SUBSCRIBE: ruclips.net/user/AussieLaw BECOME A MEMBER: ruclips.net/channel/UCloahlV-M4A0LIc14rmfNnwjoin 0:00 - Intro 2:14 - 1974: Double Dissolution and Joint Sitting 5:03 - Political Balance in the Senate 6:22 - The Constitutional Crisis of 75
Kerr had multiple Contacts with the Queen’s private secretary and at least one session with Garfield Barwick, chief justice of the supreme court before coming to his decision to sack Whitlam. He ignored completely the convention that he should act soley on the advice of his prime minister. Effectively the British government and the Justice Department took active parts in overthrowing an elected Australian government. Bring on the Republic.
The GG was acting, not according to convention, but powers in a written constitution (this wasn't the UK but a dominion), so he was more powerful than we might first think. A PM holds His Majesty's commission to form a govt on two conditions; the confidence of parliament (both houses) AND Supply, by any measure Whitlam had lost control of both so, at the very least, matters had to come to a head! (remember we don't elect a govt we elect a parliament) So I agree with Whitlam, it was not what was done but how it was done! So was the Queen herself involved? No! I think Whitlam is right again; had she known what was going on the matter would have been resolved quietly behind the scenes -probably with the same outcome of an election! but without humiliating Whitlam. It was Remembrance day -the one day when the Queen would be indisposed (and the evening before). Kerr would have known that any contact with the Queen would be difficult, this gave him a free hand! The Republic issue is a non-issue distraction, In the 2001 referendum proposal any president would have the same powers as a GG!
I believe there was a two week period where only two politicians passed around 40 pieces of legislation, without a Parliament. That 2 week period was called the Duumvariate? period? I can't find anything about that period or the exact legislation they passed without the scrutiny of Parliament. Can you/anyone shed any light on that period please?
It was the first two weeks of the Whitlam government. Whitlam and deputy PM Lance Barnard held 27 ministries between them until the counting of votes was completed and other MP's were allocated portfolios
I'd love to hear you talk about the removal of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Is it still valid? I believe it is as the Constitution is, and the Commonwealth of Australia is. Great series. 💚 But yes, everyday people are questioning more, why are we not governed under the Commonwealth? Why do we have 2 systems- the Maritime Law and the Common Law? can you please address this in your very well spoken manner?
Yes agreed we are runnning as a republic system against our will they have created a 2 tier system. In 73 whitlam created the Royals and styles act 73 with the fictitous "Queen of Australia" (now, King Of Australia) which has no authority yet the act is still in force today it means acts are rubbered stamp by the fictitous "King of Australia which again has nno authority. In addition the Australia Act 86 which was supposed to severe from the Uk parliament is another fraud. Rod culleton from the Great Australia party has the evidence and the Hansard that Bob hawke went to the UK parliament floor and claimed that we had a referendum to severe from the Uk. That was a damn straight lie as no referendum existed yet the Uk parliament passed it through no checks or balances. There was a Lord Hoslop who questioned the Australia Act said it needed to be rewritten but never happened.The Australia Act basically creates a whole new system of govt system which is basically unlawful and a fraud yet still in Force today.
Cheating and perhaps the CIA psycho neurotic relationship was well established by this time...and Crown staff ⚕️ many players. It is called dirty politics and the Commonwealth has suffered ..
That mean it don't matter what people vote because those votes will thown out by the governor general who was put there by british crown. By the way only matter what want the crown Do you don't think it's sound like a dictatorship?
Rubbish, the PM and his govt hold their commission from the King/GG on two conditions; 1 that he can command the confidence of the democratically elected parliament and 2 that his government can pass the supply bill. In 1975 the govt were repeatedly failing both those tests and the GG had a duty to see that a resolution was found. GW never denied that the GG was acting perfectly with in his rights pursuant to a the provisions of a written constitution. GW's gripe was the manner in which the GG behaved, BUT to his credit he would be the first to admit that had the roles been reversed he would have taken every political opportunity in the way Malcolm Fraiser did. To be fair however, it does seem amazing that many Aussies don't realise the fact that the Australian Constitution is essentially they same today as it was when Queen Victoria was on the throne! We must remember that, much to the dismay of many, that the Australian Constitution is -and has the force of law because it is- a collection of British Acts of Parliament. So in many ways British dominion endures of the 7 states and territories.
Australia is one of the oldest democracies in the world. It is no longer the British crown, it is the Australian crown. We have maintained the rule of law since 1788 and it is the crown which acts as part of the checks and balances that has helped us achieve this.
No because as soon as Whitlam was dismissed an election was called. The election was fair and valid. The GG is not able to maintain a government without the confidence of the Lower House. Getting rid of governments is just as important for democracy as electing the government/parliament.
SUBSCRIBE: ruclips.net/user/AussieLaw
BECOME A MEMBER: ruclips.net/channel/UCloahlV-M4A0LIc14rmfNnwjoin
0:00 - Intro
2:14 - 1974: Double Dissolution and Joint Sitting
5:03 - Political Balance in the Senate
6:22 - The Constitutional Crisis of 75
Kerr had multiple Contacts with the Queen’s private secretary and at least one session with Garfield Barwick, chief justice of the supreme court before coming to his decision to sack Whitlam. He ignored completely the convention that he should act soley on the advice of his prime minister. Effectively the British government and the Justice Department took active parts in overthrowing an elected Australian government. Bring on the Republic.
