Talk:1975 Australian constitutional crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	1975 Australian constitutional crisis is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (13-27 August 2006). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Field Appointment

This is another area of myth-making. The long-established convention is that a State Government fills a Senate casual vacancy with a member of the same party. There was and is no requirement that this replacement be the nominee of that party and in the case of Queensland there was at least one precedent that a party's nomination could be rejected, as Sir Frank Nicklin did in 1962 when he asked for a list of three names for Parliament to make a choice from. Joh Bjelke-Petersen rejected the State ALP's nomination of Mal Colston, citing in Parliament allegations that he had set fire to the school at which he was a teacher. He asked State Labor for a list of three names and when Labor insisted on Colston, he chose Patrick Field. There is no "nominally" about Field's membership of the ALP. He was a longstanding ALP member with a current membership card and he had recently been re-elected as a union president. He remained a member of the ALP throughout the crisis and was nominated by the ALP as a Senate candidate in the December 1975 election.

The 1977 constitutional amendment does not specify that the replacement Senator should be the nominee of his party, merely that he should be a member of that party. Of course if he ceases to be a party member before taking up his seat, he is ineligible to sit. Even under the 1977 amendment, Patrick Field was eligible to be chosen and to sit as a Senator for the State of Queensland.

He was on leave from the Senate, rather than unable to sit. The reason for this is that his appointment was under challenge in the High Court on the grounds that he may not have resigned from the Queensland public service at the time of his appointment, and he did not wish to be liable to the backdated $200 daily penalty for sitting as a Senator if it was found that he had been ineligible. Hugh Lunn in his 1978 biography of Joh Bjelke-Petersen notes that Field was on standby to vote in October as part of the budget blocking process if required.

If it is enough to nominate any member of the party, this makes a mockery of the process. Any stooge can pick up party membership.--Jack Upland 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You say that Patrick Field was a Senate nominee for Queensland of the ALP in the December 1975 election? Really???? What evidence do you have for this absurd statement? Under ALP rules he was automatically expelled from the party upon taking his seat in the Senate earlier in the year, when he was not the official party nominee for the position. He was certainly not a nominee of the ALP.

In fact, Field himself stood again in December 1975, but not as an ALP nominee. He did so, it was widely reported, in order to be able to receive the money paid to Federal Parliamentary incumbents when they nominate to stand again. (In this, he was as venal as his patron, Bjelke-Peterson). Peter, 2006-06-15.

[edit] Withdrawing from Vietnam

This is one of those myths that people like to believe. Because Whitlam campaigned long and loudly for Australia to pull out of Vietnam, the myth has sprung up that when he was elected, that this was one of his first actions. Makes sense, doesn't it?

But it's a complete fabrication. The previous government, hand in hand with the USA, had steadily withdrawn forces from Vietnam. When Whitlam was elected, there were no Australian combat troops remaining, merely a few embassy gaurd units and possibly a handful of training team members. In point of fact, Whitlam increased the Australian presence in Vietnam, albeit he didn't send combat troops and the units were only able to operate for a short time before Saigon fell. There is a chronology of the Vietnam involvement here and the actual units involved and the dates of their withdrawal can be found fairly easily. Perhaps we should draw up a list for the benefit of those who wish to inflate Whitlam greater than the facts allow. Skyring 22:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Caption for photograph

The previous caption referred to Whitlam listening to the proclamation of his government's dismissal. This was not the case, as the official notification of the change in government was not proclaimed, and would merely have been noted in the Gazette as a change of ministerial appointments. The document David Smith is reading is the proclamation of the dissolution of both Houses under s57, naming the "trigger" bills. As only the Governor-General has this power it was proclaimed by his official secretary, in the same location and with much the same wording as similar proclamations in 1974 and 1983 (and other years). For the full list and text of these proclamations see http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/elections/dissolutions.htm Skyring 00:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"not led to any constitutional changes"

I think this is wrong. There has since been a change in the way Senators are replaced when they resign. If you know some of the more obscure details of the crisis, you can see how this change was inspired by it.

I think you're right in that the procedure for replacing Senators has changed, and it was inspired by 1975 when Sir Joh appointed a stooge to replace a dead Labour Senator. However, this wasn't a constitutional issue, IIRC, it was decided by agreement between the States and the Federal governments and implemented with normal legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong --Robert Merkel

It definatly was a Constitutional amendement that was passed by referendum in 1977 to ensure that States had to appoint people from the same party as that of the retiring/deceased Senator.

