I understood the bones of this history and most of the flesh, and thought it quite ironic when Labor Politians complained of Campbell Newman's "excesses", and the then lack of a upper House.
Thank you for the video. I have long wondered how this came about, losing the legislative Council. I knew when we lost the LC but not the details. We in Queensland desperately need a LC for reviewing government activities. A house of review would, I believe, save the government of the day from itself. A unicameral system may get things done quickly, but has often made disastrous decisions, no matter how many committees they have established.
The people of U.S. state of Nebraska approved a constitutional amendment abolishing its bicameral legislature and replacing it with a unicameral legislature in 1934. George W. Norris, one of Nebraska's U.S. Senators at the time, campaigned for this reform and cited Queensland as an example. Prior to 1937, the Nebraska state senate had 33 members and the state house of representatives had 100 members. The unicameral legislature first convened in 1937 with 43 members, who are addressed as "senator." Currently there are 49 senators in the Nebraska legislature.
Meanwhile, the two Territory Assemblies were established without upper houses to begin with. Understanding the history behind that would be fascinating.
I don’t know the full history, but I suppose it could be because the Commonwealth Parliament can somewhat “review” the laws passed in the territories. For better or worse. For example, with euthanasia a few years back. That is compared to the states which have power to make laws on a lot more things. I think about it like how councils are usually unicameral but state governments can somewhat override them (in a different way to the federal govt and territories though).
I’ve really been enjoying your videos and I’m currently binge watching them all. I mentioned it in another video but one video I suggested was the discussion on abolishing the states and moving to a system of just a federal government and local governments. I’m personally opposed to it for many reasons but maybe you can weigh in on this topic and explain the validity of it.
Thanks. Glad you liked it. I obviously need to explore more of what is in the Freeman Delusion, because I wouldn't have expected that the abolition of the Queensland Legislative Council would have fallen within pseudolaw theories. I actually just did this video as a relief from all that!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 There's several hundred individual arguments of why "Government authority is defective or limited", Queensland has quite a few state-based arguments, such as the abolition of the upper house of the Parliament being unlawful, that the Office of Governor was altered in breach of the entrenched provisions of the Constitution Act 1867, and the government was replaced with a company called the Brigalow Corporation. The Fee simple Alienation argument also originates there.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 A good example can be found in Bowyer v de Jersey [2017] QSC 340, where the appellant contended that the Legislative Council was abolished unlawfully because the 1921 State Parliament did not have the powers to bypass triple-entrenched provisions to amend the Constitution Act 1867 that made changes to the composition of the legislature.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 The scope of pseudolaw in Australia is much broader than most imagine. It is rather well summed up in the words of Latham CJ at page 408 of South Australia v The Commonwealth [1942] HCA 14, regarding what he called "pretended laws" and that "A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all." Latham CJ goes on to explain that civil disobedience to a "pretended law" is justified, and that "Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it." regardless of whether they have a court ruling in their favour or not. It is about constitutional invalidity. It is not "sovereign citizen" ideology, hence I have for a decade despised media and academics using that nomenclature. (I have refused all media interviews since 2022 for these reasons) Harry Hobbs recent work in the UNSW Law Journal relies heavily on my research, and yet still uses the US nomenclature, much to my disappointment. Australian pseudolaw provably outdates the US phenomenon. The inclusion of some foreign motifs post 2000 doesn't alter the base argumentation, which is purely domestic concepts and constitutional misconceptions.
Rather surprising that the impulse was to abolish an appointed body rather than make it an elected body (assuming Labour was performing well in elections). From there I'd imagine you could just run joint sittings and de facto abolish the upper house, although I guess this lead to some inconvenient procedure like requiring an extra reading in the same chamber.
It seems that in the early days of Western Australia, the upper house was initially appointed with non-binding elections (that would inform the appointments but were without an obligation to be followed). This system was fairly soon replaced by elections to the upper house. I could be confusing WA with someplace else though, only recently learnt of it so I thought I'd add it as reply.
No it’s not Redistribution is controlled by an independent system like in every state and federally Legislative council though should never have been abolished but was in need of reform Should be reestablished
Am I right in saying with this system of no upper house, that the lower house could be voted in by 30% of the population of QLD and make laws that the other 70% don't want?
Pretty much. The voting system changes whenever it would benefit the government of the day as well, so in one election it might be first past the post and the next it might be preferential and in the next it might be a mix of both, depending on which will benefit the party in power more.
I think the lack of an upper house in Queensland is one of the chief reasons corruption and outrageous politicians, policy and laws have characterised Queensland political tradition. I’m not surprised they ignored the people’s wishes, afterall unless it’s about Brisbane the Queensland parliament is uninterested in what concerns the people.
I think you'll find corruption was already ingrained, having viewed the 1867 Queensland Constitution, it makes no mention of political parties. So it appears that there are those unconstitutional politicians that don't care. It appears its more about their party than the people.
It doesn't seem right does it?, I always thought there was a maxim in law or something that said "the law must not only do what is right but also appear to do what is right" but maybe that was TV
What it looked like if they abolished the postion of state governor? seems like a consitutional monstrosity to image. but great video and i wonder if being so controversial it wasnt for the best if the council went .i doubt it would actually have the soft power to prevent the lower house from doing something bad without outcry. the new south wales story is hilarious
Queensland has two constitutions. In enacting the new Constitution of Queensland 2001, they had to leave certain sections well alone in the old Constitution Act 1867, (most relating to the Office of Governor) because they are entrenched provisions that can't be altered, (even impliedly) by the Queensland Parliament without a state referendum. The abolition of the upper house is also entrenched, so that anyone trying to restore it would need a carried state referendum to do so.
@@auspseudolaw with Repubilcanism polling at around 40 percent I am suprised a state hasnt tried to recently.althrough I suppose its a good thing it hasnt.Thank you
@@cesargodoy2920 Queensland didn't even alter the Royal titles their Governor assented legislation with after the Commonwealth's Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 because of this entrenchment requiring referendum. They only got around it with the Australia Acts in 1986, because the entrenchment prohibition only applied to Queensland Parliament, not the Commonwealth or the UK Parliament. A few cases alleged the Australia Acts were invalid, due to the Australia Act (Request) Act 1985 (Qld) seeking alterations to the Office of Governor without referendum. (Sharples v Arnison [2002] 2 Qd R 444, and Kelly v Campbell [2002] FCA 1125) Then even Justice Michael Kirby dissented in Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) HCA 67 because section 106 of the Constitution guarantees that a State constitution may be altered only in accordance with its own provisions, hence not by the Commonwealth Parliament.
Having lived & worked in qld during 1990's till 2016(officially), and using qld yearbooks (ABS publication) I was surprised how such discrimination could be allowed. Contrary to our National Anthem, contrary to the symbolism of the 7 pointed star on our flag, and swindling the crowns representative where what a single chamber passes can be identified as carefully considered. It takes two chambers everywhere else for that. And isnt what her majesty's Queen Victoria's Subjects signed up to (ref to referendum pre1901).
