Jump to content

1975 Australian constitutional crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wehwalt (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 14 May 2010 (→‎Consultations and negotiations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"The Dismissal" redirects here. For the TV series based on the 1975 events, see The Dismissal (TV miniseries). For other uses, see Dismissal.
1975 Australian constitutional crisis
File:Gough on steps.jpg
Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam addresses the crowd on the steps of Parliament House after his dismissal.
Date11 November 1975
Time1.00–5.00 p.m.
LocationCanberra, Australian Capital Territory

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, commonly called The Dismissal, refers to the events that culminated with the removal of Australia's then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party, by Governor-General Sir John Kerr and appointing the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australia's history.[1][2]

The crisis began in the upper house of the Federal Parliament, the Senate, where the opposition Liberal-National Country Party coalition had a majority. Believing the Coalition would win a general election after a series of recent scandals, the Coalition senators tried to force the government to the polls by blocking the government's money bills. They announced they would defer any voting on the annual supply bills that appropriated funds for government expenditure until the Prime Minister called a general election for the House of Representatives. The blocking of Supply was unprecedented in Australian political history, and the Whitlam Labor government resisted the calls of the Senate as being incompatible with the Westminster tradition of lower house supremacy. The government pressured Liberal Senators to support the Supply bills, and explored alternative means to fund government expenditure. The impasse extended into weeks, with the threat of the government failing to meet its financial obligations being ever present.

On 11 November 1975, after numerous meetings with both sides and failing to broker a settlement, the Governor-General enforced his executive powers enabled by the Australian Constitution and dismissed Whitlam as Prime Minister. He appointed Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister. The Senate then approved the appropriation bills as Fraser immediately faced a vote of no confidence in the lower house where his party was in the minority. Fraser advised Kerr to dissolve both houses and call a federal election, which saw the coalition win a majority in the House of Representatives and form a government.

Background

Constitutional

As in most Westminster system parliaments, Australia's government is formed by the party enjoying the confidence of the lower house, the House of Representatives. However, Australia's Parliament also has a powerful upper house, the Senate, which must pass any legislation intiated by the House of Representatives if it is to become law. The composition of the Senate, in which each state has an equal number of senators regardless of that state's population, was originally designed to attract the Australian colonies into one Federation.[3] The Parliament of Australia is composed of the two houses and the Queen of Australia, represented through the Governor-General, who has executive powers granted in the Constitution,[4] as well as rarely-exercised reserve powers.[5] The Governor-General is removable by the Queen on the advice of her Prime Minister. As Liberal Party leader Malcolm Fraser, who would play a large part in the crisis, put it, "The Queen has tenure, and she couldn't be sacked. But a Governor-General holds office at pleasure, and if he ceases to please then he can be removed by a Prime Minister."[6]

Prior to the 1975 crisis these reserve powers, including the power to dismiss a prime minister, had never been exercised by the Governor-General. Twice since Federation, conflicts between state premiers and state governors, who performed similar functions to the prime minister and governor-general at the state level, had resulted in the departure of one or the other. In 1916, New South Wales Premier William Holman was expelled from the Australian Labor Party for supporting conscription. He managed to hold to power with the aid of opposition parties, and consulted the governor, Sir Gerald Strickland, proposing to pass legislation to extend the term of the state legislature by a year. When Strickland objected, stating that such a course was unfair to Labor, Holman had him replaced.[7] In 1932 the New South Wales premier, Jack Lang, refused to pay moneys owing to the Federal government, which froze the state's bank accounts, causing Lang to order that payments to the state government be only in cash. The governor, Sir Philip Game, wrote to Lang, warning him that ministers were breaking the law, and warning that if they continued, he would have to obtain ministers who could carry on government within legal bounds. Lang replied that he would not resign, and Game dismissed his government and commissioned the Leader of the Opposition to form a caretaker government pending new elections, in which Labor was defeated.[8]

Among the powers granted to the Governor-General is the power to dissolve both houses of Parliament in the event that the House of Representatives twice passes a bill at least three months apart and the Senate will not agree to pass the bill. In both instances where the question arose prior to the Whitlam government in 1914 and 1951, the Governor-General dissolved Parliament for a "double dissolution" election on the advice of the Prime Minister.[9]

Political

Gough Whitlam's Labor government was elected in 1972 after 23 years of rule by a coalition formed by the Liberal and Country parties. It gained a nine seat majority in the House of Representatives,[10] but did not control the Senate.[11] In accordance with pre-election promises, it instituted a large number of policy changes, and offered much legislation. The Opposition, which still controlled the Senate, allowed some of this legislation to pass the Senate, and blocked others.[12]

