The Night of the Long Prawns - Senate manipulation during the Whitlam era

This video tells a tale of political lies, manipulation and ineptitude in the filling casual Australian Senate vacancies during the tempestuous Whitlam era. It focuses on the 'Gair Affair', otherwise known as the 'Night of the Long Prawns', because it gives rise to the most interesting constitutional issues, including the constitutional disqualification of MPs for holding an office of profit under the Crown. It draws on primary documents from some of the participants to give a new perspective upon these events.
It concludes with mention of subsequent attempts by State Premiers in New South Wales and Queensland to manipulate Senate numbers by breaching a convention about the filling of casual vacancies. This opening for manipulation was later closed by a constitutional amendment made in 1977 (as mentioned in the previous videos on anti-defection laws).

[@margaretkobier]

Thank you for putting meat on the bones of newspaper stories

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're most welcome.

[@user-vu1lb6qb3z]

​@@constitutionalclarion1901 Who wasted everyone's time manipuling igorance of Pike, Rothschild' and Rhoads...

[@user-nz7db1nl6g]

ty again for a very enjoyable explanation of this issue in the Australian Constitution. I do enjoy listening to you.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.

[@j.kapiris]

For the record, I finished high school and only done half a year of TAFE because I got board and left. Your content is interesting and engaging, and you explain it in a way that's easily understood.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. I really appreciate that. I'm glad it's useful.

[@jleonau]

This was so interesting to watch! Thank you so much for informing us 😊😊😊😊😊

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Glad you enjoyed it.

[@liammax98]

Thank you Professor Twomey!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're very welcome!

[@innocentbystander2673]

Can you please explain why the Great Seal of The Commonwealth of Australia, was defaced in 1973 by the then Governor General Paul Hasluck. Thank you.

[@karenm7449]

Subscribed :). Thank you for these important vignettes of history.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Glad you appreciate them.

[@JohnWilloughby-zb8jf]

I enjoy these constitutional descriptions of past political machinations. Your recent piece on the proposal for nuclear waste and their location is of huge currency now that the conservatives are crystallising the legality of nuclear power, outside Lucas Heights medical activities. It is of huge national prosperity consequences. However, I feel that the ultimate passage to nuclear power will be derailed by the inability to create and manage a nuclear waste facility. It will be frustrated by the States, special interest groups and primarily by aboriginal land managers. The obstructionist within the Senate will be another hurdle, hugely politicised. We don’t have to analyse too much to realise that it would be the Tasmanian senators that could thwart any effort to adopt nuclear energy in the AEMO endorsed energy mix. Interesting times ahead.

[@AlexBaz143]

A string of excellent videos professor!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks!

[@MenaceGallagher]

I think the average Australian is unaware of the role of, and in all likelihood, the existence of the Executive Council. A video about its history and role would be much appreciate

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Quite so - but fortunately I have already done a video on it. It's here: studio.kzbin.infoBRvrHhYH668/edit. Enjoy!

[@Dave_Sisson]

Vey informative, now I understand what the 'Gair Affair' was about as I was too young to be aware of politics at the time. Hopefully this video has index terms that allow it to be found when someone searches for Gair Affair.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I hope so too. I'm no expert in how to activate the algorithm, but I do my best to insert relevant tags.

[@shaz5711]

Theres something i would love to see covered at some point that ive always wondered about. Could a state change its constitution to abolish its governorship and operate under a mini "republican state" system with an elected or appointed governor position as a state in the commonwealth? Do the states and commonwealth have their own individual Crowns, or is there one Crown that is shared by all the states and the commonwealth?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

That's a big question, and I've written a lot about it. Will try to do a Clarion on it, but as with many topics, it's quite complex and hard to distil into a relatively short video. But I'll put it on my list.

[@MatthewSwift-xc8sn]

Wish Joh was Premier now

[@neilgarrad4931]

Thanks

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're welcome.

