| Australian Constitutional Crisis Of 1975 |
Article Index for Australian |
Website Links For 1975 |
Information AboutAustralian Constitutional Crisis Of 1975 |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT 1975 AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS | |
| australian constitutional law | |
| constitutional crisis of 1975, australian | |
| australian political controversies | |
| political history of australia | |
| 1975 in australia | |
| constitutional crisis | |
|
The Australia n constitutional crisis of 1975, commonly called '''The Dismissal''', refers to the events that culminated with the removal by Governor-General Sir John Kerr of Australia's then Prime Minister , Gough Whitlam 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 The crisis began in the Upper House of the Federal Parliament , the Senate , where the Opposition Liberal - National Country Party Coalition had a majority. The Senate deferred voting on the annual Budget bills that appropriated funds for government expenditure, attempting to force the Prime Minister to call an election. The Whitlam Government simultaneously dismissed the calls and attempted to pressure Liberal Senators to support the bills while also exploring alternative means to fund government expenditure. The impasse extended into weeks, the threat of the government failing to meet its financial obligations being ever present. On 11 November 1975 , the Governor-General dismissed Whitlam as Prime Minister and appointed his Liberal opponent Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister; coalition Senators then approved the appropriation bills and Fraser subsequently called the 1975 Federal Election which saw the coalition win a majority in the House Of Representatives , thus resolving the crisis. BACKGROUND The Whitlam government, which was Elected In 1972 after 23 years of conservative rule, embarked on a breakneck pace of reform, despite holding a nine seat majority in the House of Representatives, and being in minority in the Senate. In 1974, Whitlam called a Double Dissolution in an effort to gain a government majority in the Senate. His government (contrary to widespread expectation) was returned with a reduced majority at the 1974 Election , but the Senate result in particular was not as favourable as he had hoped, with the balance of power being in the hands of two independent Senators (one of whom joined the Liberal party in February 1975). However, after the election, bills which had been rejected three times by the Senate in the previous parliament were able to be put to a historic Joint Sitting of both houses of parliament. This ensured such social reforms as Medibank were able to be instituted. Desperate to raise revenue, a number of Ministers sought finance through unorthodox channels, triggering what became known as the Loans Affair - this resulted in the government becoming increasingly scandal-plagued. The crisis was triggered by two Casual Vacancies in the Senate arising from the appointment of one sitting NSW Labor Senator, Lionel Murphy , as a judge on 9 February and the sudden death of Queensland Labor Senator Bert Milliner on 30 June . It fell on two non-Labor State premiers, Tom Lewis of New South Wales and Joh Bjelke-Petersen of Queensland , to choose their replacements. Both chose candidates who opposed the Whitlam government. On 27 February , Lewis appointed Cleaver Bunton as a replacement Senator for New South Wales. Bunton was independent and not a member of any political party. On 3 September , Bjelke-Petersen refused the Labor Party's candidate as replacement Senator, Mal Colston . Bjelke-Petersen had been presented only with Mal Colston, when he had requested a list of candidates from which to choose. Bjelke-Petersen chose to appoint a French-polisher union president, Albert Patrick Field . Field was a long-standing Labor Party member but openly critical of the Whitlam government. The action by both Premiers went against a previously unbroken convention under which a Senator who dies or resigns mid-term is replaced with a nominee from the former Senator's political party. Field's appointment came under challenge in the High Court. Field was on leave from the Senate, and unable to exercise a vote, for the period of the crisis. This left the Senate numbers at 30 Coalition, 27 Labor, and 2 independents (Bunton and Steele Hall , both of whom supported Labor on the supply votes). Quoting financial mismanagement, the Opposition refused to vote on the passage of the government's budget through the Senate. They considered that, having lost the support of Parliament, the Prime Minister was obliged to resign and to advise the Governor-General to call an election. The Liberals defended their action in Blocking Supply by arguing that Whitlam himself had openly flouted conventions. The ' Loans Affair ' (among other issues), in their opinion, justified their use of any legal means, however unconventional, to force what they saw as a reckless and incompetent government out of office. Less justifiably, they pointed to polls that indicated that they would probably win an election if one were held at that time. Whitlam, on the other hand, had a low regard for the status of the Senate. It had been long-standing Labor policy (implemented in Queensland) to abolish upper houses as they were considered anti-democratic. He adamantly insisted that the upper house had no power to dictate terms for the election of the directly-elected lower house. The lower house, the 'house of the people', was more democratic and representative than 'the house of the states' and thus, in a modern democracy, had to be supreme. Whitlam emphasised the long-established principle of the Westminster system that, as long as a government has a majority in the lower house, it is entitled to stay in office and serve its full term. Paul Kelly , in his book ''November 1975'', stated that Whitlam viewed the crisis as a chance not only to force Fraser into a humiliating back-down, but also to permanently and definitively establish the supremacy of the lower house. Public opinion during the crisis months of October and November was mixed. The Whitlam government remained unpopular largely because of economic problems but also because of the scandals; however, opinion polls showed that, as the deadlock wore on, a growing majority blamed the Opposition for the crisis and wanted it to pass the budget bills. 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 had started to drift towards the conservatives and felt isolated from the Government. Constitutional precedent had long established that the Governor-General was expected only to act on advice 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 still possessed wide ranging Reserve Powers to dissolve parliament and sack the government on his own initiative, in certain limited circumstances. This power had not been carried out by any monarch since King William IV . It would later become apparent that Kerr and Whitlam were at odds over whether the Governor-General had the power to act independently in times of crisis. Kerr had a much broader interpretation of the office's role than any of his predecessors. The Whitlam Labor Government assumed he would take no action unless prompted. As the government money threatened to run out Kerr came under increasing pressure from the Liberals, who insisted that constitutionally, a Prime Minister who could not obtain supply must either resign or be dismissed. 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 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 take such advice. Kerr subsequently claimed that he was not so much fearful of the loss of his own position but of the prospect that the monarch could become involved in Australian domestic politics, doing severe damage to her constitutional status. This idea however has since been ridiculed openly by Sir William Heseltine , then Private Secretary to the Queen. Kerr was also mindful of threats from Fraser that the Opposition would begin publicly criticising him unless he "did his duty". newspaper]] This prompted Kerr to seek advice from the in a Liberal Party government. Whitlam as Prime Minister had specifically requested Kerr as Governor-General not to seek Barwick's advice. 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. On the morning of 1975 . The Liberal and National Country Party Senators voted to pass the Supply bills, along with the Labor Senators. However, the Labor Senators were largely not yet aware that Whitlam and his government had been dismissed (because Whitlam, plotting 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. Kerr ignored two immediate motions of No Confidence in Fraser from the House of Representatives as by the time he received them Parliament had already been dissolved by proclamation. Upon the steps of Parliament House , Whitlam proclaimed to 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 was countersigned Malcolm Fraser, who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day 1975 as Kerr's Cur.'' ALLEGED ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT A minority of commentators believe the United States was involved. Following the end of the Second World War , the influence of British institutions on Australian public institutions weakened, while the influence of United States public institutions increased. |
|
|