I want to make reference to the stories that Kerr was influenced by the United States and, specifically, the CIA, in dismissing Whitlam. Firstly, it seems reasonably well-established that Kerr received a briefing from the Defence Department and knew about American concerns about the future of Pine Gap. Secondly, Kerr had a background in intelligence and spent time with the CIA in the 40s and 50s. Thirdly, there are the claims of Robert Boyce who heard defence contractors closely connected with the CIA referring to "Our Man Kerr", amongst other things. Interesting those things may be, they hardly make a compelling case that Kerr was significantly influenced. Is the above an accurate summary of the evidence or otherwise for this proposition? --Robert Merkel

See the discussion section down below USA government role. Boud 16:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear maveric149 & 136.186.1.xxx ,

The paragraph starting "It is notable that although the crisis was accurately described as Australia's most dramatic political crisis" - shows the open "Arguably the most dramatic moment of" as indecisive. Given the title of the page , the phase "Arguably the most dramatic" is also somewhat redundant. That's why I think the article should get straight to the point of what the `crisis' was (esp. as that seems to be mis-understood by some). And then address the background etc. --Anon

Sorry, I don't remember contributing to this article -- I just moved it to a title that conforms to our naming conventions. BTW Be bold in updating pages. Cheers!--maveric149

Good-o ;-) I was just trying to get the other editors to read this page to understand why large sections need updating.

Lets appreciate the event a bit better. The crisis was not because Whitlam was 'fired'; and was not even that supply was blocked. Normally, if supply is blocked then the Lower House would amend the budget and then Upper House would pass it; if no agreement could be reached then the PM could call a snap election and force a resolution one way or another. The crisis was because the Lower House was refussing to amend and PM refussing to resolve the issue. I'm not saying the ALP created the crisis, after all it takes two block-heads to create an impass.

I feel the nature of the crisis should be described as clearly as possible in the first paragraph.

Irrespective of the two new senators, the Liberal party already had control of the Upper House - the extra two senators are often thought of as contributing factors in the Senates confidence/decision to block supply. The Senate certainly has the right and the obligation to block supply if they feel the proposed budget is totally out of reason.

Note: I (RGM) indented this reply to make clear that the paragraphs below are are reply to the ones above. I wrote neither the original nor the reply

Before the breaking of the convention on Senate replacement the numbers in the Senate were equal so motions would have been "recorded as having passed in the negative", in other words they would have been lost and it was only with the breaking of the convention that the Liberals were able to get the numbers to block the supply bills.

As for your claim that Whitlam amending his government's Budget would have "solved" the crisis let me use the words of Reginald Withers the Senate Leader of the Liberal Party:

"We set out on a course - i am not trying to be provocative here - to force an election for the House of Representatives"

I agree totally with the reply, and would add that blocking supply, especially purely for the purposes of forcing an election, is not regarded as normal constitutional practice. 1975 is the only time it has happened since Federation, despite Opposition-controlled or hung Senates for much of that time. Nor has it happened in any of the state Parliaments.

By the way, in hindsight it seems fairly clear that there were *three* main blockheads in the process, along with a lot of contributory wilful stupidity. --Robert Merkel

Rob it did happen in the Victorian State Parliament in 1947 - the State Liberals used the Federal issue of bank nationalisation as a pretext to block supply and forced an election which the Liberals won (like in 1975). Since an Constitutional amendment in 1984, the Victorian upper house cannot block supply for three years out of the four year term that both houses are elected for. -- Paul Melville Austin (i wrote the earlier Withers piece too)

Paul, I have made edits to make the connection with the general issues of Westminster (or Washminster :-) ) Constitutions clearer. Though I understand your point that a convention may exist that supply should not be blocked for purely party polical ends, that leads to difficulties in practice if there is no confession like that of Withers. Who is to decide whether a given decision to block supply is motivated by partisanship? Giving that responsibility to a Supreme Court would surely only make matters worse! If you feel that my changes unbalance the article please add the Withers quote to address this. 193.82.145.202 18:05 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

I have to disagree with some of the constitutional interpretation in this article. Having studied cases workwide as part of an international study on heads of state, I think you miss some fundamental points, not least Whitlam's slipshod understanding of the constitutional implications of losing supply. I have added in some additional analysis based on my studies. I know while many constitutional experts worldwide think Sir John Kerr shouldn't have come up with the solution he produced, almost everyone I know who works in the area (from constitutional lawyers to advisors who work for various heads of state) all blame Whitlam far more than this article does. One ex-head of state went so far as to say that if they had to deal with a prime minister so blatently flouting conventions and internationally followed constitutional rules,

The problem is that constitutional law is basically a national issue. Just because it works one way in the UK

doesn't mean that it works another in Australia (or Canada for that matter). In particular the conventions regarding the upper house are just different in Australia than in UK or Canada.

