A very well written and (to me) convincing piece.

Given that "the dismissal" still evokes strong emotions and is politically divisive, I am sure there are many that will disagree.

the great south lands..van die mens land
are governed* by the Governor-GENERAL*..

as all british/tish tish COLONIES are lorded over by
heh despiote herself being mearly a tokenistic dopple ganger
yet ,the one to whom our various armed forces swear loyalty..,not the pm nor govt constitution or even the australia con-institution act..etc

the australia ACt,..ratified by the brits further complicates
or rather muddies the fact's..and might is right

govt has no authority to tax wages
but can tax income*..income is that earned via no wage value adding componant..like fees fines revenue raising..yet the silence from our defacto goveners..60%..of whom are or were lawyers,..verges on treason..

almost as much as hrh 'coin'..content ..has become..DEBASED cupra/nickle..when tradition requires gold/silver ..and the mint and fed gifted by treason..to money lenders..conmpiounds the treason

but heck no one is watching
so the law..IS DO AS YOUR MASTERS TELL YOU
or we send in the rum corpus coruptus...just dont try to interrupt us.

Part One: A common failing in articles about the 1975 crisis is the inability of the authors to see beyond their own political interests. Mr Smith’s article is a text book example. He approaches the issue in the same partisan manner which he criticises Mr Evans for adopting. These people who are like punch-drunk fighters who want to continue the fight, rather than thinking through a way of avoiding such fights in the future.

There is a key distinction between the Senate having power over money bills and the Senate using that power to remove a Government. If the 1975 Senate had disagreed with the proposed budget, it would have moved amendments, then upon rejection of the amendments it would have rejected the bills. The Government would then have submitted an amended budget.

The Senate blocked supply for one reason only. It wanted to remove the Government. The minority which lost the last election deliberately contrived the crisis in order to remove the majority which won. This was blatantly undemocratic.

Kerr had a choice. He could have adopted the democratic approach and said, initially privately and then publicly if necessary, that ‘While the Government holds a majority in the House, it is entitled to govern, and I will not curtail its right to govern.’ The Senate would have been unable to secure its objective. It would have backed down. Crisis over; democracy preserved.

Instead, he chose the undemocratic option and allowed the minority which lost the last election to throw out the majority which won. Calling an election was not ‘referring the dispute to the people’. It was giving one side in a political dispute exactly what it wanted - an election when it wasn’t entitled to one, and when its chances were good. Will supporters of his action be so supportive if in future this happens to a Liberal Government?

Part Two: It is wrong though to focus on the failings of individuals. Humans will always let us down. We should focus on principles instead. Build a system rigorously based on democratic principle, and then individual failings will be unable to bring it down.

Concentrating on principle, the absurdity of current arrangements becomes apparent. The unelected representative of a foreign queen should not have power to force the elected Government from office. We have representatives who can do that. There have been many occasions where a change in support within the House has lead to a change of Government.

Democratic principle requires the power to choose Government be passed to the House of our Representatives. That will ensure that the majority is entitled to govern. This is the approach of the Advancing Democracy model - see www.advancingdemocracy.info.

Advancing Democracy should be of interest to anyone who wants to develop a better system. If you remain obsessed with justifying what ‘your side’ did in 1975, we will never make progress.

(quote)
He described Sir John's tenure as "catastrophic", but I doubt that the vast majority of the Australian people who so decisively and comprehensively rejected Gough Whitlam and his Government in landslide defeats at the 1975 and 1977 national elections would agree with him
(end quote)

Sadly David Smith does not see that the political popularity (or not) of the Whitlam government has (or should have) no bearing whatever on the correctness or appropriateness of the Governor-General's action.

(quote)
Whitlam attempted to give the Governor-General the stupidest piece of advice imaginable. That was the day when Whitlam intended to advise the Governor-General to order a half Senate election to be held on 13 December. One can hardly imagine that Whitlam could have believed that the election of Senators who would not have taken their seats in the Senate until 1 July 1976 – six and a half month later – would have solved the nation's immediate financial and economic crisis caused by the Government having already started to run out of money.
(end quote)

So what is the correct advice in such a situation? To advise a House of Representatives election? Wouldn't that be just as stupid, since it doesn't change the composition of the Senate? (I understand that, if I'm not mistaken, in this case an immediate double dissolution election was possible - but it normally wouldn't be, so that's clearly not the correct solution intended by the Consititution).

(quote)
the High Court handed down its judgement in Victoriav the Commonwealth. The Court held that, except for the constitutional limitation on the power of the Senate to initiate or amend a money bill, the Senate was equal with the House of Representatives as a part of the Parliament
(end quote)

It's certainly true that this case says
"The Senate is a part of the Parliament and, except as to laws appropriating revenue or money for the ordinary annual services of the Government or imposing taxation, is co-equal with the House of Representatives' (see para 47 of it, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1975/39.html)

I remember when I read this case in my constitutional law studies some years later, I wonder if some stupid people read this and been encouraged, in their actions later on that year, by it. But the whole case makes the context absolutely clear - it is in relation to the passing of legislation. It's clear from what the case is about that it does not suggest that the Senate has equal power to decide who should form the Government.

An excellent article by David Smith about that magnificent day when Her Majesty's representative, acting under section 64 of the Constitution, terminated the commission of the Prime Minister. Many republicans in Australia simply cannot accept what so many Australians think of our politicians, and how comforted they feel that the Prime Minister of the day, in the very words of section 64, holds office during the pleasure of Her Majesty's representative. They are also comforted by the fact that this situation cannot be changed by the politicians, only by the people voting in a referendum.