The referendums in the 1890s concerned the approval of the Commonwealth Constitution, not State Constitutions (although it obviously had some effect upon what the States could do). As the High Court said in Clayton v Heffron, the Commonwealth Constitution did not restrict how a State dealt with its own Constitution, such as changing to a unicameral Parliament.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thankyou. Got it in one. Fails to reflect "fairly" on our flag, that is the Point of the star representing Qld standing tall in "equal measure" when its "equal measure" qualificatication was signed away. And now consider the 'real estate' afforded to Qld on the shield of Our Coat of Arms. Now consider "advance", "fair", "and Free", "to make this Commonwealth of Ours renown of all the lands". And ownership of Our Commonwealth (Commonwealth Citizens?), stewardship or managers in trust on Our behalf. Ultimately answerabl e to who or is it "a what"?
I'm watching this with the UK House of Lords and Canadian Federal Senate - both essentially filled with mostly appointees - in mind. Or alternatively, the legislative chamber equivalent of "branch stacking".
In principle, appointing people to an upper House can be a good thing if you want it to be a genuine House of review. You can appoint experts in different fields, so that you can have genuine and informed scrutiny. The problems arise, however, when people are appointed for party affiliation rather than expertise. But if you had a good robust system of appointment, it could lead to better outcomes.
Neglected to mention: The QLD legislative council still serves an important function as a venue for mock parliaments for visiting school children (much like old parliament house in Canberra)
Yes, it's good to have a venue for those events. Although in NSW, the Schools Constitutional Convention is held in the Legislative Assembly chamber, which remains a functioning parliamentary chamber - they just choose a non-sitting day.
Thanks for this one! As a former Qldr, it shows why the state now swings hard at elections and how Sir Joh got away so much. I didnt realise the LC were appointed positions by the Governor and not elected positions. 🤔 Sounds like a House of Lords construction. In my view having lived in both Qld and Vic (and indeed in Australia), two houses deliver better legislation and the government IS held to account. The notable example was the 2004 Aus Gov Lib/Nat majority in both houses where they were dumped at the following election, because people did not approve, whereas they tend to "not disapprove" of an upper house that acts as a check and balance on the government.
Joh loved Queensland best Qld ever had. If not for Joh Qld would not have power stations electric rail expo 88 Riverside express way. If the Wilder Smith Plan for motorways was not cancelled by idiot Goss we would have a motorway from the western freeway to Caboolture. Goss didn't last one term Labor has destroyed Qld and doing the same in Fed politics
All the states had unelected upper houses back then. QLD made their system more democratic by abolishing the appointed Upper House. All the other states eventually dealt with theirs by making them elected Houses.
@@MatthewSwift-xc8sn Wayne Goss won three elections and was premier from 1989-1996. Sir Joh's government is well-documented as having been corrupt, as was the Queensland police at the time. People's basic freedoms were trampled on and several cabinet ministers were jailed. Sir Joh didn't even know what the separation of powers was.
Victoria is by far the worst run state in Australia though. That's probably because multiculturalism and the city- centric population has ruined Victoria more than the system itself. Too much credence is given to a system and too little to the people who run it.
Thanks for this informative video Professor Twomey, you explained it so well. Just a question, would you consider doing a video on the dismissal of the Lang government in NSW in 1932? I always thought this was more intriguing than the 1975 scenario as the government had a majority in the Legislative Assembly and supply wasn’t blocked by the Legislative Council. Would be interested in knowing what the constitutional / legal reasons Sir Philip Game used for his decision. Cheers Professor and thanks again
The leader of the Labor ‘suicide squad’, Alfred Jones, born and raised in Gayndah, was my great-great-uncle. His brother-in-law, Henry Leggett (my great-grandfather) was mayor of Gayndah for 25 years (between the two world wars). After being appointed to the upper house, and successfully leading the vote to abolish the Legislative Council, Alf Jones returned to the Legislative Assembly, and later became a popular Lord Mayor of Brisbane during the 1930s … and probably helped his 17-year-old nephew, Uvedale Leggett (my grandfather), get his first and only full-time job as a draughtsman on the Brisbane City Council. (He retired in 1984 after 48 years in the job.) Shocking his Methodist family, in 1938, young Uvedale (called ‘Joe’) married his Catholic sweetheart, Violet MacMahon (my grandmother), a niece of John Dash, Minister for Transport in the Forgan-Smith state Labor government (1932-42).
I have often wondered whether this is the reason that the Queensland Parliament has a Scrutiny of Legislation Committee? (The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the 53rd Parliament was established by the Queensland Legislative Assembly on 15 September 1995. The committee's area of responsibility as set out in the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 is to consider the application of fundamental legislative principles to particular Bills and subordinate legislation; and the lawfulness of particular subordinate legislation by examining all Bills and subordinate legislation. The committee also has a general monitoring role in relation to various matters, including: regulatory impact statements; explanatory notes; and tabling and disallowance of subordinate legislation) (Taken from Qld Parl website)
Yes, it is important to have such a committee, particularly when you only have one House. But the effectiveness of the committee will depend upon whether it is controlled by the Government or acts independently (and I have no personal knowledge of how this committee actually operates - so it may be good, or it may not).
Very late to this, so you may not see, but how are those old High Court precedents consistent with the reasoning of cases like Kable and Kirk which say the presupposition there are superior courts in States to receive jurisdiction meant the Constitution protected those institutions. The reasoning appears inconsistent even if the precedents involve different institutions.
As a Victorian, I assumed all state upper houses were elected. Are they all now elected, following in the footsteps of the changes to the British House of Lords over the last few decades?
Yes, the rest of the upper Houses are all now directly elected. For quite a while, NSW had an indirectly elected one, chosen collectively by the Members of the Houses. Maybe I'll do a video on that one day too.
The Governor-General always gives royal assent on behalf of the King/Queen (unless they are present to do it themselves). That's the major part of their job.
@@shellyaus "While the measure was reserved for the signification of the King's pleasure under the Australian States Constitution Act 1907 (Imp), aggrieved members of the Legislative Council presented a petition to the Imperial government at Westminster that no further action be taken on the measure itself until a referendum had been held, or until the Privy Council had determined that the legislation was valid. Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary, evidently accepting the Privy Council's reasoning in McCawley v the King, concluded that the issue was a matter "for determination locally" and declined to accede to the petition. And so, on 23 March 1922, the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922 (Qld) received Royal Assent." - "After Ryan: The Storm" (Selden Society Lecture, Supreme Court, Queensland, 24 March 2022 by P A Keane, Justice of the High Court of Australia)
@@shellyaus In case you're wondering, McCawley v R [1920] AC 691 was an appeal from the High Court in McCawley v The King [1918] HCA 55 regarding the power of Queensland Parliament to amend its own Constitution Act 1867. It had provided that all appointments to the Supreme Court be for life, but the Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 (Qld) limited this appointment to seven years. McCawley was a justice of the Supreme Court, and challenged this implied amendment of the Constitution Act 1867. The Privy Council held that unless there's particular provisions prescribing "manner and form" for amending particular parts of the constitution, then State parliaments can amend their own constitutions simply by enacting legislation inconsistent with its provisions, as easily as any other Act. The Privy Council said, they occupy "precisely the same position as a Dog Act or any other Act, however humble its subject matter."