In April 1974, faced with attempts by the Opposition to obstruct supply (that is, appropriations bills) in the Senate, Whitlam obtained the concurrence of the Governor-General Sir Paul Hasluck to a double dissolution under section 57 of the Constitution.[13] Labor was returned at the election on 18 May with a reduced House majority of five seats. The Coalition and Labour each had 29 Senate seats, with the balance of power held by two independents.[14]

Hasluck had been Governor-General since 1969, and his term was shortly due to expire. Whitlam wanted him to remain a further two years, but Hasluck declined, citing his wife's refusal to remain at Yarralumla longer than the originally agreed five years.[15] Whitlam offered the post to businessman Ken Myer, who turned it down. Whitlam then turned to Sir John Kerr, the Chief Justice of New South Wales. Kerr was reluctant to give up the Chief Justiceship, in which he intended to remain another ten years, for the Governor-General's post, which traditionally lasted five years. At Kerr's request, Whitlam informally agreed that if both men were still in office in five years, Kerr would be reappointed, and secured legislation to address Kerr's financial concerns about the position, including authorising a pension for the Governor-General or his widow. The Leader of the Opposition, Billy Snedden, was enthusiastic about the appointment and also agreed to reappoint Kerr in five years, were he Prime Minister at the time. Kerr then agreed to take the post, was duly appointed by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, and was sworn in on 11 July 1974.[16]

Six of the bills that had been the subject of the double dissolution were introduced to the Parliament a third time and, as expected, were again rejected by the Senate. Section 57 of the Constitution of Australia provides that, after a double dissolution election, if bills that had been rejected twice by the Senate in the previous parliament were again passed by the House but again rejected by the Senate, they could then be put to a joint sitting of both houses. On 30 July, Whitlam gained Kerr's agreement for a joint sitting, which was set for 6–7 August 1974. The joint sitting, the only one in Australia's history, passed all six bills, including the enabling legislation for Medibank.[17]

Scandal and vacancies

In December 1974, Whitlam was anxious to find new sources of money to finance his development plans. After a meeting at the Prime Minister's residence, The Lodge, Whitlam and three of his ministers (Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer Jim Cairns, Attorney-General Senator Lionel Murphy, and Minister for Minerals and Energy Rex Connor) signed a letter of authority for Connor to borrow up to US$4 billion. This letter was described by author and journalist Alan Reid as "the death warrant of the Whitlam ALP government".[18]

Connor and other ministers had made contact with a hitherto-obscure Pakistani financier, Tirath Khemlani, as early as November 1974. Khemlani was said to have contacts in the newly-enriched Arab oil nations.[19] None of the efforts to secure a loan, whether through Khemlani or by other routes, bore fruit, but as information about the "Loans Affair" trickled out, the government lost support.[20]

In February 1975, Whitlam decided to appoint Senator Murphy to the High Court, even though Murphy's Senate seat would not be up for election if a half-Senate election were held. Under proportional representation, Labor could win three of the five New South Wales seats, but if Murphy's seat was also contested, it was most unlikely to win four out of six. Thus, appointing Murphy would almost certainly cost the ALP a Senate seat at the next half-Senate election.[21] Whitlam appointed Murphy anyway. By convention, senators appointed by the state legislature to fill casual vacancies were from the same political party as the former senator. The New South Wales premier, Tom Lewis felt that this convention only applied to vacancies caused by deaths or ill-health, and arranged for the legislature to appoint Cleaver Bunton, former mayor of Albury and an independent.[22]

By March 1975, many Liberal parliamentarians felt that Snedden was doing an inadequate job as Leader of the Opposition, and that Whitlam was dominating him in the House of Representatives.[23] Malcolm Fraser challenged Snedden for the leadership, and defeated him on 21 March.[24] At a press conference after winning the leadership, Fraser stated:

The question of supply—let me deal with it this way. I generally believe if a government is elected to power in the lower House and has the numbers and can maintain the numbers in the lower House, it is entitled to expect that it will govern for the three-year term unless quite extraordinary events intervene ... Having said that ... if we do make up our minds at some stage that the Government is so reprehensible that an Opposition must use whatever power is available to it, then I'd want to find a situation in which ... Mr. Whitlam woke up one morning finding the decision had been made and finding that he had been caught with his pants well and truly down.[25]

Whitlam had offered Barnard a diplomatic post; in early 1975 Barnard agreed to this, triggering a by-election in his Tasmanian electorate of Bass. Party officials felt given the party's weakened state, Barnard should be encouraged to remain in Parliament. ALP president and future Prime Minister Bob Hawke described the decision as "an act of lunacy".[26] Barnard had been losing support over the last several elections, and a swing of 4% against Labor would be enough to defeat it. The Liberals had a candidate who had been nursing the electorate; Labor had no candidate selected and a bitter preselection in the offing.[27] The election on 28 June proved a disaster for Labor, losing the seat with a swing against it of 15%.[28]

