Why supply crises are risky for Governors скачать в хорошем качестве

Why supply crises are risky for Governors

This video explains why vice-regal officers have been so insistent in Australia about maintaining supply and not allowing governments to engage in unlawful spending or by-pass the upper House to achieve supply. It starts by explaining what supply is, and how parliamentary control over government expenditure is fundamental to the principle of responsible government. It then goes on to discuss two supply crises in the Australian State of Victoria in 1865-66 and 1878, which had elements that directly relate to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975. The first supply crisis in 1865-66 involved the McCulloch government defying the courts over collecting tariffs without authorisation, tacking a tariff measure onto a supply bill, and by-passing the Legislative Council by getting the banks to fund government spending through a rather dodgy system of loans, defaults and repayments. The Governor was criticised by the Colonial Office for not upholding the Constitution and strict adherence to the law, and was 'recalled' (i.e. dismissed). The second supply crisis in 1878 illustrated the social and economic cost of supply running out, with public servants being dismissed or not paid, mortgages being called in and businesses damaged. The government claimed it could legally access supply without the approval of the Legislative Council. The Governor accepted the government's advice and signed warrants granting supply. The Colonial Office regarded his action as unlawful, and he was demoted to governing a Crown Colony instead. These cases meant that future Governors insisted that: (a) supply could not be allowed to run out; (b) upper Houses could not be by-passed to achieve supply; and (c) governments could not be permitted to engage in unlawful spending. This had important ramifications for the Whitlam dismissal.