I'm a Queenslander. There are a few things I'm proud of with regards to my state, they are: (1) that we were the first to abolish capital punishment in the entire then British Empire (in 1922); (2) that we don't observe daylight savings as there's no clear evidence of its benefits; (3) that we were the first to introduce compulsory voting; and (4) we are one of only two states, Tasmania being the other, that I'm aware of that provides free ambulance care to all residents that are Aussie citizens.
That's an impressive record. *You should have Daylight saving* ---------- Victoria & Tasmania could do with some of the Sunshine you've saved up ---- *Remember - give to the needy* 😉🙂😊
Its unfair to say compulsory voting, you're not obliged to actually vote, yet it is an affront to democracy, refusing to respect a vital pillar of democracy to record a vote of abstention freely without consequence(like we can in the UN and every where there is democracy in the world), in line with the second part of the second line of our Nat'l Anthem. When you disrespect a pillar of democracy, what you have left over is not democracy!
Daylight saving does not fade the curtains in fact it delivers measurable power savings. France being the best example Also, it is not compulsory voting, its compulsory attendance of the poll. Saying QLD provides free Ambulance services unlike any other state must be a new phenomenon. Could you explain this further for us, thanks
Thanks for this, which is very topical here in the UK at the moment when once again the government is proposing to do something about House of Lords reform/replacement (although it doesn't really seem all that high on the agenda at the moment). Second chambers are always interesting from a constitutional point of view. It's interesting to see that apart from Queensland all the Australian states have retained theirs (although by a narrow margin in some places it would seem from what you said), and in the US all the states have retained theirs (except Nebraska), whereas in Canada I think all the provinces now have unicameral legislatures (as do the subsidiary assemblies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland here). Second chambers seem to run the double risk of either opposing their first chambers too much (as in Queensland) and the opposite problem of not opposing them enough (as in New Zealand, where their Legislative Council was apparently abolished because it never did anything more than echo what happened in the lower house).
In my view second chambers are really important, or otherwise anything can be rushed through the lower House with little if any scrutiny. When I worked for the NSW Cabinet Office, the Legislative Council would drive me mad with some of its behaviour, but despite this, it also reinforced to me how the mere existence of an upper House and the consequential necessity of being able to explain and justify bills to get them passed, is essential to a democracy.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I fully agree with you! It's partly a 'checks and balances' matter, but also a matter of having to think more carefully about things if you are forced to discuss them with people outside your own little group.
@@Shalott63 From what I understand, PM Starmer and his party don't want to abolish Britain's upper house. They want to replace it with "an elected chamber of regions and nations”. i.e. no more Peers and Lord Spirituals. So, I suppose that would mean a name change too.
@@mindi2050 Yes, that was the initial proposal, and it would have meant a different name. But I believe he got urged to reconsider by his own supporters in the Lords, and at the moment the only proposal for change within the lifetime of this Parliament is to remove the last remaining hereditary peers from sitting in the House. From Labour's point of view at least, one of the problems is that a house based (even partly) on 'inherited privilege' can have no legitimacy in a modern society. But the whole thing is more complicated than can easily be fitted into a TH-cam comment! The real abuse is the way that the PM can in effect appoint whoever s/he likes to be in the House and there are no effective checks on that; also that after a period in which appointments have been marked more by enthusiasm than discretion the numbers of those with seats in the Lords is hovering at about 800, making it the second largest legislative body in the world. But my feeling is that blatantly partial appointment of cronies (in one case including the PM's own brother) in recent years has brought the system into greater disrepute than any number of inherited peerages could. NB One problem with having an elected upper house would be the almost inevitable loss of most of the members with no party affiliation, who currently make up the second largest group in the Lords. So I would prefer an appointed upper house with a much more rigorous, cross-party system of agreeing the appointments, that would not be so open to abuse (and perhaps with members appointed for fixed terms rather than for life). But if we were to have an elected upper house I would prefer one elected by proportional representation (region by region if that would be helpful) to offset the first-past-the-post system for elections to the Commons, which tends to produce artificial majorities in the Commons when there is no majority support for them in the popular vote.
@@Shalott63 I'm not British but I lived in the UK for several years and still (try to) follow politics there. I'm just amazed that the House of Lords has lasted as long as it has in a liberal democracy like the UK. Although I know there have been some major reforms to Britain's upper house over the years. If ever the UK does decide to replace their House of Lords, I can see a Canadian style upper house working in the UK i.e. senators are appointed (not elected) and are selected from the Canadian provinces and territories.
Elected upper Houses (eg in Victoria) could also be very conservative and obstructive, particularly where there was a property qualification. Overall, Labor opposed upper Houses for a long time.
Hello Professor from Sydney. If I may... You make mention of Sir Winston Churchill; at that time, secretary of state for the colonies. I deduce Churchill recommended the assent to the King? Moreover and notwithstanding; in your words, 'in the form of a Bill' correct me somewhat Professor... but isn't Royal assent only after a second reading of an introduced bill and ringing of the bells? 🍰 🧠
"While the measure was reserved for the signification of the King's pleasure under the Australian States Constitution Act 1907 (Imp), aggrieved members of the Legislative Council presented a petition to the Imperial government at Westminster that no further action be taken on the measure itself until a referendum had been held, or until the Privy Council had determined that the legislation was valid. Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary, evidently accepting the Privy Council's reasoning in McCawley v the King, concluded that the issue was a matter "for determination locally" and declined to accede to the petition. And so, on 23 March 1922, the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922 (Qld) received Royal Assent." - "After Ryan: The Storm" (Selden Society Lecture, Supreme Court, Queensland, 24 March 2022 by P A Keane, Justice of the High Court of Australia)
In case you're wondering, McCawley v R [1920] AC 691 was an appeal from the High Court in McCawley v The King [1918] HCA 55 regarding the power of Queensland Parliament to amend its own Constitution Act 1867. It had provided that all appointments to the Supreme Court be for life, but the Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 (Qld) limited this appointment to seven years. McCawley was a justice of the Supreme Court, and challenged this implied amendment of the Constitution Act 1867. The Privy Council held that unless there's particular provisions prescribing "manner and form" for amending particular parts of the constitution, then State parliaments can amend their own constitutions simply by enacting legislation inconsistent with its provisions, as easily as any other Act. The Privy Council said, they occupy "precisely the same position as a Dog Act or any other Act, however humble its subject matter."