The next week, Whitlam fired Barnard's successor as deputy prime minister, Cairns, who had misled Parliament regarding the Loans Affair amid innuendo about his relationship with his office manager, Junie Morosi.[29] At the time of Cairns' dismissal, one Senate seat was vacant, following the death on 30 June of Queensland ALP Senator Bertie Milliner. The state Labor party nominated Mal Colston, who was the candidate highest on the party's Queensland list to not be elected in 1974. This resulted in deadlock in Queensland; the unicameral Queensland legislature twice voted against Colston, and the party refused to submit any alternative candidates. At last, Queensland Country Party Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen got the legislature to elect a low-level union official, Albert Field, who had contacted his office and expressed a willingness to serve. In interviews, Field made it clear he would not support Whitlam. Field was expelled from the ALP for standing against Colston, and Labor senators boycotted his swearing-in.[30] Whitlam argued that because of the vacancies being filled as they were, the Senate was "corrupted" and "tainted", with the Opposition enjoying a majority they did not win at the ballot box.[31] Field's eligibility to serve was challenged in the High Court. With the Queensland senator on leave throughout the remainder of the crisis, the Coalition had an effective majority of 30–29 in the Senate.

Deadlock

Deferral of supply

On 10 October, the High Court ruled that the act, passed at the joint session, giving the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and the Northern Territory two senators each was valid. A half-Senate election needed to be held by June 1976; most senators would take their seats on 1 July but the territorial senators, and those filling Field's and Bunton's seats would take their places at once.[32] If the ALP won Field's and Bunton's seats, and one seat in each territory, and if the second ACT seat was filled either by a Labor candidate or by an independent, former Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton, now estranged from his party, Labor would have an effective 33–31 margin, at least until 1 July.[33]

Australian journalist and author Alan Reid described the position of the Government and Opposition as the crisis became acute in mid-October:

While it was possibly an overstatement to describe the 1975 position as a choice between evils, neither of the two major political groupings reached the October 15, 1975 crunch position with completely clean hands Fraser and the Liberal-CP senators ... lacked the numbers to defer the Budget until the arrival in the Senate of Albert Patrick Field, whose arrival was not due to any decision by the Australian voters but to a decision by one of the rulers, the Whitlam-hating Bjeke-Petersen ... Whitlam for his part had decided even before the Budget was deferred to embark upon the bold, Cromwellian project of changing the Australian Constitution, not through the vote of the mass electorate ... but through prodigious personal exertions backed by the support of his parliamentary followers.[34]

In the wake of the High Court ruling, and with the Appropriation Bills due to be considered by the Senate on 16 October, Fraser was undecided whether to block supply, and his biographer, Philip Ayres, contends that had there been no further allegations of government scandal, he would not have done so. Khemlani, however, had alleged that (contrary to government statements) Connor had never revoked his authority to obtain loans and had been in regular contact with him even into mid-1975. On Monday 13 October, the Melbourne Herald printed documents in support of Khemlani's allegations, and on the following day, Connor resigned.[35] Fraser determined to block supply, convened a shadow cabinet meeting and received the unanimous support of the Coalition frontbench.[36] At a press conference, Fraser cited the poor state of the economy and the continuing scandals as reasons for his decision.[37]

The Governor of Queensland, Sir Colin Hannah gave a speech denigrating the Whitlam government on 15 October, in violation of the convention that state governors remain neutral. Hannah held a dormant commission as Administrator of the Commonwealth to act as Governor-General in the event of Kerr's death, resignation, or absence from Australia. Whitlam immediately contacted Buckingham Palace to arrange for Hannah's commission to be revoked, a process which took ten days to complete.[38] Although Whitlam later alleged that he never contemplated dismissing Kerr during the crisis, on 16 October, while speaking with Kerr and visiting Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak, he told Kerr that if the crisis continued, "It could be a question of whether i get to the Queen first for your recall, or whether you get in first with my dismissal." Kerr saw the statement as a threat; Whitlam later stated the comment was "flippant" and designed to turn the conversation to another subject.[39]

On 16 and 17 October, the Senate, with the unanimous support of the Coalition majority, deferred the appropriation bills.[37] The Coalition took the position that Kerr could dismiss Whitlam if the Government could not secure supply. Whitlam's former solicitor-general Robert Ellicott, now a Liberal MHR, issued a legal opinion on 16 October stating that the Governor-General had the power to dismiss Whitlam, and should do so forthwith if Whitlam could not state how he would obtain supply. Ellicott indicated that Whitlam was treating Kerr as if he had no discretion but to follow prime ministerial advice, when in fact the Governor-General could and should dismiss a ministry unable to secure supply. Ellicott stated that Kerr,