'I'd have given him such a roasting he wouldn't have sat down for a week.' he'd also have given him 24 hours either to get the lower house and upper house to agree, request a general election, or have 'have his resignation on my desk.'

Which was not a solution in this case because the prime minister would have asked and been required to receive the resignation of the Governor General.

JTD 06:30 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

Asked for? Very doubtful. Not even Whitlam was that much of a fool: it would have been instant political suicide. Received? Probably yes, eventually. But the Queen would have undoubtedly taken quite some time to act, in the order of a week or two, giving the GG time enough to sack the PM a dozen times over. In any case, the primary goal of the Queen would have been to avoid getting embroiled in an international controversy, and she would have been very reluctant to act without exploring every possible avenue for a more sensible solution. Tannin

In response to JTD: Of course, ex-Heads of State could be expected to take Kerr's side in this! The real constitutional evil in the 1975 Dismissal was that the Governor-General appointed a man (Malcolm Fraser) as Prime Minister who did not, and could not, command a majority in the House of Representatives. The Governor-General persisted with this appointment EVEN AFTER being informed that Mr Fraser had lost a vote of no-confidence in that same House of Representatives. This was a wilful and belligerent denial by the Governor-General of the will of the people, as expressed in a vote in the House. THAT was the real evil here -- a denial of democracy and democratic process, something constitutional lawyers ought to worry about it. Kerr was rightly condemned for it, and booed whenever he appeared in public subsequently. The ironic aspect is, of course, that Queen Elizabeth would have not acted as Kerr did, neither dismissing Whitlam, nor retaining Fraser following a no-confidence motion in the House, because she would have been too worried about the long-term impacts for the House of Windsor. Fear of republicanism would have made her act like a democrat, unlike Kerr. Peter, 2006-06-15.

There is a major problem here. It is important to note that the Senate didn't vote down the budget, it continued to refuse to vote on it, because everyone agreed that had there been a vote then the budget would have passed. Because the Senate refused to vote on the budget and delayed the vote by procedural motions, there wasn't a critical moment in which you could say that the Senate blocked supply and cause the Westminister conventions to kick in.

Labor, led by Whitlam, disagreed with this assumption, a serious and fundamental mis-understanding of constitutional principles applied in parliamentary democracies the world over. For access to exchequer funding is a fundamental requirement of government. Where it is constitutionally denied, whether it is in Canada, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand or in any other parliamentary democracy, a resignation or immediate election is instantly expected. (When in 1982 in Ireland, for example, then Irish Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald had his budget voted down in the House exclusively entitled to block supply, the lower chamber, he was within an hour in the President of Ireland's residence to seek a parliamentary dissolution.) Where both houses, by accident or design, can block supply, then the duty other option is to find an immediate compromise which both houses can agree to. And if not, then resign or seek a dissolution. Simply waiting for the opposition to 'crack' is considered an abuse of the constitutional procedures.

Instead in Australia Whitlam hoped to force some of the Liberal Senators to crack and vote with the government, thus passing the budget. (While it could perhaps be argued that, had the government through the accidential absence of some of its own members lost the vote, it could try again, it is generally unprecedented in democracies to try again by trying to win over opposition votes!, unless done immediately, with a definitive outcome within as little as 48 hours.) Whitlam, a supposedly ardent believer in the doctrine of responsible government completely ignored the possibility of the use of the unwritten "reserve powers" by which Kerr would later dismiss him, believing such powers were no longer relevant and that Kerr was a weak man who, in any case, was a supporter of Whitlam's actions. It was yet another fundamental mis-understanding of the constitutional principles concerned. It was also a fundamental mis-judgment of a man to whom he had shown little respect (at least in Kerr's eyes!) and who was already unhappy at what he saw as Whitlam's contempt for correct procedures.

As one who has studied constitutional law in Australia, under, I might add, an avowedly conservative lecturer, I must say I think this article goes too far in laying guilt on Whitlam.

