Lang's battle with the Governor and the King
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- This is the first in a series of videos relating to the NSW Lang Labor Government and the constitutional crises that it encountered or provoked, culminating in the eventual dismissal of the Lang Government.
This video tells a great story of the background of the Governor, Sir Dudley de Chair, and then discusses de Chair's relationship with Lang during the first Lang Government in 1925-27. It addresses attempts to swamp and then abolish the NSW Legislative Council, the constitutional question of whose advice the Governor acted upon, a request for a 'secret' grant of a dissolution and how Lang managed to clear out his ministry. It also explains how Lang caused the King to thump the table in anger.
Thank you so much for sharing your education with those of us who have not had the oppotunity
These podcast series need to become compulsory part of the educational curriculum!
This is one of the most entertaining episodes thus far. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it.
Thanks Prof, this was fantastic, and look forward to the next instalment!
Excellent informative video. I'd read about the crisis that led to Lang's dismissal, but had no idea about this earlier battle with the governor. Nor did I realise that NSW had an unelected upper house back then.
I’m looking forward to your next video. I remember reading a letter (published in the ‘80s) from the Prince of Wales (soon to be King Edward VIII) to Governor Sir Philip Game shortly after Lang’s dismissal in 1932. Stunning reading! Probably the strongest argument for an Australian republic I’ve seen.
Very interesting. Thank you.
Thank you so much! Jack Lang is certainly one of the more interesting characters in Australian politics. Very much looking forward to the coming instalments.
Lang alias"The Big Fella" and Henry Lawson married sisters. Lang was in a Hansom cab in the city when he spotted Lawson drunk on the street. He decided he could't leave him there so picked him up to take him out to Castle Hill. Lawson decided that the Cabbie was going too slow and started to swear at Cabbie,the Cabbie said if you don't shut him up you will both be walking. Lang wrestled Lawson to the bottom of the Cab and tied a big bandana handkerchief around his mouth and that's how Lawson spent the rest of the trip. I read that in Lang's book ,"I remember" published 1956. Yes he was a fascinating man. Many are critical of him but he was running the State in terrible times and that needs to be kept in mind.
@@Westyrulz I laughed so much reading that! Thanks for sharing, bloody brilliant! :)
@@cam2467 When Lang was a paperboy a coach load of well to doers went past him on the street on race day,the driver flicked his whip at him causing young Jack to hit the deck and all the passengers burst out laughing. From that day on Lang was determined to never be poor. Charlie Chaplin was another man whose early experience's with poverty had a profound effect on him. Many of Chaplin's films had a message in them relating to poverty. One of my Fav Chaplin films is City Lights 1931. Its the story of the Vagabond falling in love with a blind girl. There is a lovely clip from the film set to Andre Popp's, Love is Blue. Check it out, "Love is Blue - Charlie Chaplin".
@@Westyrulz Again, thank you very much! :) I love these, for want of a better word, glimpses into someones life. They go a long way to to understand the decisions that are made. And that clip, I loved it! No exposition! No CGI! Simple and beautiful! That made my day, thank you :)
@@cam2467 Your Welcome.
I thoroughly enjoyed this retelling of our history. Thank you!
Listening to Prof Twomey telling the Kipling-esque story of de Chair with cinematic directions ("cut to Oriental potentate's fragrant garden with alluring houri") combined with constitutional machinations is my idea of a good time. I'm only sorry that we didn't get to hear de Chair's full biography and learn of his final years, or will we meet him again in the next episode? (Is he a recurring character in the ACCU (Australian Constitutional Cinematic Universe))? And much respect for breezily inserting a plug for your own related contribution :) You really do make Australian constitutional history come alive.
Thanks. I don’t think de Chair pops up again,as we shift to Sir Philip Game. He too, had an interesting life, ending up as police commissioner in London during the war
"ACCU", I laughed so hard at that. This now lives rent free in my head. I keep wondering about who the cast would be :)
Gosh ! lol I look forward to the next episode! Thank you for all the research this must have taken.
Really loving this series.
Lang is a political hero in my family.
Most people do not realise that he introduced the first comprehensive workers compensation scheme (1926) and that Act remains in force in 2024.
That, was absolutely fascinating, thank you. Why couldnt we learn about all this in school, our history, including our political history should be a mandatory school topic.
Can't wait for Part 2. 👍🌟
Yes, it's a pity they don't tend to teach the interesting stuff at school. When I studied history, they were only interested in the sort of history about how people lived, like which pots they cooked in, which bored me witless.