... should ask the Prime Minister if the Government is prepared to advise him to dissolve the House of Representatives and the Senate or the House of Representatives alone as a means of assuring that the disagreement between the two Houses is resolved. If the Prime Minister refuses to do either, it is then open to the Governor-General to dismiss his present Ministers and seek others who are prepared to give him the only proper advice open. This he should proceed to do.[40]

Consultations and negotiations

Kerr rang Whitlam on Sunday 19 October, asking permission to consult with the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick concerning the crisis. Whitlam advised Kerr not to do so, noting that no Governor-General had consulted with a Chief Justice under similar circumstances since 1914, when Australia was at a much earlier stage of her constitutional development.[41] On 21 October, Kerr phoned Whitlam regarding the Ellicott opinion, and asked, "It's all bullshit, isn't it?" Whitlam agreed with Kerr's view. Kerr then requested that the Government provide him with a written legal opinion rebutting Ellicott's views.[42] Kerr would receive no written advice from the Government until 6 November. [43]

The Dismissal

The situation was complicated by the relationship between Kerr and Whitlam. Kerr had long felt that he had been taken for granted and not given the respect due to his office. Originally a Labor sympathiser with ambitions to gain parliamentary office earlier in his life, Kerr's views had become much more conservative over the years.

Constitutional convention had long established that the governor-general was expected to take no action except upon 'advice' (de facto direction) received from the prime minister, and Whitlam confidently assumed this would be the case during the crisis. However, according to the Australian Constitution, and in accordance with established practice in other Westminster style constitutional monarchies, the governor-general possessed wide-ranging reserve powers to dissolve parliament and sack the government on his own initiative, in limited circumstances. Such reserve powers had not been exercised by any monarch since King William IV in 1834, and it was a matter of academic and legal debate as to whether they subsisted under either the unwritten British Constitution or the written Australian Constitution.

It would later become apparent that Kerr and Whitlam were at odds over whether the governor-general had the power to act independently of the prime minister in times of crisis.

On 30 October, Kerr proposed a compromise solution to Whitlam and Fraser, in which Fraser would let the budget pass in return for Whitlam abandoning plans to call an early Senate election, but Fraser rejected this. On 2 November, Fraser offered to pass the budget if Whitlam would agree to call an election before the middle of 1976, but Whitlam in turn rejected this, citing the constitutional convention that only he, as prime minister, could advise the governor-general to call an election. There is considerable evidence that Kerr had discussions with Fraser independently, against Whitlam's advice.[citation needed] When Whitlam rejected Fraser's proposal, it seems, Kerr decided that Whitlam was the one unwilling to compromise.

By November, Fraser and the Opposition began to ramp up pressure on Kerr to take action against Whitlam, threatening to criticise him publicly if he did not do so. Around this time, Fraser and Liberal MPs began calling for Kerr to use his reserve power to dismiss Whitlam, claiming that this was the proper constitutional option if a prime minister who loses supply does not call an election or resign.

A precedent had been set in Australia for the use of the reserve powers at a state level in the dismissal of New South Wales premier Jack Lang by Sir Philip Game – but in this situation Game had warned Lang that his dismissal was imminent. Kerr was unwilling to warn Whitlam that he was contemplating dismissing him, fearing that Whitlam's reaction would be to advise Elizabeth II, the Queen of Australia, to remove him as governor-general instead. Though this might appear to be an unlikely proposition, it was constitutionally possible and, in the peculiar circumstances of the crisis, it could not have been ruled out. The senior state governor at the time, Sir Roden Cutler, Governor of New South Wales, gave Kerr the advice that he should warn the Prime Minister of his actions. Kerr refused to heed such advice. Kerr subsequently claimed that his motivations in not warning Whitlam were not fear for his own position, but of the prospect that the monarch could become involved in Australian domestic politics.

This prompted Kerr to seek advice from the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick. On 9 November, Barwick advised Kerr that the governor-general did in fact have the constitutional power to remove the prime minister from office in these circumstances. At this point, it appears that Kerr made up his mind to dismiss Whitlam. This action was criticised after the event by Whitlam on two grounds: firstly, since the High Court does not issue advisory opinions, Barwick was not speaking with constitutional or judicial authority but only as an individual, and secondly, Barwick was in fact a former Attorney-General in a Coalition government and thus could not be considered impartial. Whitlam as prime minister had specifically advised (i.e. directed) Kerr as governor-general not to seek Barwick's opinion. Kerr maintained that he did what was necessary to resolve the crisis.