Firstly, I think we can't definitively establish that, since the Senate was not explicitly denied power to block supply in the Constitution, it came as an automatic prerogative. Certainly that would not be part of the conventional understanding of the Senate's powers up until 1975. Given that in the process of writing the Constitution, the Senate's powers were somewhat weakened, I think it is a weak assumption that the founders intended the Senate to wield that power against the House of Reps.

Secondly, the article makes use of international precedent etc. to make out that the only possible legitimate response by Whitlam was to immediately call an election. The fact is that all these other situations cited, are, to my knowledge, referring to the *lower* house's blockage of supply. Given that I would dispute the legitimacy of the Senate taking such an action in all but an extreme situation in the first place, I hardly think that to call an election was the only course open to him (remember that the Senate explicitly deferred consideration of the bills until an election was called from both houses - clearly setting its power up in opposition to that of the Representative chamber). At the very least, I think it needs to be made out within the article that Whitlam wasn't *just* being imperious and pig-headed; the government consistently held that the action was constitutionally illegitimate (several Liberal senators seemed to be in partial agreement, and were wavering in their support of the measure).

Running on from that, it can be established that the use of the Senate in this way was a radical *re-interpretation* of its conventional role, rather than the breaking of some "gentleman's agreement".

In honesty, I don't think any of these views are not in accord with the conventional view of events.

Finally, and perhaps least controversially: mention should be made of a key player in the crisis: Sir Garfield Barwick. Barwick advised Kerr on the course of action after Whitlam had explicitly advised Kerr not to seek advice from the Chief Justice (and former Liberal attorney-general). How's that for flouting convention?

Lacrimosus 23:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So edit it accordingly! It needs more historians' viewpoints. Also, I'd like to see it on WP:FAC and I'm not a historian - David Gerard 07:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This discussion seems to ignore:

(1) 1974 election: Whitlam had already tried to break impasse and if he had won 1975 election surely the Coalition would have continued to block supply.

(2) The blocking of supply was clearly a means to bring down the government, not an expression of opposition to a particular measure. Even without Withers' comment this can be seen in the fact that Fraser passed the budget immediately on being appointed.

(3) If this is a normal constitutional practice, it could have been used to bring down a large number of Australian governments, but wasn't.--Jack Upland 02:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Kerr" vs "Sir John"

User:Lord Emsworth - Using just the surname is not incorrect on second or subsequent uses. Also, Australian usage is the way it was - he's always referred to as "Kerr"; the "Sir John" throughout version introduces unnecessary confusion. Further, you went through this already on WP:FAC (in the discussion on Sir Ian McKellen), where surname for second or subsequent usage was established to fit style guides and policy. (And WP:FAC is where I'd like to see this article.) - David Gerard 07:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The passing of the bills on 11/11

The article currently states that the Labor senators were unaware that Fraser had been appointed PM. My understanding was that they had indeed been informed, but only by the Liberal senators, who they disbelieved. Does anyone have any information on this? Lacrimosus

I'll check what November 1975 has to say about this. I think your version tallies with Kelly's book. --Robert Merkel 11:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pages 267 - 269 are the relevant pages. Kelly's book is widely accepted as the definitive history - Kelly's reputation as a journalist is impeccable and he draws on interviews with all the main players in the story. It appears that news of the dismissal had not broken when the Senate reconvened at 1400, though announcements were being distributed to the Press Gallery boxes upstairs, so the Labor senators were in the dark when they moved into the Senate chamber. Wriedt and McClelland were the ALP leaders in the senate, and they both disbelieved the news when they first heard it, according to their accounts. Labor senators John Button and Don Willesee had both heard rumours and informed Wriedt and McClelland, but were not believed. Very few people on that day, beginning with Gough Whitlam, heard the initial news with any degree of calm. Which is fair enough.

Kelly goes into the timing in some detail, but the end result is that Supply was passed without the ALP senators fully understanding what they were doing. I don't think it matters much - the Government could have passed Supply even without the Opposition senators. Skyring 23:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Labour Policy

I deleted the statement "It had been long-standing Labor policy (implemented in Queensland) to abolish upper houses as anti-democratic." I have never heard of such an ALP policy. I won't object to the statement going back in if someone can offer a source.