@@johnfitzpatrick2469It's an irrelevant question to the reality of how IT IS, and besides, I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't have a political view, I'm an anarchist, and have refused to even vote since I became eligible 35 years ago. 😄
I think you might be thinking of royal 'consent', which is given in the UK before the second reading to any bill that affects the royal prerogative, before the bill is passed. Royal 'assent' is a different process, given after the bill has (ordinarily) passed both Houses of Parliament. In Australia, royal assent is given by the Governor-General (re Commonwealth bills) and the State Governor (re State bills). In the past, there was a British law that required certain types of State bills to be reserved for the monarch's assent in London, which happened on the advice of British (not Australian) ministers. That is what the video was addressing.
Really enjoy your content. I was hoping you could do a video on the legitimacy of the current situation with us 1. imposing an AG to fight "antisemitism" as it imposes strange and specific laws and creates a unique group above others. 2. How our current ignorance towards the international courts rulings puts us in direct line as supporting genocide supplying weapons apartheid. 3. our ability to create no confidence in our government. any of these issues would be warmly welcomed and on topic. What's going on is a disgrace and with these messages on behalf of 'all australians' i feel disgusted.
Joh's abuses - at least some of them - might have been avoided. A lot of people played a heavy price because of Ted Theodore (and it is now known, some with their lives).
As explained in the video, the 'law' did indeed allow the Legislative Council to be abolished by the enactment of ordinary legislation, as recognised by the High Court.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 It's the abusive part though. The people did not want the upper house abolished, yet labor did it anyway. It's like how a police officer can run a red light, but doing it do get to Macca's faster. Sure, they can do it, but it's abusing their power.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 While it was legal, it was an abuse of the law. For example, a police officer could pull you over for a prescribed purpose like a breath test. Waiting near your workplace everyday to do that immediately, and then following them and doing it numerous times would be technically legal, but abusive. Make sense?
I’ve been inside the Legislative Council chamber in Qld parliament and heard the story of how it’s members voted themselves out of existence. Thanks for the video.
We noticed the Trucking Laws were based in Qld, so they can and have changed the laws without most knowing. Eg. Sect. 10.....Where they took an intended Civil offence and placed it into the CRIMINAL Jurisdiction.....
Could you do a lecture on why Tasmania's Lower House is called the House of Assembly rather than the Legislative Assembly as it is in all other states? Then could you explain why alone, the Tasmanian Lower House has multimember electorates and most peculiarly has single member Upper House Electortates?
South Australia also has a 'House of Assembly'. I don't know why - probably just an historic quirk. But as for the electoral system in Tasmania, there's lots of interesting history there.
At the end of section 128 it states No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representa- tives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law. Is this relevant in this mater?
You're saying that the change from 50% elected, 50% appointed QLD parliament to a 100% elected parliament is working against democracy? There's a pretty strong argument that the unicameral parliament was twice as democratic and the previous one.
It's the old problem of dishonest campaigning versus the reality of responsible government. Labour often gets elected on expectations of favoritism by certain areas such as trade unions. Promises and debts are accrued during elections that prove to be impossible in reality. Coloured words like democracy have different meanings for different people. The secrecy of governments acts against election promises when reality is exposed on taking office. The best we can hope for is responsibilty in office. Personally I believe that Labour do a better job of transparency than the libs. No government will keep everyone happy but I think we get a better deal than most of the world.
As Aneurin Bevan might have said, "one of only two examples of 'Winnie' doing something that benefitted the Colonies - the other being losing the 1945 General Election to Labour and Clement Atlee." 😇
And importantly the parliamentary committees in the lower house can be added and removed at the whim of a majority government removing review opportunities for members. A senate with a much more government-critical composition acts as a house of review which is sorely missed.
Personally, I think that upper Houses, while frequently annoying, are really important. Otherwise, a government with a majority in the lower House can shove through any shoddy law, without giving it proper consideration. The mere fact that it will have to explain it and justify it in the upper House to win the necessary votes to get it passed means that governments are far more careful and measured in the bills they put to Parliament. So even if the upper House does not itself amend the bill in any way, it has still had a useful effect because its existence causes greater care to be exercised by the government.
Good move by Qld, which is better off without an upper house. Upper houses generally, particularly in NSW, seem not to represent the people, but only exist to frustrate the will of the people. The British House of Lords is a classic example. The Australian Senate is different because it's membership is based on the populations of each state and territory so, while not perfect, it is at least partly representative of the public.
No. The Australian Senate is not based on "the population of each state". Each state has exactly the same number of senators, regardless of their state populations. It's the Lower House that is based on population size. "The House of Representatives currently has 151 Members. Each Member represents an electoral division. The boundaries of these electorates are adjusted from time to time so that they all contain approximately equal numbers of electors".
![โรงเรียนห้ามรัก โดนจับได้ตาย...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4u02Sbr556Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I very much enjoy these videos. So much detail put simply and easily to understand!
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoy them.
@@constitutionalclarion1901💯
Really enjoy your briefs, they often save me having to dig through my Blackshield & Williams textbook again.
Thanks - although the books will give you the details and footnotes that I can't give in a video!
Thank you Professor Anne for a clear and concise explanation of a subject I had wondered about and I'm a 66year old male
I understood the bones of this history and most of the flesh, and thought it quite ironic when Labor Politians complained of Campbell Newman's "excesses", and the then lack of a upper House.
Thank you for the video. I have long wondered how this came about, losing the legislative Council. I knew when we lost the LC but not the details. We in Queensland desperately need a LC for reviewing government activities. A house of review would, I believe, save the government of the day from itself. A unicameral system may get things done quickly, but has often made disastrous decisions, no matter how many committees they have established.
I agree. I would also like a referendum on a state for North Queensland.
@@dfor50 And why not?
The people of U.S. state of Nebraska approved a constitutional amendment abolishing its bicameral legislature and replacing it with a unicameral legislature in 1934. George W. Norris, one of Nebraska's U.S. Senators at the time, campaigned for this reform and cited Queensland as an example.
Prior to 1937, the Nebraska state senate had 33 members and the state house of representatives had 100 members.
The unicameral legislature first convened in 1937 with 43 members, who are addressed as "senator." Currently there are 49 senators in the Nebraska legislature.
Meanwhile, the two Territory Assemblies were established without upper houses to begin with. Understanding the history behind that would be fascinating.
I don’t know the full history, but I suppose it could be because the Commonwealth Parliament can somewhat “review” the laws passed in the territories. For better or worse. For example, with euthanasia a few years back. That is compared to the states which have power to make laws on a lot more things. I think about it like how councils are usually unicameral but state governments can somewhat override them (in a different way to the federal govt and territories though).
I’ve really been enjoying your videos and I’m currently binge watching them all. I mentioned it in another video but one video I suggested was the discussion on abolishing the states and moving to a system of just a federal government and local governments. I’m personally opposed to it for many reasons but maybe you can weigh in on this topic and explain the validity of it.
Yes, one day I will. I've written about it before.
