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.

Background

The Whitlam government, elected in 1972 after decades of conservative rule, had pioneered several social reforms immediately after gaining office, including the creation of the Medibank universal health care system, the introduction of no-fault divorce legislation, and the abolition of fees for tertiary education. These reforms initially made it popular but the electorate soon became wary of the breakneck pace of reform and Whitlam's "crash through or crash" style. Inexperienced and erratic Ministers made several gaffes; relations with bodies such as the public service (particularly the Treasury) and the trade union movement were often tense, and as the economy was beset by stagflation the government came under increasing attack. Desperate to raise revenue, a number of Ministers sought finance through unorthodox channels, triggering the Khemlani loans affair. In 1974, Whitlam called a double dissolution in an effort to gain a government majority in the Senate, but failed. By 1975 the government had become scandal-plagued and unpopular in the electorate.

Related Topics:
1972 - Medibank - Universal health care - No-fault divorce - Tertiary education - Public service - Treasury - Trade union - Stagflation - Khemlani loans affair - 1974 - Double dissolution - 1975

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In this context, two non-Labor State Premiers (Joh Bjelke-Petersen of Queensland and Tom Lewis of New South Wales), when faced with casual vacancies for their states in the Senate (caused by the appointment of one sitting Senator as a judge and the sudden death of another), filled those vacancies with senators who did not strongly support the Labor government. Bjelke-Petersen refused the Labor Party's candidate as replacement Senator, Mal Colston, in favour of obscure french-polisher Albert Patrick Field, a Labor Party member but openly critical of the Whitlam government. The other replacement senator, Cleaver Bunton from New South Wales, was fully independent, being a member of no party at all. 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 (although it should be noted that the Queensland branch of the Labor Party had refused to offer Bjelke-Petersen a choice of nominees, instead providing only one candidate). Field's appointment came under challenge in the High Court, and he was on leave from the Senate, unable to exercise a vote, for the period of the crisis. The number of nominally Labor Senators was thus reduced, but the Liberal-Country opposition would not provide a "pair" (an informal but well-established tradition whereby whenever a sitting member or Senator is through circumstances outside their control unable to attend and vote, the opposite party reduces its own numbers accordingly by having one of their own members abstain from the vote).

Related Topics:
Joh Bjelke-Petersen - Queensland - Tom Lewis - New South Wales - Senate - Mal Colston - Albert Patrick Field - Cleaver Bunton - Pair

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Quoting financial mismanagement as a pretext, the Opposition refused to vote on the passage of the government's budget through the Senate, under the assumption that, having lost the support of Parliament, the Prime Minister was obliged to resign and advise the Governor-General to call an election.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Normally, in Westminster systems, the government is only accountable to the directly-elected lower house, with the upper house being either appointed, hereditary, or indirectly elected. After a confrontation between Lloyd George and the House of Lords, Britain's Parliament Act, 1911 enshrined the principle in Britain that the upper house cannot thwart the wishes of a government with the support of a lower house. Australia's Constitution, however, had provided for a powerful upper house, with wide powers. The constitution had been enacted in 1901, thus pre-dating the Parliament Act. Unlike members of the House of Lords or the Canadian Senate, Australian Senators are directly elected, albeit on a rotational basis and in a manner that it is proportionally skewed in favour of states with smaller populations. The Constitution specifically provided that the Senate could not originate or amend bills about finance or expenditure, but then provided that otherwise both Houses were to have equal legislative power, prima facie leaving the Senate with power to defer or reject them.

Related Topics:
Westminster systems - Lloyd George - House of Lords - Britain - Parliament Act - Australia's Constitution - 1901 - Canadian Senate

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Liberals defended their action in blocking supply by arguing that that the Whitlam himself had openly flouted conventions. The great scandal of the 'Loans Affair' (among others), 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. The Liberals moreover claimed (rightly, according to opinion polls) that the electorate had tired of the Whitlam government and wished to vote it out, and thus forcing the government to call an election was justifiable. The Liberals interpreted the Westminster system, as operating in Australia, as requiring a government to resign or call an election if it could not get from Parliament the money to govern, even if it was only the Senate that prevented them from doing so. They emphasised that the Australian Constitution gave the Senate basically equal power to the House of Representatives.

Related Topics:
Blocking supply - Opinion poll

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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 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 (or 'responsible government') 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. The Constitution, despite on its face giving almost equal power to both Houses, had to be read against the background of this unwritten but hitherto universally accepted convention. Paul Kelly in November 1975 has stated that Whitlam viewed the crisis as a chance not only to force Fraser into a humiliating backdown, but also to permanently and definitively establish the supremacy of the lower house.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Public opinion during the crisis months of October-November was mixed. The Whitlam government remained unpopular because of economic problems and scandals, but opinion polls showed a growing majority as the deadlock wore on blamed the Opposition for the crisis and wanted it to cave in and pass the budget bills.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~