There is, however one point that I think I can pick David up on. He stated that there seemed to be no point in having a half senate election (assuming that the Governors would issue the writs), since the new senators would not take their places until 1/7/1976. At the time this was not the case. In 1975 if a casual vacancy appointment existed in the Senate the replacement had to face the people at the next House of Reps or Senate election, and those places would be filled immediately. As the Senate decided in 1902, the casual vacancy provisions would be filled last, and with Labor lagging in the polls, the two vacancies would most likely be filled with Labor nominees, giving Labor a temporary majority in the Senate until 1/7/1976.

This situation was changed by the 1977 referendum on casual vacancies, and the replacement is now appointed for the remainder of the term.

Sorry, Plerdsus, but the half Senate election that Whitlam wanted to recommend in 1975 was not to fill casual vacancies, it was for half of the Senate, and State senators elected then would not have taken their places until 1 July 1976. DIS

Dear DIS,

In February 1975 Lionel Murphy resigned from the Senate to join the High Court, creating a casual vacancy. The NSW Parliament appointed Cleaver Bunton, the mayor of Albury to fill the position.

In June 1975 Bert Milliner, a Labor Senator from Queensland, died. In September 1975 the Queensland Parliament appointed Albert Field to fill the vacancy.

At the time the Senate had sixty members with five from each State up for election in a half senate election.

Under the constitutional provisions in force at the time, if a half senate election had been held the Governors of NSW and Queensland would have had to issue writs for the election of six senators, not five. Under Senate rules the last persons elected would have filled the remainder of the casual vacancy terms, and would have taken their seats in the Senate immediately, whereas the other 30 senators would not have taken their seats until 1st July 1976.

If the Labor Party had filled the two casual vacancy seats they would have gained a temporary majority in the Senate until 1st July 1976, enabling them to pass the 21 bills cited in the double dissolution.

Part One: A common failing in articles about the 1975 crisis is the inability of posters who were on the losing side to get over it.
“The minority which lost the last election deliberately contrived the crisis in order to remove the majority which won. This was blatantly undemocratic.”
That is: removing the government so as to hold an election. So why on earth would a ‘minority’ want to hold an election? Also, in other countries the practice of the executive recall exists whereby, before the term of office is up, another election can be held to oust the incumbent if there is the popular will. (the method Arnie came to be Californian Governor) Would that action also be “blatantly undemocratic”?

“…it was giving one side in a political dispute exactly what it wanted - an election when it wasn’t entitled to one”
Of all the things politicians shouldn’t be entitled to; overseas holiday junkets, family members as paid staff, five star accommodation, unlimited travel, super above what the normal worker gets, the poster thinks they shouldn’t dare be entitled to an election! Please, give them less perks and give us more elections to keep them on their toes.

It says a lot about the mentality of some political movements that winning office is considered a prize in terms of a time bracket. Winning the election doesn’t apparently mean catering to the concerns of the electorate and recognising signals of being no longer wanted, but having the right to do whatever you want until your full time is up.

Part Two: If what Kerr did was so wrong why wasn’t there any debate about it -before- 1975? Precedent was set in the 1930s when NSW Premier Jack Lang was removed from office by the Monarch’s representative Sir Philip Game.

Plerdsus,
Given the results of the election when it finally was held, do you really believe that the two casual vacancies would have gone to Labor?

This is a response to Edward Carson’s partisan and rather childish contribution.

I was not on the losing side in 1975. I joined the Liberal Party in December 1975. It took over 9 months for the significance of what had happened to dawn on me, and change my mind. See the Background tab at www.advancingdemocracy.info for details on how to rise above partisan positions by focusing on principles.

Removing a Government to force an election is undemocratic in two respects. Firstly, and most importantly, it deprives those who voted for the Government of their right to the full value of their vote. The House is elected for 3 years. Those who voted Labor in 1972 and 1974 only received half that allotted time. Can anyone really suggest the game is fair when if I win I get 3 years, whereas if you win you get only 18 months, or such other lesser period that I, the loser, determines? Elections can also be undemocratic when both sides are not playing on a level field. This occurs when one side is taken by surprise and is not prepared for an election. This is why many jurisdictions moved towards fixed elections - to stop Governments calling early, unexpected elections. The Senate and Governor-General combine to take advantage of a Government’s present unpopularity is a different manifestation of the same unfairness.

I’ll stop there as watching the cricket is more important than responding to the remaining trivia.

Dis, Plerdus is quite right. As the LAST senators elected would have filled the casual vacancies, it is entirely plausible that these would have been Labor candidates. Suggest it is inadvisable to critique posts unless sure of fully comprehending them.

“Can anyone really suggest the –game- is fair when if I win I get 3 years, whereas if you win you get only 18 months,” (emphasis added)
Bit of a Freudian slip there Philip. ‘Ya see, ya compete in this election game and the one who is best at looking good and being popular wins the grand prize of, wait for it, three years of government perks and power!’

Democratically speaking, elections should not be prize winning games. They should be instead, job applications, where the successful candidate is bestowed with the honour and responsibility of representing a group of people, not bestowed with the prize of three years of power. And those who realise the wind had changed, that they are no longer wanted as representatives, should have the dignity to go quietly, rather than being dragged out kicking and screaming complaining that they have not yet enjoyed their entire prize.

Philip, if you’re all into ‘advancing democracy’ you should have heard of the 19th century British pro democracy movement, Chartism. So tell me what and why was number #6 of their People’s Charter of 1938.

That should be People's Charter of 1838.

May I repeat the main point which some of our posters seem to have forgotten. A half Senate election was simply not possible if four State Premiers had already declared that they would not advise their Governors to issue the writs.