@constitutionalclarion1901 In high school especially I got very tired of learning about other countries' histories but absolutely *none* of Australia's. And I never understood why we weren't taught our own history, and still dont.
I love it when history is told in such a wonderfully entertaining way. If Prof Twomey ever gets tired of constitutional law, she would make a a terrific writer of popular history. 😀
I enjoy finding the quirky bits in otherwise dull stories. Human beings do make things quite interesting at times.
I love story time.
Thank you for this storytelling. You are a legend ma'am.
My pleasure!
Love your work!
This knowledgeableness is so informationaonical its rad to the max to the extreme.
Really glad I have subscribed, really enjoying all your videos.
Thanks. Glad you enjoy them.
Independence at the State level. I imagine that would include the Australia Acts. Can't wait.
Yes! I knew this would get a video eventually, thanks so much!
Yes, it's a really interesting period of history.
Thank you for the video, looking forward to the series.
Would you be able to please provide your sources to allow further reading? Thanks.
I bought the governors of NSW book a couple of months ago, it's been interesting so far!
Glad you enjoyed it.
Wow! Lang seemed like quite the despot, maybe DeChair should have sacked him there and then.
Great video Professor Twomey, looking forward to part 2.
Despot or democrat? fighting against an unelected obstructionist upper house.
Premier Lang was no despot. Although as a Labor devotee, he had very strong views on social welfare reforms and assistance. Especially during the great depression when the unemployment rate reached 32%. He felt that the unelected state Upper House, made up of what Lang considered to be privileged establishment, were out-of-touch.
Lang constantly warned against violence.
You refer a couple of times to Edward McTiernan. He was appointed a Justice of the High Court in 1930, serving as such until 1976 - a record very unlikely to be beaten (the terms of Justices now cease on their turning 70). His appointment was attacked by conservative interests, with claims that he would favour Labor policies. McTiernan's decisions prove the contrary. As an aside, McTiernan found it necessary to retire after he broke his hip.
Hi, Anne. I would be interested in your opinions on the time in Canada when the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister instead of allowing a new election to be held.
In my opinion the GG got that decision wrong. The third largest party had formed a coalition with one of the larger parties immediately after an election but later on withdrew support after some sort of corruption scandal. It is commonplace that a third party may form a new coalition with either large party after an election, but I think that allowing them to swap their support over to the other party, in the middle of a parliamentary term, effectively made them the strongest party in the parliament. The GG should have, in my opinion, granted the new election sought by the outgoing PM so that the voters could cast their judgment on the smaller party's decision to withdraw from the coalition.
The core reason for the dismissal was that the parliament did not approve the federal budget, without this the government could not operate.
@@Robert-xs2mv That was not my question. The junior party in the coalition withdrew its support for the current government, and they voted against the budget. Something had to happen to resolve that. The PM asked the GG to call a new election. The GG refused and instead allowed the junior party in the current coalition to form a new coalition with the other large party. I think that was the wrong decision because it gives the smaller party too much power. Yes, they can bring down a government they had been in but they must face an election before they can join any different coalition.
Apparently the GG argued that he'd warned the current PM that he would not call a new election without giving the other large party an opportunity to form an alternative coalition. That is correct just after an election has been held but it should no longer apply once a new government has been formed.
@@rossmurray6849 my understanding of this situation is limited. I have idea if your explanation is correct.
I await someone much better educated to explain.
Having said that I disagree with the party system, as the constitution does not clearly address this issue.
But Anne already did a podcast on this issue explaining the pro’s and con’s of political parties and their constitutional merit.
I'm happy to do something on the Canadian King/Byng controversy, as I've written quite a bit about it. It is quite interesting. I'll put it on the list.
9 seconds in, gets popcorn. This should be good :D
Hope the popcorn was good.
As one of your British counterparts said on a Brexit podcast, "the constitution shouldn't BE interesting!" There was some crazy times in 2019.
I think it depends on the person. I find it interesting.
I find the Constitution interesting too. But it is, of course, a good thing if constitutional crises are avoided, even though they are 'interesting'.
A terrible time to Govern with people literally starving. I don't know what I would have done.
It was a terrible time and Premier Lang was eager to push through social welfare reforms to help people i.e. widow's pensions, fair rent reforms etc. At the height of the great depression, the unemployment rate in Australia reached 32%. Source: National Museum of Australia.