Kerr also met with Fraser. Fraser argued that the Senate represented the displeasure of the Australian people with the government's management; that there was a practical impasse for the government; and, stressing the necessity for action well before government revenue dried up, that if the Governor-General did not act decisively then the Prime Minister could without notice dismiss the Governor-General and maintain the deadlock indefinitely.

Protest occupying the width of George Street, Sydney, outside the Sydney Town Hall, about 6.45 p.m. 11 November 1975 following news of the dismissal.

On the morning of 11 November, Whitlam arranged to see the Governor-General at Yarralumla. The Prime Minister arrived without the knowledge that Fraser had also been summoned but had arrived earlier. Whitlam also carried with him a letter requesting official approval for a half-Senate election in order to break the deadlock.[44]

However, just as Whitlam was formally tendering his advice that Kerr request the state governors to issue writs for a half-Senate election, Kerr cut him off and asked him if he intended to advise a House election as well. When Whitlam said no, Kerr stated that there was no prospect of the crisis being resolved otherwise. He then informed Whitlam that he was terminating his commission as Prime Minister and handed him a pre-written letter to that effect—thus preempting any plans Whitlam might have had to advise the Queen to dismiss Kerr.

A few minutes later, Kerr summoned Fraser. At this point, Kerr asked Fraser whether, if commissioned as Prime Minister, he would:

  1. pass the budget
  2. advise a double dissolution election (in which both the House and Senate would be up for election) and
  3. enact no new policies, make no appointments and initiate no inquiries into Whitlam's government pending the election.

When Fraser answered "yes" to all questions, Kerr commissioned him as the caretaker Prime Minister of Australia. Years later, Fraser, supported by his staff, claimed that Kerr had asked him the same three questions earlier in the day over the phone, something which Kerr adamantly denied in his memoirs.

Fraser then instructed his Senators to pass the budget and advised Kerr to call a double dissolution election for 13 December. The Liberal and National Country Party senators voted to pass the Supply bills, along with the Labor senators who were largely not yet aware that Whitlam and his government had been dismissed (because Whitlam, intending to defeat Fraser on the floor of the House of Representatives, had omitted to tell them). In any case it would have been useless for the Labor senators to vote against supply. Fraser advised the House that he had been appointed Prime Minister. The House passed a motion of no confidence in Fraser, who had left the House shortly after his announcement and did not participate in the debate. The Speaker, Gordon Scholes, suspended the session in order for him to call on Kerr to advise him that Fraser did not have the confidence of the House, and to request him to withdraw Fraser's commission and invite Whitlam to form a new government. By the time Kerr received Scholes at 4:45 p.m., however, Kerr had already given assent to the Supply bills and dissolved Parliament on Fraser's advice, so the no-confidence motion was rendered obsolete.[45]

Amongst general din and shouts from hecklers amongst the crowd that had quickly gathered as the news had spread, the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, David Smith read out the proclamation of the dissolution of Parliament from the steps of Parliament House. The proclamation ended with the words "God Save the Queen". Whitlam then addressed the assembled press and onlookers:

Well may we say "God save the Queen" because nothing will save the Governor-General. The proclamation you have just heard read by the Governor-General's Official Secretary was countersigned "Malcolm Fraser", who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day 1975 as Kerr's Cur.

Aftermath

ALP Policy launch before a huge crowd in the Sydney Domain on 24 November 1975

The news that Whitlam had been dismissed spread across Australia during the afternoon, triggering immediate protest demonstrations. On 12 November, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Gordon Scholes, wrote to the Queen, asking her to restore Whitlam as Prime Minister. The reply from the Queen's Private Secretary, dated 17 November 1975, included the following words:

As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.[46]

Over the following weeks, Kerr was the subject of intense denunciations by angry Labor supporters, led by Whitlam, who made a series of speeches attacking Kerr.

In the ensuing election campaign, the Australian Labor Party's focus was predominantly on the asserted illegitimacy of the dismissal (with the slogans of "Shame Fraser, Shame"), while the Coalition focused on Labor's economic management. Some expected a major backlash against Fraser in favour of Whitlam (who had launched his campaign by calling upon his supporters to "maintain your rage"), based on the fact that opinion polls in October and early November had shown most voters blamed Fraser for causing the crisis and disagreed with his tactics. Once an election was called, the majority of people focussed on the economy and accepted the Liberals' line that confirming the change of government was necessary to "turn on the lights" (the Liberal election slogan). Passionate die-hard Labor supporters were furious at what they saw as an establishment plot to destroy a Labor government. Labor suffered its greatest loss ever (losing 7.4% of its vote at the 1974 election) against Fraser's Coalition.