The GG was acting, not according to convention, but powers in a written constitution (this wasn't the UK but a dominion), so he was more powerful than we might first think. A PM holds His Majesty's commission to form a govt on two conditions; the confidence of parliament (both houses) AND Supply, by any measure Whitlam had lost control of both so, at the very least, matters had to come to a head! (remember we don't elect a govt we elect a parliament) So I agree with Whitlam, it was not what was done but how it was done! So was the Queen herself involved? No! I think Whitlam is right again; had she known what was going on the matter would have been resolved quietly behind the scenes -probably with the same outcome of an election! but without humiliating Whitlam. It was Remembrance day -the one day when the Queen would be indisposed (and the evening before). Kerr would have known that any contact with the Queen would be difficult, this gave him a free hand! The Republic issue is a non-issue distraction, In the 2001 referendum proposal any president would have the same powers as a GG!
The conspiracy theorists are still out & about. Whitlam was attempting to govern without supply.
I believe there was a two week period where only two politicians passed around 40 pieces of legislation, without a Parliament. That 2 week period was called the Duumvariate? period? I can't find anything about that period or the exact legislation they passed without the scrutiny of Parliament. Can you/anyone shed any light on that period please?
That was immediately after the ‘72 election when the cabinet was just Whitlam and Lance Barnard and they passed the legislation you referred to.
It was the first two weeks of the Whitlam government. Whitlam and deputy PM Lance Barnard held 27 ministries between them until the counting of votes was completed and other MP's were allocated portfolios
Wrong. The duumvirate dealt with matters that did not need legislation to alter. Two people cannot bypass parliament to enact legislation.
Well explained. Thanks.
Great summary! Thank you
Very well explained!!
thank you so much
Very goid explanation thankyou
great video thanks
I'd love to hear you talk about the removal of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Is it still valid? I believe it is as the Constitution is, and the Commonwealth of Australia is. Great series. 💚
But yes, everyday people are questioning more, why are we not governed under the Commonwealth? Why do we have 2 systems- the Maritime Law and the Common Law? can you please address this in your very well spoken manner?
Yes agreed we are runnning as a republic system against our will they have created a 2 tier system. In 73 whitlam created the Royals and styles act 73 with the fictitous "Queen of Australia" (now, King Of Australia) which has no authority yet the act is still in force today it means acts are rubbered stamp by the fictitous "King of Australia which again has nno authority. In addition the Australia Act 86 which was supposed to severe from the Uk parliament is another fraud. Rod culleton from the Great Australia party has the evidence and the Hansard that Bob hawke went to the UK parliament floor and claimed that we had a referendum to severe from the Uk. That was a damn straight lie as no referendum existed yet the Uk parliament passed it through no checks or balances. There was a Lord Hoslop who questioned the Australia Act said it needed to be rewritten but never happened.The Australia Act basically creates a whole new system of govt system which is basically unlawful and a fraud yet still in Force today.
Haven’t watched the video yet but how the F can a public elected government be dismissed??
Cheating and perhaps the CIA psycho neurotic relationship was well established by this time...and Crown staff ⚕️ many players. It is called dirty politics and the Commonwealth has suffered ..
How the F can you not watch the video yet ask this question?
@@sentimentalbloke185 because I know the case well and have read history!
@@Alan-megan Then you'd know how it happened.
@ a governor general figure head acted like a king. Sadly law loophole allowed it to happen.
That mean it don't matter what people vote because those votes will thown out by the governor general who was put there by british crown. By the way only matter what want the crown Do you don't think it's sound like a dictatorship?
Rubbish, the PM and his govt hold their commission from the King/GG on two conditions; 1 that he can command the confidence of the democratically elected parliament and 2 that his government can pass the supply bill. In 1975 the govt were repeatedly failing both those tests and the GG had a duty to see that a resolution was found. GW never denied that the GG was acting perfectly with in his rights pursuant to a the provisions of a written constitution. GW's gripe was the manner in which the GG behaved, BUT to his credit he would be the first to admit that had the roles been reversed he would have taken every political opportunity in the way Malcolm Fraiser did.
To be fair however, it does seem amazing that many Aussies don't realise the fact that the Australian Constitution is essentially they same today as it was when Queen Victoria was on the throne! We must remember that, much to the dismay of many, that the Australian Constitution is -and has the force of law because it is- a collection of British Acts of Parliament. So in many ways British dominion endures of the 7 states and territories.
Wrong, watch the video, it was a matter of supply
Australia is one of the oldest democracies in the world. It is no longer the British crown, it is the Australian crown. We have maintained the rule of law since 1788 and it is the crown which acts as part of the checks and balances that has helped us achieve this.
No because as soon as Whitlam was dismissed an election was called. The election was fair and valid. The GG is not able to maintain a government without the confidence of the Lower House. Getting rid of governments is just as important for democracy as electing the government/parliament.
Hi bro informative pls remove the ring not nice