The events that took place during the time the Whitlam Government was in office (1972-1975) were some of the most constitutionally challenging and controversial that Australian Politics had ever seen before, or since. After 23 years of Liberal Government, the people voted Labor and saw a massive change in policy, which was almost immediate. The Whitlam Government suffered a block in supply in 1974 and was re-elected after the resulting double dissolution. The Opposition then blocked supply again in 1975 but the Whitlam Government refused to advise a double dissolution or resign. Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government and forced them to an election. The propriety of these events are still being debated.
But was it the will of the people? Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s first 100 days in office saw more radical changes then would be seen in almost 100 years of previous Governments. The Whitlam government ended conscription and ordered the last Australian troops home from Vietnam. It brought in legislation giving equal pay to women, established a national health service free to all, doubled spending on education and abolished university fees, increased wages, pensions and unemployment benefits, ended censorship, reformed divorce laws and set up the Family Law Courts, funded the arts and film industry, assumed federal government responsibility for Aboriginal affairs (health, education, welfare and land rights), scrapped royal patronage and replaced “God Save the Queen” as the national anthem with “Advance Australia Fair.” Although all these advances were good things for Australians, such radical progress was very expensive and troublesome. The Liberal – Country Party saw such brisk advances as ‘waving a magic wand’ over Australian problems and set backs; and was very annoyed that it had worked with Australian approval. Such moves by the Whitlam Government were also very expensive; in a very short period of time, a great amount of money was dealt to a great many things, hence a slow down in the growth of the economy.
The Essay on Whitlam Australian Government Bill
The legacy of this government was that it instigated major changes in the social and cultural fabric of Australia but it also challenged the philosophy of what an Australian is and what Australia represented. The late 1960 s and early 1970 s were times of great change. Perspectives and acceptances about imperialism, women's liberation, racism, ideology, religion, war, morality, social ...
The Liberal – Country Coalition took this as a reason to stop supply and was able to do so by having superior numbers in the Senate. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam then advised the Governor General (Sir Paul Has luck) to a double dissolution. The Whitlam Government was then re-elected by the public. In 1975 the Liberal – Country Coalition stated plans to again block supply. The Liberal – Country Coalition was able to block supply because of the appointment of two non-Labor Senators to the Senate.
When Senator Lionel Murphy was appointed a Justice of the Hight Court, he was replaced by Cleaver Bunton (Independent) and when Bert Milliner died he was replaced by Pat Field (did not support the ALP), this gave the Liberal – Country Coalition supremacy in the Senate. The Liberal – Country Coalition claimed that the events of 1974-75 in ‘the loans affair’ gave them sufficient reason to do so. “Because of the principles of responsible government a Prime Minister who cannot obtain supply… must either advise a general election or resign.” (Sir John Kerr’s Letter of Reasoning) Prime Minister Whitlam did neither; he was not going to be bullied into an election by a party who could not accept democracy. “Governments are made and unmade in the House of Representatives, in the people’s House… We faced the people in December 1972.
We were blocked by the Senate. We faced the people again in May 1974 and the people returned us to office. How often must the Government face the people before Opposition Senators accept that there has been a change of Government? The people have twice made their decision. It is not the Government that is running away from the people’s verdict.
The Term Paper on Governor General Government Senate Constitution
... rule of our parliamentary system; governments are made and unmade in the House of Representatives-in the peoples house. The Senate cannot, does not, and ... given to the Governor-General in the constitution. The governor-general at the time, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the Whitlam government in purported exercise ...
It is the Opposition.” (The Age, 30 October 1975) Due to the Senate stopping supply – the Whitlam Government no longer had any money for Government spending, which meant that public service salaries, pensions and Government expenditures could not be paid for. The Opposition had put, not only the parliament, but the entire nation in a state of discombobulation. The job of the Parliament is to protect the interests of the nation, not to subject them to uncertainty. Thousands of workers went of strike and many thousands more were faced with the prospect of unemployment or working without pay.
“We demand that the Opposition cease its ruthless blackmail and destructive tactics and pass the bills.” (Mr V. B. McMullen – The Age, 8 November 1975) Prime Minister Whitlam met with Mr Fraser (leader of the opposition) on November 11 1975 to advise him that unless the opposition backed down that he would hold a snap election for half of the Senate. When no agreement was reached, Prime Minister Whitlam then met with the Governor General to discuss the snap election. However, during this meeting Sir John Kerr advised Mr Whitlam of the dismissal of his Government and the impending double dissolution. The Governor-General’s main reason for dismissing the Whitlam Government was to permit the people of Australia to decide on the outcome of the deadlock.
However, Labor still held the majority in the House of Representatives – the peoples house. It remains unclear to me why such drastic measures were taken when a snap election would most probably have fixed the problem. Also, the Australian Constitution states that “If the House of Reps passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, after an interval of three months the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. If after such dissolution the House of Representatives and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.” this did not happen and there is no clear reason why. The Whitlam Government was dismissed just 18 months after the people of Australia had democratically elected it and as such, people immediately began to protest about the matter and the actions of the Governor-General. “God Save the Queen.
The Essay on Governor Genera Whitlam Dismissal Political
... How should a government respond when this happens? Should the Governor-General intervene in conflicts between the houses? When should the Governor-General intervene? Sir John ... the Senate used their numbers to delay passage of the government's Supply Bills. A three-week constitutional impasse followed, culminating in Whitlam's dismissal ...
God Save the Queen because nothing will save the Governor-General” (Mr Whitlam).
The Liberal-Country Coalition attempted to alter the course of democracy by blocking supply twice and forcing the Government to an election twice. “Representative democracy in Australia cannot be indefinitely preserved if the Governor-General has the right to intervene directly in the political process in a way which clearly tips the political balance in favour of one side rather than the other.” (The Age, November 12 1975) The Liberal-Country Coalition played a game of cat and mouse with both the Parliament and the Australian public. They forced their way to the top by using the Australian Constitution as it was never intended to be used. The people of Australia did not want this; and as such, the Governor-General should not have dismissed the Government and the Opposition should not have blocked supply. So, in answer to the question posed at the beginning of this essay – was the dismissal of the Whitlam Government the will of the people – I firmly believe it was not.
It was a political powerplay by Malcolm Fraser – nothing more, nothing less. Its impact is still felt today.