I hear a lot about people wanting to get rid of local government. They are getting into issues beyond what theyre supposed to be doing
I did not realise it happened so early.
They must have hated Democracy so much
Excellent video Anne. Now added to the article "The Abolition of the Upper House of Queensland Parliament" on the Freeman Delusion website.
Thanks. Glad you liked it. I obviously need to explore more of what is in the Freeman Delusion, because I wouldn't have expected that the abolition of the Queensland Legislative Council would have fallen within pseudolaw theories. I actually just did this video as a relief from all that!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 There's several hundred individual arguments of why "Government authority is defective or limited", Queensland has quite a few state-based arguments, such as the abolition of the upper house of the Parliament being unlawful, that the Office of Governor was altered in breach of the entrenched provisions of the Constitution Act 1867, and the government was replaced with a company called the Brigalow Corporation. The Fee simple Alienation argument also originates there.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 A good example can be found in Bowyer v de Jersey [2017] QSC 340, where the appellant contended that the Legislative Council was abolished unlawfully because the 1921 State Parliament did not have the powers to bypass triple-entrenched provisions to amend the Constitution Act 1867 that made changes to the composition of the legislature.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 The scope of pseudolaw in Australia is much broader than most imagine. It is rather well summed up in the words of Latham CJ at page 408 of South Australia v The Commonwealth [1942] HCA 14, regarding what he called "pretended laws" and that "A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all." Latham CJ goes on to explain that civil disobedience to a "pretended law" is justified, and that "Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it." regardless of whether they have a court ruling in their favour or not. It is about constitutional invalidity.
It is not "sovereign citizen" ideology, hence I have for a decade despised media and academics using that nomenclature. (I have refused all media interviews since 2022 for these reasons) Harry Hobbs recent work in the UNSW Law Journal relies heavily on my research, and yet still uses the US nomenclature, much to my disappointment. Australian pseudolaw provably outdates the US phenomenon. The inclusion of some foreign motifs post 2000 doesn't alter the base argumentation, which is purely domestic concepts and constitutional misconceptions.
@@auspseudolaw Thanks. I'll have a look at it.
So much for having respect for the wishes of the people. Might be why they don't get the respect they think they have.
Rather surprising that the impulse was to abolish an appointed body rather than make it an elected body (assuming Labour was performing well in elections). From there I'd imagine you could just run joint sittings and de facto abolish the upper house, although I guess this lead to some inconvenient procedure like requiring an extra reading in the same chamber.
It seems that in the early days of Western Australia, the upper house was initially appointed with non-binding elections (that would inform the appointments but were without an obligation to be followed). This system was fairly soon replaced by elections to the upper house. I could be confusing WA with someplace else though, only recently learnt of it so I thought I'd add it as reply.
Yet another informative episode, cheers..
The Legislative council needs to be restored.
Explains everything about QLD. We should no longer be surprised. Gerry Mander is still alive and well.
No it’s not Redistribution is controlled by an independent system like in every state and federally Legislative council though should never have been abolished but was in need of reform Should be reestablished
Don't get me started on the meaning of 'gerrymander'. Here's a video explaining I did on the subject: th-cam.com/video/XS1BJjgR13U/w-d-xo.html.
Am I right in saying with this system of no upper house, that the lower house could be voted in by 30% of the population of QLD and make laws that the other 70% don't want?
Pretty much. The voting system changes whenever it would benefit the government of the day as well, so in one election it might be first past the post and the next it might be preferential and in the next it might be a mix of both, depending on which will benefit the party in power more.
I think the lack of an upper house in Queensland is one of the chief reasons corruption and outrageous politicians, policy and laws have characterised Queensland political tradition. I’m not surprised they ignored the people’s wishes, afterall unless it’s about Brisbane the Queensland parliament is uninterested in what concerns the people.
I think you'll find corruption was already ingrained, having viewed the 1867 Queensland Constitution, it makes no mention of political parties. So it appears that there are those unconstitutional politicians that don't care. It appears its more about their party than the people.
And the failure to follow the people's wishes, somethings just never change
It doesn't seem right does it?, I always thought there was a maxim in law or something that said "the law must not only do what is right but also appear to do what is right" but maybe that was TV
We have too many politicians already.
What it looked like if they abolished the postion of state governor? seems like a consitutional monstrosity to image.
but great video and i wonder if being so controversial it wasnt for the best if the council went .i doubt it would actually have the soft power to prevent the lower house from doing something bad without outcry. the new south wales story is hilarious
Queensland has two constitutions. In enacting the new Constitution of Queensland 2001, they had to leave certain sections well alone in the old Constitution Act 1867, (most relating to the Office of Governor) because they are entrenched provisions that can't be altered, (even impliedly) by the Queensland Parliament without a state referendum. The abolition of the upper house is also entrenched, so that anyone trying to restore it would need a carried state referendum to do so.
@@auspseudolaw with Repubilcanism polling at around 40 percent I am suprised a state hasnt tried to recently.althrough I suppose its a good thing it hasnt.Thank you
@@cesargodoy2920 Queensland didn't even alter the Royal titles their Governor assented legislation with after the Commonwealth's Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 because of this entrenchment requiring referendum. They only got around it with the Australia Acts in 1986, because the entrenchment prohibition only applied to Queensland Parliament, not the Commonwealth or the UK Parliament. A few cases alleged the Australia Acts were invalid, due to the Australia Act (Request) Act 1985 (Qld) seeking alterations to the Office of Governor without referendum. (Sharples v Arnison [2002] 2 Qd R 444, and Kelly v Campbell [2002] FCA 1125) Then even Justice Michael Kirby dissented in Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet (2003) HCA 67 because section 106 of the Constitution guarantees that a State constitution may be altered only in accordance with its own provisions, hence not by the Commonwealth Parliament.
Having lived & worked in qld during 1990's till 2016(officially), and using qld yearbooks (ABS publication) I was surprised how such discrimination could be allowed. Contrary to our National Anthem, contrary to the symbolism of the 7 pointed star on our flag, and swindling the crowns representative where what a single chamber passes can be identified as carefully considered. It takes two chambers everywhere else for that. And isnt what her majesty's Queen Victoria's Subjects signed up to (ref to referendum pre1901).
The referendums in the 1890s concerned the approval of the Commonwealth Constitution, not State Constitutions (although it obviously had some effect upon what the States could do). As the High Court said in Clayton v Heffron, the Commonwealth Constitution did not restrict how a State dealt with its own Constitution, such as changing to a unicameral Parliament.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thankyou. Got it in one. Fails to reflect "fairly" on our flag, that is the Point of the star representing Qld standing tall in "equal measure" when its "equal measure" qualificatication was signed away. And now consider the 'real estate' afforded to Qld on the shield of Our Coat of Arms.
Now consider "advance", "fair", "and Free", "to make this Commonwealth of Ours renown of all the lands". And ownership of Our Commonwealth (Commonwealth Citizens?), stewardship or managers in trust on Our behalf.
