Australian constitutional crisis of 1975

The Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 is generally regarded as the most significant domestic political and constitutional crisis in Australia's history.

Aftermath

In the ensuing federal election, the ALP's hurriedly prepared campaign shortsightedly focused entirely on what they termed the illegitimacy of the dismissal, (with the slogan of "Shame Fraser, Shame"), while the much better organised Coalition focused on Labor's economic management shortcomings. Although some people expected a major backlash against Fraser in favour of Whitlam (who had launched his campaign by calling upon his supporters to "maintain your rage" and whose supporters were visible and angry), based on the fact that opinion polls in October and early November had shown most tended to blame Fraser for causing the crisis and to disagree with his tactics, once an election was called the majority of people focussed on the economy and accepted the Liberals' line that a change of government was necessary to "turn on the lights" (the Liberal election slogan). Despite the passion of die-hard Labor supporters, furious at what they saw as an Establishment plot to destroy unconstitutionally a Labor government, the ALP suffered its greatest ever loss (losing 7.4% of its previous vote at the 1974 election) against Fraser's Coalition. This was seen as a popular endorsement of Kerr's actions, although Kerr himself became a reviled figure among Labor supporters and was eventually forced out of office to live in self-imposed exile in Surrey.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The crisis is significant in analyzing Westminster systems for the large number of conventions that were involved. Constitutional texts cannot cover every conceivable reality, and the political process most always rely to some extent custom and convention in operation. The Australian Constitution, drafted by those steeped in the British tradition of an unwritten constitution based on convention, is conspicuous among written constitutions for relying on such established, unwritten customs and conventions to limit and alter what the text says on its face. Thus, the Constitution says the Governor-General may appoint as ministers any members of Parliament, but behind this lies the convention that he appoints only those with the confidence of the Lower House. The Constitution gives the Governor General power to call an election, but again this is governed by the convention this is done only on the Prime Minister's advice. The problem of 1975 is what happens when these unwritten conventions adopted from Westminster (primarily, that the Lower House alone, not the Crown or the Upper House, has the real power to choose the government and ministers) and based on the specifics of the British system (i.e. one dominant elected house with democratic legitimacy, ano one only) conflict with the new, distinct Australian elements established by the written text - i.e. a federal system with an upper house representing the States which has according to the text the legal power to block money bills, and also arguably the political legitimacy to do so, since (unlike other upper houses in Westminister systems) it is directly elected. Some have seen expressed in the 1975 crisis a fundamental contradiction between the Westminster system, which demands one dominant house, and federalism, which demands a second house with equal powers to represent the States equally.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Australian crisis illustrates how unwritten conventions can operate flexibly during a crisis. It has been used as an argument for the codification of the reserve powers within the Constitution. But this view is not accepted by many prominent Australian constitutional scholars, 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.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It is notable that 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. The crisis did precipitate one constitutional change, passed by referendum in 1977, to require that State Governments fill Senate vacancies with the nominee of the Party of the original holder of the seat.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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 basically equal powers of the two Houses of Parliament and the possession by the Head of State of reserve powers, not whether the Head of State was a President or (de facto) a Governor-General (technically representing the Queen).

Related Topics:
Referendum - Republic - Constitutional monarchy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Given that the electoral system makes it unlikely for a government to have majority control of the Senate, the question of whether the Senate could ever block supply again remains undecided. In recent years the balance of power in the Australian Senate has been held by the Australian Democrats who have disavowed ever blocking supply to a government, thus reducing the question's urgency. Further, the Liberal/National Coalition government won control of the Senate in its own right in the elections of 2004, meaning the issue remains moot for the present.

Related Topics:
Australian Democrats - 2004

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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. Kelly's conclusions on whose actions were ultimately responsible is interesting: while he 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.

Related Topics:
Paul Kelly - November 1975

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A dramatised version of events exists in the form of a television mini series, The Dismissal, screened in 1983. Amongst those with directing credits are George Miller and Phillip Noyce, with cinematography by Dean Semler.

Related Topics:
George Miller - Phillip Noyce - Dean Semler

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~