Fascinating. Of course it shouldn't be forgotten that Hall continued to advocate for "One Vote, One Value" after losing the premiership and his party. He was key advocate for the 1973 upper house reform, which may not have happened without the handful of numbers he provided Dunstan to get that through and also spoke strongly in favour of Whitlams electoral bills as a Senator in the 1974 joint sitting.
@constitutionalclarion1901 hi there. Love your videos. Can you answer one thing about the dismissal (which I'm putting here as I'm not sure where else would be close to relevant). I won't get into whether i think it was right or wrong, but i have never understood why the 75 election was a double dissolution. The liberals as caretaker government DID NOT have a double dissolution trigger, and that part at the very least should have been able to be challenged.
@@geoffpayne8130 Legal advice was given on this on the day by the Solicitor-General. The Constitution simply requires that as a matter of fact there were bills that had been passed by the House of Reps and failed to pass the Senate, meeting all the requisite timing conditions. It doesn't matter at all which party voted for or against them - just that there are bills that satisfy these requirements. As there were bills that satisfied these conditions, a double dissolution could be held. Kerr insisted that Fraser advise a double dissolution as a matter of fairness. It gave Labor the chance to win control over both the House of Reps and the Senate if it had the support of the people. From a democratic point of view, it was also appropriate, allowing the people complete control of the resolution of the crisis by deciding who would be elected to both Houses.
You should follow up with his record in support of electoral reform in the Joint Sitting in 1974 and voting with Labor against deferring supply in 1975. A truly honourable man.
I did think of also addressing his career in federal Parliament and his stance on supply, but as it was a spontaneous Clarion and the light was fading, I decided I didn't really have time.
This raises the question, which I think is very important, of how far a governor (or a governor-general for that matter) has a duty to support democratic principles - not just by abiding by them personally but also by trying to get others to do so when they are not inclined to. And if they have such a duty, how far should they go in trying to carry it out?
It's a fine line, but while Governors are perfectly entitled to encourage and seek to persuade Premiers to support democratic reforms, it is another thing altogether to place this as a condition of appointment, particularly where there is no other person who commands the confidence of the lower House. Ultimately, policy is a matter for an elected government to determine, not an unelected vice-regal officer, even when the intention and outcome are good.
He famously said in 1975 that Fraser was "marching on the sleazy road to power over a dead man's corpse" after Bert Milliner died and Joh put in Albert Field.
Steele Hall: No, Your Excellency, while I accept the malapportionment is outrageous, I cannot possibly agree to such conditions. Nek minit: Premier Ren de Garis, MLC. The "Playmander" remains until urban sprawl reaches Elizabeth and Noarlunga.
Because the intro is referring to the Constitutional Clarion, and that's where I live! I make that ferry trip most days. (Although I have changed the intro a couple of times re royal events - but only because I happened to have my own footage of those events because I was there. I don't use anyone else's footage because of copyright issues.)
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks. The ferry is by far the best way to make the journey to/from work. We lived for quite a while at Cremorne Point, catching he ferry at Old Cremorne. No matter how hard the day, always relaxed by the time we got home.
I wonder if hall could have stayed in office if the governor took the hit instead. but that would probably violate the whole system of "responsible" goverment wouldn't it?
If Hall had rejected the condition, the Governor would have had to appoint him as Premier anyway, as no one else commanded the confidence of the House. So it was a gamble on the part of the Governor. Perhaps he knew or assumed that this was what Hall wanted anyway, and was just trying to help him get there by giving political cover.
Fascinating. Of course it shouldn't be forgotten that Hall continued to advocate for "One Vote, One Value" after losing the premiership and his party.
He was key advocate for the 1973 upper house reform, which may not have happened without the handful of numbers he provided Dunstan to get that through and also spoke strongly in favour of Whitlams electoral bills as a Senator in the 1974 joint sitting.
Yes, he was quite different from most politicians today.
Terribly interesting. Especially when at least federally the senate had been abused for a long time around this era.