Kerr was not forgiven by many Australians. Countless demonstrations occurred against him for years. He found the personal attacks on him and his wife, whom Whitlam and others accused of having been a sinister influence, deeply wounding. For the rest of his term as Governor-General Kerr was rarely able to appear in public without encountering angry demonstrations against him.[47] On one occasion he genuinely feared for his life when he was unable to leave a speaking engagement in Melbourne except by having his car drive through an angry crowd. Labor MPs and Senators refused to accept his legitimacy as governor-general, as did Labor parliamentarians in the states and territories, shunning all official functions where he was in attendance.

Concern about Kerr's health may have been one reason why he cut short his five-year term and resigned his office in December 1977. In fact, his resignation had already been proposed during the visit of the Queen as early as March 1977. Though Fraser did owe his ascension to the Prime Minister's office to Kerr's actions, he nonetheless wanted Kerr gone.[48] Fraser offered Kerr a post as ambassador to UNESCO, an offer which he subsequently withdrew under enormous public pressure.[49] Bill Hayden, then leader of the parliamentary opposition Labor party, was one of the critics against the UNESCO appointment. In the Australian Parliament he stated, "The appointment of Sir John Kerr as Ambassador... is not just an indecent exercise of the rankest cynicism. It is in every respect an affront to this country."[50]

Legacy

The crisis is significant in analysing Westminster systems for the large number of conventions that were involved. Constitutional texts cannot cover every conceivable reality, and the political process almost always relies to some extent on custom and convention in operation. The Australian Constitution, drafted by those steeped in the British tradition of an unwritten constitution, relies on established unwritten customs to determine and guide the application of what appears in the constitutional text. Some have seen expressed in the 1975 crisis a fundamental contradiction deriving from the Australian Constitution's melding of the principles of the Westminster system, with a dominant lower house that determines the government, and United States-style federalism, with a "states' chamber" (the Senate) with powers very nearly equal to those of the House of Representatives.

The Australian crisis illustrates how unwritten conventions can operate flexibly during a crisis, seen by some as a benefit, while being used by others as an argument for the codification of the reserve powers. The latter view is not accepted by many prominent Australian constitutional scholars[who?], who argue that the flexibility is needed, and would be lost in codification. It is argued that in a system where the Houses have equal power, a head of state with wide reserve powers is required to serve as umpire. Codification of powers essentially eliminates the vice-regal ability to use discretion in their exercise, and these scholars argue this discretion is necessary in order to resolve unforeseen difficulties.

Although the crisis was described as Australia's most dramatic political event since Federation in 1901, it caused no disruption in the services of government; it saw the parties remaining committed to the political and constitutional process by contesting the subsequent election and accepting the result. Further, in some of Whitlam's reflections of this period in the following years, he himself often referred to it as a "political" crisis, rather than a "constitutional" crisis. In either case, the crisis did precipitate one constitutional change, passed by referendum in 1977, that requires that a Senate vacancy may only be filled by a member of the party of the original holder of the seat, if the holder's party still exists and if the State Parliament chooses to fill the vacancy.

In the years afterwards, some Australian republicans have used the crisis as an argument for change, on the basis that Australia's current constitution is flawed over (a) the powers of the upper house with regard to supply and (b) the lack of security of tenure of the governor-general in dealing with a crisis. No attempts to constitutionally deny the Senate the power to block supply have been put to referendum, despite multiple changes of government since 1975. Strictly the crisis could have occurred whether Australia was a republic or a constitutional monarchy, since the structural causes of the crisis were the approximately equal powers of the two houses of Parliament and the governor-general's ability to invoke reserve powers – powers which would be transferred to the president under most models for an Australian republic. Whether and in what form these reserve powers would exist under any potential future republic is an as yet undecided issue. Also, another potential question is why such eventualities could not be avoided by formal constitutional clarification of the roles of the monarch and Governor-General.

Prior to the constitutional referendum of 1988, the convention responsible for deciding on which amendments would be put to a popular vote rejected a proposal to introduce an amendment to strip the Senate's power to block supply.

The question of whether the Senate would ever block supply again remains uncertain. For most of the time from 1980 to 2004, the balance of power in the Senate was held by the Australian Democrats, who disavowed ever blocking supply to a government, thus reducing the question's urgency. At the 2004 election the Liberal/National Coalition government won control of the Senate, so the question became academic. After their loss of government at the 2007 election, the Coalition still controlled the Senate until 30 June 2008, but blocking supply was not an issue. From 1 July 2008, the balance of power in the Senate has been in the hands of the Australian Greens party and independents.

Fraser and Whitlam have not kept up any enmity and are reconciled to the point where they have, on occasion, spoken jointly on political issues such as the referendum of 1999 as to whether Australia should become a republic. They have even appeared in the same spirit, as a trio with former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, on an Australian television interview program.