Ultimately answerabl e to who or is it "a what"?
Upper house should be established again in Townsville
ASAP
Loved this video!
I rather enjoyed that. Thankyou!
You're most welcome.
Very interesting !!
Thanks!
I'm watching this with the UK House of Lords and Canadian Federal Senate - both essentially filled with mostly appointees - in mind. Or alternatively, the legislative chamber equivalent of "branch stacking".
In principle, appointing people to an upper House can be a good thing if you want it to be a genuine House of review. You can appoint experts in different fields, so that you can have genuine and informed scrutiny. The problems arise, however, when people are appointed for party affiliation rather than expertise. But if you had a good robust system of appointment, it could lead to better outcomes.
Neglected to mention: The QLD legislative council still serves an important function as a venue for mock parliaments for visiting school children (much like old parliament house in Canberra)
Yes, it's good to have a venue for those events. Although in NSW, the Schools Constitutional Convention is held in the Legislative Assembly chamber, which remains a functioning parliamentary chamber - they just choose a non-sitting day.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 should be lots of availability. Lazy blighters
Thanks for this one! As a former Qldr, it shows why the state now swings hard at elections and how Sir Joh got away so much. I didnt realise the LC were appointed positions by the Governor and not elected positions. 🤔 Sounds like a House of Lords construction. In my view having lived in both Qld and Vic (and indeed in Australia), two houses deliver better legislation and the government IS held to account. The notable example was the 2004 Aus Gov Lib/Nat majority in both houses where they were dumped at the following election, because people did not approve, whereas they tend to "not disapprove" of an upper house that acts as a check and balance on the government.
*Regarding Jo & the QLD system* ------ Someone should have reminded Labor that ----- *_'What goes around - comes around'_* ----
Joh loved Queensland best Qld ever had. If not for Joh Qld would not have power stations electric rail expo 88 Riverside express way. If the Wilder Smith Plan for motorways was not cancelled by idiot Goss we would have a motorway from the western freeway to Caboolture.
Goss didn't last one term Labor has destroyed Qld and doing the same in Fed politics
All the states had unelected upper houses back then. QLD made their system more democratic by abolishing the appointed Upper House. All the other states eventually dealt with theirs by making them elected Houses.
@@MatthewSwift-xc8sn Wayne Goss won three elections and was premier from 1989-1996. Sir Joh's government is well-documented as having been corrupt, as was the Queensland police at the time. People's basic freedoms were trampled on and several cabinet ministers were jailed. Sir Joh didn't even know what the separation of powers was.
Victoria is by far the worst run state in Australia though.
That's probably because multiculturalism and the city- centric population has ruined Victoria more than the system itself. Too much credence is given to a system and too little to the people who run it.
I don't like or want more government but QLD does need an upper house.
Thanks for this informative video Professor Twomey, you explained it so well.
Just a question, would you consider doing a video on the dismissal of the Lang government in NSW in 1932?
I always thought this was more intriguing than the 1975 scenario as the government had a majority in the Legislative Assembly and supply wasn’t blocked by the Legislative Council.
Would be interested in knowing what the constitutional / legal reasons Sir Philip Game used for his decision.
Cheers Professor and thanks again
Yes, happy to do so. One of the more interesting parts of NSW history. Lots to talk about!
The leader of the Labor ‘suicide squad’, Alfred Jones, born and raised in Gayndah, was my great-great-uncle. His brother-in-law, Henry Leggett (my great-grandfather) was mayor of Gayndah for 25 years (between the two world wars). After being appointed to the upper house, and successfully leading the vote to abolish the Legislative Council, Alf Jones returned to the Legislative Assembly, and later became a popular Lord Mayor of Brisbane during the 1930s … and probably helped his 17-year-old nephew, Uvedale Leggett (my grandfather), get his first and only full-time job as a draughtsman on the Brisbane City Council. (He retired in 1984 after 48 years in the job.) Shocking his Methodist family, in 1938, young Uvedale (called ‘Joe’) married his Catholic sweetheart, Violet MacMahon (my grandmother), a niece of John Dash, Minister for Transport in the Forgan-Smith state Labor government (1932-42).
Thank you
1920 Pollies did the Deed, Queensland Person talking
Hello Queensland Person ---
According to the records it was 1921
I have often wondered whether this is the reason that the Queensland Parliament has a Scrutiny of Legislation Committee?
(The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the 53rd Parliament was established by the Queensland Legislative Assembly on 15 September 1995. The committee's area of responsibility as set out in the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 is to consider the application of fundamental legislative principles to particular Bills and subordinate legislation; and
the lawfulness of particular subordinate legislation by examining all Bills and subordinate legislation.
The committee also has a general monitoring role in relation to various matters, including:
regulatory impact statements;
explanatory notes; and
tabling and disallowance of subordinate legislation) (Taken from Qld Parl website)
Yes, it is important to have such a committee, particularly when you only have one House. But the effectiveness of the committee will depend upon whether it is controlled by the Government or acts independently (and I have no personal knowledge of how this committee actually operates - so it may be good, or it may not).
Awesome video, thank you . I am the biggest advocate for State Sovereignty and a Qld history and law nerd.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Very late to this, so you may not see, but how are those old High Court precedents consistent with the reasoning of cases like Kable and Kirk which say the presupposition there are superior courts in States to receive jurisdiction meant the Constitution protected those institutions. The reasoning appears inconsistent even if the precedents involve different institutions.
Agreed. It is inconsistent - although maybe there is justification in treating courts differently from upper Houses.
Queensland: the Nebraska of Australia
As a Victorian, I assumed all state upper houses were elected. Are they all now elected, following in the footsteps of the changes to the British House of Lords over the last few decades?
Yes, the rest of the upper Houses are all now directly elected. For quite a while, NSW had an indirectly elected one, chosen collectively by the Members of the Houses. Maybe I'll do a video on that one day too.
If it was the King that gave royal accent, should not his signature be on such document instead of the governor?
The Governor-General always gives royal assent on behalf of the King/Queen (unless they are present to do it themselves). That's the major part of their job.
@@KMarioJP but it was sent to the King
@@KMarioJP It was reserved for the Royal Assent of King George V by the Governor on 5 November. The Act was proclaimed on 23 March 1922
@@shellyaus "While the measure was reserved for the signification of the King's pleasure under the Australian States Constitution Act 1907 (Imp), aggrieved members of the Legislative Council presented a petition to the Imperial government at Westminster that no further action be taken on the measure itself until a referendum had been held, or until the Privy Council had determined that the legislation was valid. Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary, evidently accepting the Privy Council's reasoning in McCawley v the King, concluded that the issue was a matter "for determination locally" and declined to accede to the petition. And so, on 23 March 1922, the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922 (Qld) received Royal Assent."