The abolution of the upper house in Qld (1922) was bipartisan AFAIK, and was at the least apolitical (the Qld upper house was blocking all bills AFAIK). Robertbrockway 06:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but I remember comments from 30 years ago that it was ALP policy to abolish all upper houses, and the only place where the policy was instituted was Queensland. The Labor Party has very rarely had control of both upper and lower houses in any legislative domain to institute such a policy. Obviously this requires some 'policy' research to tidy this question up conclusively.--Takver 07:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just consulted A.L.P. The story of the Labor Party by George Healey (1955) and it states the ALP interstate conference of June 1918, in Perth, resolved as policy that the Commonwealth Constitution be amended so that "The Senate to be abolished..." and for the Commonwealth to be vested with the power "to create any number of provinces as may be necessary for the good local government of the people". I don't have details if the policy has been revoked, but it may have been quietly dropped in the 1980s or 1990s.--Takver 07:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was, in the 80's, but the ALP retains a policy commitment to constitutional reform, which could potentially extend to abolishing the Senate. I don't recall when exactly, I don't think it's in The Light on the Hill.

Its entirely possible that the Problem lay in the Conservative Gerymander in some states that does/did exist. This is playing out in Western Australia where laws are/have been amended to equalise seat sizes in the senate. Offhand I would suspect attempts at abolishing senates would not be recieved well by a populace skeptical of constitutional change - Shayne

You might find it useful to sign your Discussion edits with four tildes (that squiggly things just above the Tab key) in a row. That puts in your name and gives it a timestamp.

The various electoral malapportionments tended to affect lower houses rather than upper. The Bjelkemander was one of the more notorious. Despite Keating's comments about "unrepresentative swill", the Senate is elected using electorates consisting of entire States, is reasonably representative, and is one of the fundamental components of our Federation. Abolishing the Senate would mean passing a Constitutional Amendment Bill, which would probably not get through the Senate, and so would have to be submitted twice before being put to the people. It is difficult to see the voters in the smaller (population-wise) States voting YES to such a proposal, and as four States must support an amendment, the chances of succes are slim. Nowadays it is rare for a Government to likewise control the Senate and so there is not the incentive for reform that there was in the earlier years of federation when results tended to be far more lopsided. Pete 23:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: the Legislative Council in Queensland: It wasn't really bipartisan, and it probably wouldn't have stayed abolished if the conservatives had not remained out of office in Queensland for an extended period. Labor governments in the first half of the 20th Cent had enormous troubles with state upper houses, as they tended to be dominated by conservative grandees without fear of electoral scrutiny. Slac speak up! 10:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mind Reading

Some statements in the article are guesses at the motives of the participants. I have corrected them to bring them in line with checkable sources. Sir John Kerr was not feeling immediately insecure in his position. I know from private sources that he knew he had several days before he could be dismissed, that being the time required for written advice to be couriered to the Queen and a withdrawal of Kerr's commission as Governor-General to be couriered back, with the addition of whatever time the Queen felt necessary for consulting with her own advisers. This protocol had been arranged beforehand. Kerr knew that he could not be dismissed with a phone call. The principal characters in the drama have all written their memoirs and Kerr states that he acted so as to keep the Queen out of partisan politics. Unless some other source has turned up since then we must go with Kerr's statement, and anything to the contrary should be clearly labelled as supposition.

Kerr did not covertly seek advice from Sir Garfield Barwick. Barwick's visit to Admiralty House was noted and published in the vice-regal calendar, and printed in the usual newspapers on the morning of 11 November. Furthermore, his advice was not advice in the constitutional sense but from one lawyer to another. Barwick had considered his actions carefully and decided that he could give advice on non-justiciable matters, such as the use of the reserve powers.

Kerr met with Fraser on 6 November with Whitlam's knowledge and approval. There was no question of Fraser going behind the Prime Minister's back, nor of it being a risky move. The Governor-General is entitled to inform himself of the political situation. There is no "allegedly" about Fraser's statements during this meeting. Both Kerr and Fraser have revealed the substance of the conversation.

I urge editors to look through the published accounts of the crisis, both those of the principals, and those of commentators, especially the book written by Paul Kelly "November 1975", which must be regarded as the definitive account. Pete 07:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, most of what you call "mind reading" is the direct conclusions made by Kelly in November 1975, particularly in regard to Kerr. Yes, they do need to be sourced, but they are quite accurate in time with what was said in the book. Slac speak up! 23:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm using Kelly's book and cannot find anything to support the precise statements I have modified. I specifically checked, but if you have found something I didn't, then I would be glad to see it. Pete 00:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why didn't Kerr seek a dissolution directly?