Journalist Paul Kelly has produced a series of books generally regarded as forming the most comprehensive account of the crisis. His most recent is entitled November 1975. While Kelly criticises both Fraser and Whitlam heavily, and points out the flaws in the Australian constitutional system that made it possible, he ultimately shifts the majority of the blame on Kerr for doing little to encourage a negotiated solution to the crisis.

A dramatised version of events exists in the form of a television miniseries, The Dismissal, screened in 1983. Paul Kelly's book The Unmaking of Gough (first published in 1976) was re-released under the title The Dismissal in 1983, as a tie-in to the television series.

Alleged role of the United States government

A few commentators allege involvement by United States intelligence in the dismissal of the Whitlam government.

The most common allegation is that the Central Intelligence Agency influenced Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam. In 1966 Kerr had joined the Association for Cultural Freedom, a conservative group which was later revealed to have received Central Intelligence Agency funding. Christopher Boyce, an employee of a CIA civilian contractor and convicted Soviet spy, claimed that the CIA wanted Whitlam removed from office because he threatened to close US military bases in Australia, including Pine Gap. Boyce said that Sir John Kerr was described by the CIA as "our man Kerr".[51] These allegations were repeated in Parliament in 1986 by Peter Staples.[52] Boyce's story was made into a movie The Falcon and the Snowman.

Journalist John Pilger goes further, calling the dismissal a "coup". He alleges that the CIA, using the Nugan Hand Bank as a front, "set up" the Whitlam Government in the Loans Affair, provided slush funds to the opposition parties, used its intelligence-gathering for political ends, subverted trade unions, and liaised with Kerr during the crisis.[53] Similar allegations are made by William Blum in Chapter 40 of his book Killing Hope, and by Centre for Policy Development lobbyist Tony Douglas.[54]