@constitutionalclarion1901 hi there. Love your videos. Can you answer one thing about the dismissal (which I'm putting here as I'm not sure where else would be close to relevant). I won't get into whether i think it was right or wrong, but i have never understood why the 75 election was a double dissolution. The liberals as caretaker government DID NOT have a double dissolution trigger, and that part at the very least should have been able to be challenged.
Labor did have the trigger, but not the liberals
@@geoffpayne8130 Legal advice was given on this on the day by the Solicitor-General. The Constitution simply requires that as a matter of fact there were bills that had been passed by the House of Reps and failed to pass the Senate, meeting all the requisite timing conditions. It doesn't matter at all which party voted for or against them - just that there are bills that satisfy these requirements. As there were bills that satisfied these conditions, a double dissolution could be held.
Kerr insisted that Fraser advise a double dissolution as a matter of fairness. It gave Labor the chance to win control over both the House of Reps and the Senate if it had the support of the people. From a democratic point of view, it was also appropriate, allowing the people complete control of the resolution of the crisis by deciding who would be elected to both Houses.
You should follow up with his record in support of electoral reform in the Joint Sitting in 1974 and voting with Labor against deferring supply in 1975. A truly honourable man.
I did think of also addressing his career in federal Parliament and his stance on supply, but as it was a spontaneous Clarion and the light was fading, I decided I didn't really have time.
Dunstan making an improper request? Never!
Rip Steele Raymond Hall, you will be missed
Excellent. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it.
Not being from South Australia, I was unaware of any of this constitutional history. A fascinating explanation.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Thanks CC.
You are welcome.
This raises the question, which I think is very important, of how far a governor (or a governor-general for that matter) has a duty to support democratic principles - not just by abiding by them personally but also by trying to get others to do so when they are not inclined to. And if they have such a duty, how far should they go in trying to carry it out?
It's a fine line, but while Governors are perfectly entitled to encourage and seek to persuade Premiers to support democratic reforms, it is another thing altogether to place this as a condition of appointment, particularly where there is no other person who commands the confidence of the lower House. Ultimately, policy is a matter for an elected government to determine, not an unelected vice-regal officer, even when the intention and outcome are good.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Many thanks!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 The Weimar constitution's own text was used to destroy democracy. How do we avoid an Australian like that?
He famously said in 1975 that Fraser was "marching on the sleazy road to power over a dead man's corpse" after Bert Milliner died and Joh put in Albert Field.
Steele Hall: No, Your Excellency, while I accept the malapportionment is outrageous, I cannot possibly agree to such conditions.
Nek minit: Premier Ren de Garis, MLC. The "Playmander" remains until urban sprawl reaches Elizabeth and Noarlunga.
No, I can't see how that would work because there would have been a vote of no confidence at that stage in any Government other than one led by Hall.
Why does the introduction to this video, clearly related to South Australian matters, show a ferry on Sydney Harbour?
Because the intro is referring to the Constitutional Clarion, and that's where I live! I make that ferry trip most days. (Although I have changed the intro a couple of times re royal events - but only because I happened to have my own footage of those events because I was there. I don't use anyone else's footage because of copyright issues.)
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks. The ferry is by far the best way to make the journey to/from work. We lived for quite a while at Cremorne Point, catching he ferry at Old Cremorne. No matter how hard the day, always relaxed by the time we got home.
@@doubledee9675 Completely agree. Best form of public transport ever.
I wonder if hall could have stayed in office if the governor took the hit instead. but that would probably violate the whole system of "responsible" goverment wouldn't it?
If Hall had rejected the condition, the Governor would have had to appoint him as Premier anyway, as no one else commanded the confidence of the House. So it was a gamble on the part of the Governor. Perhaps he knew or assumed that this was what Hall wanted anyway, and was just trying to help him get there by giving political cover.
Why didn't Dunstan fix the gerrymander while in office? Upper house?
I think he needed an absolute majority to alter the electoral law, and he couldn't get it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks
Love your work BTW
Law is an Ass- where does that come from?