to be an educator then slipping in political agendas without expressly acknowledging them makes the claim a farce. If however Dr Twomey wishes to be a political pundit then her comments would be clearly understood in their proper context and there would be no foul. In answer to your quip, I expect honesty and academic rigour from 'educated' persons. Only the uneducated or dishonest would demand otherwise.
The political parties in this country are private clubs with memberships, the position of Prime Minister is a public office, so how can a CEO of a private organisation be elected to a public office?? You either serve the people or your private organisation anything else is a conflict of interest.
Why do we in Australia call Charles " Charles III ). He is the king of Australia independent of being king of England, so since he is the first King Charles of Australia. ( He would be King Charles 1 of Scotland)
As I've explained before, this was also an issue with Elizabeth II. PM Whitlam wanted the "II" removed from her title in Australia, but she disagreed and won. She did not want to reopen the issue of her title in Scotland, which had previously arisen in litigation. Charles has followed the same lead.
Where do learned constitutional law academics sit in the Chain of Governance? 😆😑🤔🫢😬😵💫
I'm afraid we are not part of the chain at all - which is probably a good thing! Although I am called upon for advice every now and again...
Those you have instructed in the classroom move by the passage of time into the corridors of power, taking with them the accumulated wisdom of the ages. I still fondly recall Prof Les Zines whenever constitutional law is discussed, and he certainly influenced me when I was a public servant in Canberra
@@glennsimpson7659 Thanks. That's very kind.