Whitlam initially called for an inquiry into Boyce's allegations but, by the time of his 1985 book The Whitlam Government, he downplayed the issue, saying Kerr didn't need any encouragement from the CIA.[55] Former ASIO chief Edward Woodward has dismissed the notion of CIA involvement.[56]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "ozpolitics.info". The Dismissal. Retrieved 30 March 2008.
  2. ^ Dismissal still angers Gough, AM, ABC radio, 7 November 2005
  3. ^ Kelly 1995, pp. 16–17.
  4. ^ Kelly 1995, p. 1.
  5. ^ McMinn 1979, p. 155.
  6. ^ Kelly 1995, p. 135.
  7. ^ McMinn 1979, pp. 161–162.
  8. ^ McMinn 1979, pp. 162–163.
  9. ^ McMinn 1979, p. 154.
  10. ^ Reid 1976, p. 39.
  11. ^ Reid 1976, p. 45.
  12. ^ Kelly 1995, pp. 36–37.
  13. ^ Reid 1976, pp. 107.
  14. ^ Reid 1976, p. 108.
  15. ^ 'How one strong woman changed the course of Australian history, The Age, 2 January 2010
  16. ^ Kelly 1983, pp. 16–19.
  17. ^ Freudenberg 2008, p. 307.
  18. ^ Reid 1976, p. 1.
  19. ^ Kelly 1983, pp. 160–161.
  20. ^ Brown 2002, pp. 128–129.
  21. ^ Reid 1976, p. 206.
  22. ^ Reid 1976, pp. 206–208.
  23. ^ Freudenberg 2009, p. 315.
  24. ^ Freudenberg 2009, p. 317.
  25. ^ Ayres 1987, p. 251.
  26. ^ Kelly 1983, p. 193.
  27. ^ Kelly 1983, pp. 193–195.
  28. ^ Kelly 1995, p. 106.
  29. ^ Lloyd 2008, p. 345.
  30. ^ Kelly 1995, pp. 107–109.
  31. ^ Kelly 1995, p. 109.
  32. ^ Reid 1976, p. 343–344.
  33. ^ Reid 1976, pp. 354–356.
  34. ^ Reid 1976, p. 364.
  35. ^ Ayres 1987, pp. 273–274.
  36. ^ Ayres 1987, pp. 274–275.
  37. ^ a b Ayres 1987, pp. 275–276.
  38. ^ Reid 1976, p. 370.
  39. ^ Kelly 1995, pp. 131–132.
  40. ^ Kelly 1995, pp. 145–146.
  41. ^ Kelly 1995, p. 151.
  42. ^ Freudenberg 2009, p. 386.
  43. ^ Kelly 1995, p. 152.
  44. ^ Shaw, Meaghan (2005-11-05). "'Nothing will save the governor-general'". The Age.
  45. ^ The bills that were the trigger for the double dissolution were: Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974, Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1974, Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974, Minerals (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974, Minerals (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Bill 1974, National Health Bill 1974, Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1974, Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1974, National Investment Fund Bill 1974, Electoral Laws Amendment Bill 1974, Electoral Bill 1975, Privy Council Appeals Abolition Bill 1975, Superior Court of Australia Bill 1974, Electoral Re-distribution (New South Wales) Bill 1975, Electoral Re-distribution (Queensland) Bill 1975, Electoral Re-distribution (South Australia) Bill 1975, Electoral Re-distribution (Tasmania) Bill 1975, Electoral Re-distribution (Victoria) Bill 1975, Broadcasting and Television Bill (No. 2) 1974, Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974, Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974. All of these bills had twice been passed by the House of Representatives and rejected by the Senate. Somewhat unusually, the bills were all ones that his own parties had blocked.
  46. ^ "whitlamdismissal.com". whitlamdismissal.com. Retrieved 2010-04-22.
  47. ^ The Prince of Wales: A Biography by Jonathan Dimbleby, p.226
  48. ^ Malcolm Fraser: A Biography, p.323
  49. ^ Kerr 1978, p.424
  50. ^ Kerr 1978, p.428
  51. ^ Martin, Ray (23 May 1982). "A Spy's Story: USA Traitor Gaoled for 40 Years After Selling Codes of Rylite and Argus Projects. (60 Minutes transcript)". williambowles.info. Archived from the original on 2009-06-17. Retrieved 2006-09-24. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  52. ^ Staples, Peter (20 November 1986). "Australian House of Representatives 20 November 1986, Grievance Debate". Reps Hansard. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  53. ^ John Pilger, A Secret Country, Jonathan Cape, London, 1989, pp 140–178.
  54. ^ "The CIA in Australia, Part 3". Public Radio News Services. October–November 1986. Archived from the original on 2009-07-25. Retrieved 2006-09-24. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  55. ^ "Carter denied CIA meddling", by Mike Steketee, "The Australian", 1 January 2008
  56. ^ Terrorist threat heightened, former spy boss says, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 7.30 Report, 11/10/2005. Accessed 2009-07-23. Archived 2009-07-25.
Bibliography
  • Ayres, Philip (1987), Malcolm Fraser, William Heinemann Australia, ISBN 0855610603. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Brown, Wallace (2002), Ten Prime Ministers: Life Among the Politicians, Loungeville Books, ISBN 1920681043. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Cohen, Barry (1996), Life With Gough, Allen & Unwin, ISBN 1864481692. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Freudenberg, Graham (2009), A Certain Grandeur: Gough Whitlam's Life in Politics (revised ed.), Viking, ISBN 9780670073757
  • Henderson, Gerard (2008), "Sir John Grey Gorton", in Grattan, Michelle (ed.), Australian Prime Ministers (revised ed.), New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd., pp. 298–311
  • Hocking, Jenny (2008), Gough Whitlam: A Moment in History, The Miegunyah Press, ISBN 9780522857054
  • Kelly, Paul (1983), The Dismissal, Angus & Robertson Publishers, ISBN 0207148600. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Kelly, Paul (1995), November 1975, Allen & Unwin, ISBN 1863739874. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Kerr, John (1978), Matters for Judgment, Macmillan.
  • Lloyd, Clem (2008), "Edward Gough Whitlam", in Grattan, Michelle (ed.), Australian Prime Ministers (revised ed.), New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd., pp. 324–354
  • McMinn, Winston (1979), A Constitutional History of Australia, Oxford University Press, ISBN 019550562X. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Oakes, Laurie; Solomon, David (1973), The Making of an Australian Prime Minister, Cheshire Publishing Pty Ltd., ISBN 0-7015-1711-5. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Reid, Alan (1976), The Whitlam Venture, Hill of Content, ISBN 0855720794. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Geoffrey, Sawer (1977), "Towards a New Federal Structure?", in Evans, Gareth (ed.), Labor and the Constitution 1972–1975: The Whitlam Years in Australian Government, Heinemann, pp. 3–16, ISBN 0858591472
  • Sekuless, Peter (2008), "Sir William McMahon", in Grattan, Michelle (ed.), Australian Prime Ministers (revised ed.), New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd., pp. 312–323
  • Whitlam, Gough (1979), The Truth of the Matter, Allen Lane, ISBN 071391291X. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Whitlam, Gough (1997), Abiding Interests, University of Queensland Press, ISBN 0702228796. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

References

  • Tony Blackshield, "Dismissal of 1975", in Blackshield, Coper and Williams, Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia (Oxford University Press, 2001) ISBN 0-19-554022-0

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis&oldid=362178048"