(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?