[@mullauna]

50th anniversary of the defeat of the hapless Snedden in the 1974 a few days ago. He was not a bad man and deserved better than what the Melbourne "Truth" did to him when he died.

[@petergale9200]

The story you have relayed, makes me wonder how good Lionel Murphy was as a high court judge. I wonder how the other appointees from parliament have done eg Gibbs and Evitt. Soon after federation those who wrote the constitution, were in parliament, some of whom went to the High Court

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Appointments from politics (and I think you mean Barwick, rather than Gibbs) are always controversial. They have the benefit of a practical understanding of how government works, which is useful, but the disadvantage of political allegiances and ongoing relationships. Some have separated themselves from their political background better than others.

[@cesargodoy2920]

A consitutional clarion about the Whitlam area....oh boy shits getting real! did you see the new letters where the queen give her thoughts on various PMs ?Whitlams were interesting I think most people internationally know him {for right or wrong}as the guy who got fired by the queen but he wasnt exactly a run of the mill PM was he?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

To the best of my knowledge, the Queen got on quite well with Whitlam. He wasn't sacked by the Queen, but by the Governor-General, who alone had the power to do so.

[@cesargodoy2920]

sorry I was referring to the popular view especially overseas although it's hardly correct of course . The austrailan reported that the queens private secretary welcomed the whitlams government as did sir Paul, but over time, they noted his fraught relationship with the senate and consitutional matters,the palace letters show a small pinch of dislike I think on another note it's unlikely the queen wasn't informed of this incident and others you cover in this channel.I cant until we get to see all the royal archives open and see her POV on everything . thanks for the great video!

[@paulstaines7493]

This needs to ne made into a movie!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I quite agree!

[@1darryloflife]

Thanks for this indepth look at the era of the paradigm shift in politics . I have one question relating to a referendum result in 1984 being question 2 Interchange of powers which if I am correct started in 1974 with state premiers meeting to attempt to overcome section 90 of the Constitution. Could it be seen that the question was a precursor to the Australia Act 1986?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I haven't gone back to look at the debates on that referendum question, but my recollection was that the interchange of powers proposal was to even up the current federal system. The Commonwealth Constitution already allows the States to refer matters to the Commonwealth, but doesn't have a provision that goes the other direction. People are constantly saying that we need a clearer distribution of responsibilities in the federal system, and this referendum question would have helped achieve it. I don't think it had anything at all to do with the Australia Acts 1986. The Australia Acts don't deal with the distribution of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. They instead address the 'residual links' between Australia and the United Kingdom.

[@1darryloflife]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 On the piont of the Australia Act when I read the speech given by Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea East) it would seem that the House of Lords was mislead by the delegation from Australia with their application under section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution. From his speech he is clearly under the impression that there was an overwhelming support of all the people of each State .

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@1darryloflife Section 51(xxxviii) was the source for the Commonwealth version - not the UK version of the Australia Acts. The UK version was requested under s 4 of the Statute of Westminster. It had the support of each State Parliament, which passed 'request' legislation, as well as the Commonwealth Parliament.

[@uncleanriches]

I got recommended this out of nowhere on KZbin, I am very tired and can't focus on this right now but thank you for your contribution to debate.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You are welcome. Come back when you feel up to some intellectual stimulation - there's plenty here.

[@mullauna]

As you have pointed out, a loophole remains however -- there is no requirement to actually fill a casual vacancy. An oversight in the 1977 change? -- or was it deliberate?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Section 15 says that the Houses of the State Parliament 'shall' choose a person to hold the place until the expiration of the term. So there is an obligation to fill it.

[@mullauna]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Australian_referendum_(Senate_Casual_Vacancies)#Overview

[@mullauna]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 What happened to Devereux in TAS in 1987 is what i was thinking of. My apologies.

[@the-flatulator]

Joh Bjelke-Petersen, now there is a name I only hear when either part of a joke or some form of corruption.