In New Zealand the Governor-General has the power to dissolve parliament. Isn't that true in Australia? It seems like a double-dissolution was called for, since without supply a government cannot continue to govern and you can't blame it on only one house. Why did Kerr appoint a new Prime Minister? Ben Arnold 13:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Because Kerr could not have risked unilaterally dissolving the Parliament: he had to be advised to do so. There needed to be a Prime Minister: administering Government departments directly would have eradicated the last shreds of constitutional propriety (and conceivably would have violated the constitutional text, which states that the G-G shall appoint ministers). Slac speak up! 21:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kerr's Cur/Curr ?

I've only ever seen the spelling "cur", not "curr". I haven't changed the main article, as this may be a specifically Australian spelling, or I may just be wrong (!), but this may be worth checking. WMMartin 10:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's cur. - Aaron Hill 11:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Edited appropriately. WMMartin 10:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USA government role (CIA)

The first time i heard about this stuff, i thought, well, why haven't i ever heard about it? Is it conspiracy theory or is it NPOVable facts? i've tried to put up what seem to be uncontroversial facts as facts, and less well established statements as claims. But anyone please help with NPOVing.

It seems to me that the claim that Kerr was a member of a CIA front organisation the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom, is not contested by anybody.

The claim that he was a member of its executive board only seems to be stated in John Pilger's citation of William Blum (sources below). The claims that Christopher Boyce says that CIA agents considered Kerr to be our man Kerr are stated in a few different sources.

The importance of Pine Gap to the US seems to be uncontroversial. There is discussion on Whitlam's conflict with the CIA in the Watching Brief interview below. e.g. Meanwhile Whitlam said he would detail the operations of Pine Gap in Parliament on the afternoon of November 11. Boud 16:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kerr also helped to found Lawasia in 1966, and was its first President to 1970. Lawasia was funded by The Asia Foundation, a notable CIA front of the time, with offices in all major Asian cities. Source is former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti. (Marchetti, Victor and Marks, John D. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. New York: Dell Publishing, 1975)

William Blum devotes several pages to the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government in his book Killing Hope - U.S. Military and CIA interventions since World War II[1] ISBN 1551640961 Black Rose Books, 1998. It uses circumstantial evidence similar and overlapping with The Hidden Australia article (link below), but puts it into the perspective of one of numerous political interventions by the CIA. Former CIA Officer Victor Marchetti had revealed in early 1975 that the CIA had funded both opposition parties since the 1960s. At the beginning of November 1975 it was revealed in the press that a former CIA officer, Richard Lee Stallings, had been channelling funds to Doug Anthony, leader of the Country Party. It was also revealed at the time that the US bases in the hinterland were CIA creations, and that Stallings had been the first head of much of the operations. This coverage spurred Whitlam to investigate the facilities, as well as demanding a full list of CIA operatives in Australia. This spurred the Australian military intelligence community and the CIA into a flurry of activity, which also involved Kerr in several meetings. Whitlam was due to make an announcement on the US Bases and CIA activity on the afternoon of November 11. Coincidence?

The arguments and documents are all circumstantial, but together make a reasonable argument that the CIA played an impotant role in the destabilisation of the Whitlam Government, and through Kerr, effectively dismissed the Government at a time when the security and secrecy of US intelligence operations, bases and operatives were under potential threat. We may find more when classified documents are released from 1975 on the 1st January 2006 by Australian National Archives. --Takver 14:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A timeline of some of the security intelligence events outlined in Killing Time by William Blum --Takver 15:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Early 1975	* Revelations that the CIA had been funding both the Liberal and Country Party since the 1960s * Heads of ASIO and ASIS dismissed by Whitlam in seperate incidents, the latter over ASIS cooperation with the CIA in East Timor * Victorian MP, Joan Coxsedge, alledges that during 1975 Whitlam Government correspondence was routinely leaked to the media. "There was an unparalleled campaign of personal vituperation, hinting at incompetence, dissenssion, corruption, and private scandal within the ranks of the government."
Early November	revealed in the press that a former CIA officer, Richard Lee Stallings, had been channelling funds to Doug Anthony, leader of the Country Party. It was also revealed at the time that the US bases in the hinterland were CIA creations, and that Stallings had been the first head of much of the operations. This coverage spurred Whitlam to investigate the facilities, as well as demanding a full list of CIA operatives in Australia.
6 November	Defence Department Head Arthur Thang met with Kerr. Aftwards remarks that Whitlam is "the greatest risk to our nation's security that there has ever been."
8 November	* Senior Defence official meets Kerr re Whitlam jeopardizing security of US bases in Australia * CIA Washington informs local ASIO station that all intelligence links would be cut off unless a satisfactory explanation was given of Whitlam's behaviour
9 November	Kerr received at Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) for a briefing
10 November	Telex from ASIO station in Washington, at the request of the CIA, to ASIO HQ: "CIA can not see how this dialogue with continued reference to CIA can do other than blow the lid off these installations"
11 November	* Kerr dismisses Whitlam * Whitlam purportedly due to make announcement on Pine Gap base