- "After Ryan: The Storm" (Selden Society Lecture, Supreme Court, Queensland, 24 March 2022 by P A Keane, Justice of the High Court of Australia)
@@shellyaus In case you're wondering, McCawley v R [1920] AC 691 was an appeal from the High Court in McCawley v The King [1918] HCA 55 regarding the power of Queensland Parliament to amend its own Constitution Act 1867. It had provided that all appointments to the Supreme Court be for life, but the Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 (Qld) limited this appointment to seven years. McCawley was a justice of the Supreme Court, and challenged this implied amendment of the Constitution Act 1867. The Privy Council held that unless there's particular provisions prescribing "manner and form" for amending particular parts of the constitution, then State parliaments can amend their own constitutions simply by enacting legislation inconsistent with its provisions, as easily as any other Act. The Privy Council said, they occupy "precisely the same position as a Dog Act or any other Act, however humble its subject matter."
I hope they find it again!
It's well hidden!
I'm a Queenslander. There are a few things I'm proud of with regards to my state, they are: (1) that we were the first to abolish capital punishment in the entire then British Empire (in 1922); (2) that we don't observe daylight savings as there's no clear evidence of its benefits; (3) that we were the first to introduce compulsory voting; and (4) we are one of only two states, Tasmania being the other, that I'm aware of that provides free ambulance care to all residents that are Aussie citizens.
That's an impressive record.
*You should have Daylight saving* ---------- Victoria & Tasmania could do with some of the Sunshine you've saved up ---- *Remember - give to the needy* 😉🙂😊
Its unfair to say compulsory voting, you're not obliged to actually vote, yet it is an affront to democracy, refusing to respect a vital pillar of democracy to record a vote of abstention freely without consequence(like we can in the UN and every where there is democracy in the world), in line with the second part of the second line of our Nat'l Anthem.
When you disrespect a pillar of democracy, what you have left over is not democracy!
Daylight saving does not fade the curtains in fact it delivers measurable power savings. France being the best example
Also, it is not compulsory voting, its compulsory attendance of the poll.
Saying QLD provides free Ambulance services unlike any other state must be a new phenomenon. Could you explain this further for us, thanks
@@ETALAL-------- If France is the best example of Daylight saving - then God help us --- 😅
@@PaxAlotin-j6r even a broken clock is correct twice per day 😁
Thanks for this, which is very topical here in the UK at the moment when once again the government is proposing to do something about House of Lords reform/replacement (although it doesn't really seem all that high on the agenda at the moment). Second chambers are always interesting from a constitutional point of view. It's interesting to see that apart from Queensland all the Australian states have retained theirs (although by a narrow margin in some places it would seem from what you said), and in the US all the states have retained theirs (except Nebraska), whereas in Canada I think all the provinces now have unicameral legislatures (as do the subsidiary assemblies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland here). Second chambers seem to run the double risk of either opposing their first chambers too much (as in Queensland) and the opposite problem of not opposing them enough (as in New Zealand, where their Legislative Council was apparently abolished because it never did anything more than echo what happened in the lower house).
In my view second chambers are really important, or otherwise anything can be rushed through the lower House with little if any scrutiny. When I worked for the NSW Cabinet Office, the Legislative Council would drive me mad with some of its behaviour, but despite this, it also reinforced to me how the mere existence of an upper House and the consequential necessity of being able to explain and justify bills to get them passed, is essential to a democracy.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I fully agree with you! It's partly a 'checks and balances' matter, but also a matter of having to think more carefully about things if you are forced to discuss them with people outside your own little group.
@@Shalott63 From what I understand, PM Starmer and his party don't want to abolish Britain's upper house. They want to replace it with "an elected chamber of regions and nations”. i.e. no more Peers and Lord Spirituals. So, I suppose that would mean a name change too.
@@mindi2050 Yes, that was the initial proposal, and it would have meant a different name. But I believe he got urged to reconsider by his own supporters in the Lords, and at the moment the only proposal for change within the lifetime of this Parliament is to remove the last remaining hereditary peers from sitting in the House. From Labour's point of view at least, one of the problems is that a house based (even partly) on 'inherited privilege' can have no legitimacy in a modern society. But the whole thing is more complicated than can easily be fitted into a TH-cam comment! The real abuse is the way that the PM can in effect appoint whoever s/he likes to be in the House and there are no effective checks on that; also that after a period in which appointments have been marked more by enthusiasm than discretion the numbers of those with seats in the Lords is hovering at about 800, making it the second largest legislative body in the world. But my feeling is that blatantly partial appointment of cronies (in one case including the PM's own brother) in recent years has brought the system into greater disrepute than any number of inherited peerages could. NB One problem with having an elected upper house would be the almost inevitable loss of most of the members with no party affiliation, who currently make up the second largest group in the Lords. So I would prefer an appointed upper house with a much more rigorous, cross-party system of agreeing the appointments, that would not be so open to abuse (and perhaps with members appointed for fixed terms rather than for life). But if we were to have an elected upper house I would prefer one elected by proportional representation (region by region if that would be helpful) to offset the first-past-the-post system for elections to the Commons, which tends to produce artificial majorities in the Commons when there is no majority support for them in the popular vote.
@@Shalott63 I'm not British but I lived in the UK for several years and still (try to) follow politics there. I'm just amazed that the House of Lords has lasted as long as it has in a liberal democracy like the UK. Although I know there have been some major reforms to Britain's upper house over the years. If ever the UK does decide to replace their House of Lords, I can see a Canadian style upper house working in the UK i.e. senators are appointed (not elected) and are selected from the Canadian provinces and territories.
Any reason why they didn't move to an elected upper house instead?
Elected upper Houses (eg in Victoria) could also be very conservative and obstructive, particularly where there was a property qualification. Overall, Labor opposed upper Houses for a long time.
QUEENSLAAAANDER
"QUEENSLAAAANDER
Translate to English" - most QLD thing ever.
New Zealand utilized a similar "suicide squad" to abolish the upper house of its national parliament in 1950.
Hello Professor from Sydney.
If I may... You make mention of Sir Winston Churchill; at that time, secretary of state for the colonies. I deduce Churchill recommended the assent to the King? Moreover and notwithstanding; in your words, 'in the form of a Bill' correct me somewhat Professor... but isn't Royal assent only after a second reading of an introduced bill and ringing of the bells?
🍰
🧠
"While the measure was reserved for the signification of the King's pleasure under the Australian States Constitution Act 1907 (Imp), aggrieved members of the Legislative Council presented a petition to the Imperial government at Westminster that no further action be taken on the measure itself until a referendum had been held, or until the Privy Council had determined that the legislation was valid. Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary, evidently accepting the Privy Council's reasoning in McCawley v the King, concluded that the issue was a matter "for determination locally" and declined to accede to the petition. And so, on 23 March 1922, the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922 (Qld) received Royal Assent."