Premier Jack Lang saw the unelected NSW Upper House as an 'old boys' network' of privileged men appointed for life and out-of-touch with life for most people in NSW - particularly once the depression hit. Jack Lang supported desperately needed social reforms. Some of his ideas seemed radical at the time. He even supported the idea of women in NSW upper house! Unlike Jack Lang, Dudley de Chair was British establishment to the core.
What a great yarn.
Lang, one of the last backbones.
Paul Keating's political mentor.
Abolition of the NSW upper house was Labor policy when the Lang Government was elected, so de Chair's demand that Lang produce a 'mandate' for upper house abolition was both spurious and a common tactic in vice-regal obstruction aimed at non-conservative politicians. 'Middy's' heroics as a teenager in Egypt has no relevance to the question of whether NSW was a democratic state, or a bastard colonial remnant, in the 1920s-30s.
Party policy and party platform at the most recent election are different things. Parliamentary systems rely heavily on convention, so when Lang proved himself to be duplicitous in his dealings with the Governer, the Governer was within his rights (some might say obligations) to deny him.
Why did the Queensland government only seek to abolish the legislative council and not instead just have all its members be elected instead of appointed? I don't recall such an option being mentioned in your video on the topic so I assume it wasn't really an option considered by the government at the time? And it seems like the same happened with Lang's first government as well?
@@WHEREAS.the.People please stop being weird and capitalising the first letter of random words
i don't think the option considered
@@edwardbush4364Please Open YOUR Eyes
Reforms to the Queensland upper house might have been a better option. Although that was difficult. Despite being appointed, not elected, Queensland's Upper House had the power to reject bills outright and they definitely weren't going to support any legislation that gave them less power. Especially legislation that insisted they should be elected rather than life-time appointments (and power) they enjoyed.
@@mindi2050 fair point, though did that also play out when Queensland's upper house first had a portion of its members elected and not appointed?
11:50 I too, would be astonished, if Lang and McTiernan had turned up in de Chair’s office in 1826!
Ooh, did I say 1826? Sorry!
Can I suggest that you give viewers a little more political background to assist their understanding of the constitutional issue
For example, Lang was not the first Labor Premier of NSW. There were four preceding him.
The published platform of Labor included abolishing the Legislative Council. It was not a secret. Many voters would have hoped for its implementation, especially after 1922.
Politically it was the consevatives/rich who wanted to retain the unelected Legislative Council. For them it was a necesary and useful tool to block any reform that assisted the workers.
In this poitical context Sir Dudley might be seen as taking a partisan approach and favouring the view.
of the Opposition over the advice of his elected Ministers.
Political parties have a long history of not fulfilling their party platform. At most, a party platform is 'aspirational', but commonly it is too extreme for the parliamentary party to wish to implement, so it is ignored when a party is in government.
In the 1920s and 1930s there remained a strong principle that radical change was only ever undertaken if there was a mandate for the proposal. For this reason, the Queensland abolition of the Legislative Council only took place (even though Labor had the numbers) after an election was held, so that there was a mandate from the people. When asked, Lang said that his government had not even considered the abolition of the LC. The Governor's concerns were completely in line with existing constitutional practice.
Very enjoyable. Lang was such a crook, wasn’t he? A query I have for when you get to Lang and his fight with the Commonwealth over interest payments etc to overseas investors, which eventually led to his dismissal by Sir P. Game. Is the commonwealth ultimately responsible for state debt? This is a current concern, given the Queensland and Victorian state debts. There was once a body called the Loan Council which I recall, told the states each year how much they could borrow. Now anything seems to go as far as the states and their debts are concerned.
Jack Lang wasn't a crook. He was though and held his views strongly. He certainly felt no sentimental attachment to the 'Mother Country'. His loyalty was to the people of NSW and Australia. When he was NSW Premier he introduced many social reforms, including:
"State pensions for widowed mothers with dependent children under fourteen, a universal and mandatory system of workers' compensation for death, illness and injury incurred on the job, funded by premiums levied on employers, the abolition of student fees in state-run high schools and improvements to various welfare schemes such as child endowment (which Lang's government had introduced)." During the Depression his government introduced laws providing improvements in the accommodation of rural workers, changes in the industrial arbitration system, and a 44-hour workweek. Extensions were made to the applicability of the Fair Rents Act.
Too serious to be taken seriously again?
Makes a good yarn for round the campfire way outback, or not. What is Truth?
Lang sounds about as trustworthy as Donand Drumpf 😊
Drumpf is a deep cut haha