http://williambowles.info/spysrus/cia_australia.html - Peter Staples, MP, statement AUSTRALIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOVEMBER 20, 1986
http://www.cia.com.au/vic/cia.60min.txt 60 Minutes, 23 MAY 1982
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_oz/cia_oz3.htm radio documentary, Watching Brief, Public Radio News Services, Melbourne, oct/nov 1986
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/whitlam.html The Hidden Australia, A Secret Recent History - this seems to be circulating the web as an unofficial copy of part of John Pilger's book of the same name

I dunno, I think the article gives a reasonably fair account of the evidence and and strength of support for the "CIA told Kerr to do it" theory. --Robert Merkel 00:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the amount of space devoted to it is way out of proportion to what most experts would say (which should be the criteria of what's including, NPOV and all that). It's a whole section, that's ridiculous. I propose shortening it to one paragraph with an external link or two. Rocksong 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

was section: U.S. Involvement

This is a very unlikely cause, and has not been treated seriously by historians and political scientists alike. I have removed it for the time being as it belongs in a "Conspiracy Theories" category. Failing this, it should be reincluded, but without its own subheading, and in a more condensed form. It has previously been given far too much attention and only detracts from the credibility of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

The fact that the USA was opposed to the Whitlam government is hardly conspiracy theory. The fact that Kerr was closely associated with the CIA is an NPOV fact. How strong the role of the USA government was via its various agencies and whether or not it was an important factor are questions which can reasonably be disputed and require external, verifiable references. Boud 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be a separate page, with a single link from the main page, as is the case with 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm glad you removed it, it was totally out of place in an otherwise good article. p.s. Remember to sign your posts. Rocksong 03:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC). p.s. I've moved this section to the end of the page. Rocksong 03:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory - it doesn't deny Kerr's role nor the fact of supply being blocked and it's not a question of some special group of people plotting Whitlam's downfall. It's just recognising an aspect of standard history: that the USA and USSR were two superpowers both trying to maximise their political/economic influence around the world. On the other hand, if we get more external references, then of course a bigger individual page on the subject could be started, but it would require more "secondary" research. Boud 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, every article dealing with history between 1950 and 1990 needs a subsection on the interests of the USA and USSR. Wikipedia is to reflect the mainstream, not the lunatic fringe. How much space do the mainstream books (e.g. Paul Kelly's) dedicate to theories of USA involvement? The removal of the section was not arbitary. It was done for a reason and I fully supported it. Rocksong 01:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

i think you'll find that many articles dealing with history between 1950 and 1990 do indeed have sections on the role of USA and/or USSR - the two superpowers were involved in destabilising or overthrowing or retaining effective control over their client states: this is mainstream history. Whether one or both did this for good or bad reasons is opinion. But the fact that they did it is rather uncontroversial AFAIK. i also don't understand why you're using the term "lunatic fringe" to describe information that you happened to be unaware of. Wikipedia is not about voting for the most popular opinions. More specifically, it seems to me rather inaccurate to describe 60 Minutes (Australia) and a member of the Australian Parliament, Peter Staples, as "lunatic fringe". i don't know much about Peter Staples, but you don't get elected to parliament and spend six years as a Minister while being in the lunatic fringe. Boud 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary removal of content by Maximus Meridius

In this edit on 26 June 2006, User:Maximus Meridius arbitrarily removed the USA role section: [2]

So i'm putting it back, i'll try to add a bit more references.

Boud 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo description

I dont think that the description on current pic is correct. Its looks more like a Melb rally held at the time. Far more people are shown than were ever at Canberra and GW is on a high landing, which doesnt exist at Old PH. So could you change it to reflect reality? 128.250.99.135 02:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is a "french-polisher?"