- "After Ryan: The Storm" (Selden Society Lecture, Supreme Court, Queensland, 24 March 2022 by P A Keane, Justice of the High Court of Australia)
In case you're wondering, McCawley v R [1920] AC 691 was an appeal from the High Court in McCawley v The King [1918] HCA 55 regarding the power of Queensland Parliament to amend its own Constitution Act 1867. It had provided that all appointments to the Supreme Court be for life, but the Industrial Arbitration Act 1916 (Qld) limited this appointment to seven years. McCawley was a justice of the Supreme Court, and challenged this implied amendment of the Constitution Act 1867. The Privy Council held that unless there's particular provisions prescribing "manner and form" for amending particular parts of the constitution, then State parliaments can amend their own constitutions simply by enacting legislation inconsistent with its provisions, as easily as any other Act. The Privy Council said, they occupy "precisely the same position as a Dog Act or any other Act, however humble its subject matter."
@@auspseudolaw
Do you think state constitutions should be amended by enacting legislation or referendum?
@@johnfitzpatrick2469It's an irrelevant question to the reality of how IT IS, and besides, I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't have a political view, I'm an anarchist, and have refused to even vote since I became eligible 35 years ago. 😄
I think you might be thinking of royal 'consent', which is given in the UK before the second reading to any bill that affects the royal prerogative, before the bill is passed. Royal 'assent' is a different process, given after the bill has (ordinarily) passed both Houses of Parliament. In Australia, royal assent is given by the Governor-General (re Commonwealth bills) and the State Governor (re State bills). In the past, there was a British law that required certain types of State bills to be reserved for the monarch's assent in London, which happened on the advice of British (not Australian) ministers. That is what the video was addressing.
Really enjoy your content. I was hoping you could do a video on the legitimacy of the current situation with us 1. imposing an AG to fight "antisemitism" as it imposes strange and specific laws and creates a unique group above others. 2. How our current ignorance towards the international courts rulings puts us in direct line as supporting genocide supplying weapons apartheid. 3. our ability to create no confidence in our government. any of these issues would be warmly welcomed and on topic. What's going on is a disgrace and with these messages on behalf of 'all australians' i feel disgusted.
Joh's abuses - at least some of them - might have been avoided. A lot of people played a heavy price because of Ted Theodore (and it is now known, some with their lives).
Labor, abusing and not following, the 'Law' for over a Century.
As explained in the video, the 'law' did indeed allow the Legislative Council to be abolished by the enactment of ordinary legislation, as recognised by the High Court.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 It's the abusive part though. The people did not want the upper house abolished, yet labor did it anyway. It's like how a police officer can run a red light, but doing it do get to Macca's faster. Sure, they can do it, but it's abusing their power.
@@Jonesy1701 No - there's a difference. It was legal to abolish the upper House but it is illegal to run the red light.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 While it was legal, it was an abuse of the law. For example, a police officer could pull you over for a prescribed purpose like a breath test. Waiting near your workplace everyday to do that immediately, and then following them and doing it numerous times would be technically legal, but abusive. Make sense?
I’ve been inside the Legislative Council chamber in Qld parliament and heard the story of how it’s members voted themselves out of existence.
Thanks for the video.
I assumed they sold to china not lost it
We noticed the Trucking Laws were based in Qld, so they can and have changed the laws without most knowing.
Eg. Sect. 10.....Where they took an intended Civil offence and placed it into the CRIMINAL Jurisdiction.....
Can you make a video on changing the electoral system in Australia to a proportional representation model, preferably the party list system?
Insane to think this was all happening through WW1 and a pandemic
Yes, you would have thought that there would have been other priorities.
Could you do a lecture on why Tasmania's Lower House is called the House of Assembly rather than the Legislative Assembly as it is in all other states? Then could you explain why alone, the Tasmanian Lower House has multimember electorates and most peculiarly has single member Upper House Electortates?
South Australia also has a 'House of Assembly'. I don't know why - probably just an historic quirk. But as for the electoral system in Tasmania, there's lots of interesting history there.
It only goes to show that Labour parties are disgusting.
At the end of section 128 it states
No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representa- tives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.
Is this relevant in this mater?
That section refers to the Commonwealth Parliament, not state Parliaments.
No - it concerns changes to the Commonwealth Constitution that affect the representation of the States in the federal Parliament or their borders.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I thought section 123 dealt with land mass, but this has "altering the limits of the State, or in any manner "
@@shellyaus Both concern changing State borders.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 does that mean you would have to have a referendum to reduce a state to create a territory?
What's changed Labor continues to work against democracy.
You're saying that the change from 50% elected, 50% appointed QLD parliament to a 100% elected parliament is working against democracy? There's a pretty strong argument that the unicameral parliament was twice as democratic and the previous one.
They work for foreign corporations 🕵
It's the old problem of dishonest campaigning versus the reality of responsible government. Labour often gets elected on expectations of favoritism by certain areas such as trade unions.
Promises and debts are accrued during elections that prove to be impossible in reality.
Coloured words like democracy have different meanings for different people.
The secrecy of governments acts against election promises when reality is exposed on taking office.
The best we can hope for is responsibilty in office. Personally I believe that Labour do a better job of transparency than the libs. No government will keep everyone happy but I think we get a better deal than most of the world.
If you think the legislative council was “democratic” you’re not in a position to be passing comment on this.
Queensland has nothing upstairs ?
As Aneurin Bevan might have said, "one of only two examples of 'Winnie' doing something that benefitted the Colonies - the other being losing the 1945 General Election to Labour and Clement Atlee." 😇
Winston did have quite a varied governmental career!
We have such robust estimates hearings we don’t need an upper house 😂
Bjelke-Petersen took criminal advantage of the lack of an upper house. Thus an upper house is an *ESSENTIAL* part of a state government.
And importantly the parliamentary committees in the lower house can be added and removed at the whim of a majority government removing review opportunities for members. A senate with a much more government-critical composition acts as a house of review which is sorely missed.
Is it a good thing that Queensland has a unicameral state parliament?
Personally, I think that upper Houses, while frequently annoying, are really important. Otherwise, a government with a majority in the lower House can shove through any shoddy law, without giving it proper consideration. The mere fact that it will have to explain it and justify it in the upper House to win the necessary votes to get it passed means that governments are far more careful and measured in the bills they put to Parliament. So even if the upper House does not itself amend the bill in any way, it has still had a useful effect because its existence causes greater care to be exercised by the government.
Good move by Qld, which is better off without an upper house.
Upper houses generally, particularly in NSW, seem not to represent the people, but only exist to frustrate the will of the people. The British House of Lords is a classic example.
The Australian Senate is different because it's membership is based on the populations of each state and territory so, while not perfect, it is at least partly representative of the public.
No. The Australian Senate is not based on "the population of each state". Each state has exactly the same number of senators, regardless of their state populations.
It's the Lower House that is based on population size. "The House of Representatives currently has 151 Members. Each Member represents an electoral division. The boundaries of these electorates are adjusted from time to time so that they all contain approximately equal numbers of electors".
From one dictator to another
That's why we have so much Corouption