From here: Bjelke-Petersen refused the Labor Party's candidate as replacement Senator, Mal Colston, in favour of obscure french-polisher Albert Patrick Field, Is a "french polisher" in this context literally someone who polishes furniture, or is this some sort of Australian political slang? --Saforrest 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

At the Albert Field article there's this external link: [3], which says he was a polisher by trade. So it's not slang, it was his occupation. Rocksong 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not political slang - it's a genuine occupation. I'm not sure of the definition exactly, but it definitely exists. Ambi 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

French polish is a particular type of wood varnish based on shellac. A french polisher is a person who applies that varnish to furniture. Slac speak up! 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia to the rescue yet again! See french polish. JackofOz 05:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great article!

Could do with some citations though. - FrancisTyers · 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed this sentence

This would not have prevented Bjelke-Petersen from replacing Milliner with Field, but it would have prevented Lewis from replacing Murphy with Bunton.

In the same situation, the Labor Party's national executive could have stripped Field of his membership, at which point the nomination to the Senate would lapse. But getting into the complexities of what is hypothetically possible under this amendment is beyond the scope of this article, which is about 1975. --Robert Merkel 08:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 has been nominated for Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. Vote for it now. Todd661 05:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction is a mess

The introduction is a bit of a mess. We've got a one paragraph summary (just added on 12-Aug), followed by a two paragraph summary. There should be one or the other. Rocksong 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm not so sure though, as it covers all the necessary happenings. Jpe|ob 01:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Had a go at a rewrite, for better or worse. The previous version's last sentence isn't innapropriate, but belongs elsewhere within the article. Hide&Reason 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, but I think it was a mistake to remove the last sentence. The fact that an election is called was very important. Rocksong 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title: move to The Dismissal ?

Why is this page here? Why not at The Dismissal, which is what everyone calls it? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such a move since the title lacks context. Don't forget that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and "The Dismissal" is a colloquial term that has no meaning to anyone unfamiliar with Australian history. The least you could get away with is "The Whitlam Dismissal". -- Netsnipe ► 09:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

But does 'Australian constitutional crisis of 1975' mean anything to anyone? It confused me, and I do like to think of myself as passingly politically literate. The standard rule is to name things as per their name, not as per descriptions of them. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider the scope of the article: if this were confined solely to the actual dismissal, then something like "the dismissal" (or "Whitlam dismissal", there have been other dismissals) would be appropriate. But this article covers the whole crisis, from the casual vacancies scandals, through the actual vacancies to the aftermath and, to some extent, the impact on the political system itself. Thus the current title is more accurate than simply "the dismissal". Moreover I think this is the correct scope for the article to have. --bainer (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the scope, but I would argue that all of those things are part of this thing that's called "the dismissal". When it comes to titles, accuracy is generally less important than common usage. I don't see why the dismissal should be an exception. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can see e.g. the deferral of Supply as part of the dismissal per se. The dismissal was the culmination of the crisis. The lumping of this all together implied that the dismissal logically followed from the supply crisis, a POV that Whitlam among others would certainly reject. Slac speak up! 01:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And combine that with the fact that supply and Senate vacancies are not merely factual background to the dismissal, but separate constitutional controversies in and of themselves. Collectively these events are the crisis of 1975. --bainer (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The current title is a bit wordy, but certainly accurate. Take out the word "Australian", and what's left ("constitutional crisis of 1975") is more or less what it is often called here in Australia. I think the current title should stay, but I'd have no objection to "The Dismissal" and/or "Whitlam Dismissal" being linked to it. Rocksong 03:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So called Constiution Crisis

Why not wikipedia refer to this sequence of events as the 'so called' constitutional crisis. Acoording to you own encyclopedia a constitutional crisis is a severe breakdown in the smooth operation of government.

Australia did not experience a break down in working government. The point where the federal government could not pay police and public servants and the army had not arrived. The "reserve powers" are there so no "break down" can ever occur in the first place.

58.168.82.184 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be (and bear in mind that I'm no political scientist, just a historian who takes a keen interest in these things) that "breakdown" is a relative term. Yes, there wasn't a civil war or any of the other nasty consequences of constitutional crises the world over, but I'd argue that "the smooth operation of government" is at least harmed somewhat by the Prime Minister of the day being replaced by a leader of the opposition party. What you seem to be requiring before a constitutional crisis can be declared is (as you say) "a breakdown in working government", which I think is quite a different thing but can most definitely be caused by a breakdown in the smooth operation of government. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Conventions

Should it be noted the array of constitutional conventions that were broken during this time? There were a large number of them, and i think a section on it would be appropriate - what does everyone else think? Twenty Years 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/7/Talk%7E1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis_fca5.html"