Should Whitlam Have Been Sacked?
May 29th 2009 01:48
The events of 1975 cause controversy even till this day.
No other time in Australian history has been the subject of more controversy than Gough Whitlams government and the 1975 Constitutional Crisis when Gough Whitlam was sacked. This is the first of a 2 part series by The Independent Australian which will both look at the sacking of Gough as well as his reforms in government. Gough has left a huge mark not only on Australia's political history but its social history as well. The actions of the people involved within the crisis still cause much controversy and argument today.
The controversy of the Whitlam government originates from what it was trying to do. Australia had had 23 years of conservative Liberal government. Although admittedly good economic managers, they had left the country lagging behind in social reform and Australia went into the 1970s a very traditional and conservative society. For example, Australia still had God Save the Queen as the national anthem and people could still be made knights of the realm. Gough and Labor changed this, they introduced a wide range of reforms which aimed to modernise the country. Conservative politicians and voters did not always support Goughs social change and his sometimes uninterested or unorthodox approach with the economy. Gough had been earmarked as a target by the conservative side of politics since he became Opposition Leader and this was no different when he became Prime Minister.
In 1972 Labor and Whitlam were successfully elected and disposed of the unpopular PM Billy McMahon and the Liberals by a primary margin of 5.4%. The people had clearly expressed the view at the polls that they wanted social change, and Gough agreed. Instead of waiting for the vote to finish and for caucus to elect the executive which was the custom, he had himself and Deputy Leader Lance Barnard in as sworn as a two man ministry and government. This kind of behaviour would set the tone for Goughs primeministership, the inability to wait, even when circumstance demanded that he did.
Labor started their social, political and economic revolution quickly and in the space of three years he had established formal diplomatic relations with the China and had advocated Australia as a key stake holder in the S.E Asian Region. In the Education Department he legislated so the Federal Government assumed responsibility for tertiary education from the states, abolished tertiary fees and established the Schools Commission to distribute federal funds to assist non-government schools on a needs basis. Economically he cut tariffs across the board by 25% and abolished the Tariff Board. In regards to women and the family he introduced a supporting benefit for single-parent families; mandated equal opportunities for women in Federal Government employment; appointed women to judicial and administrative positions; abolished conscription; abolished the death penalty for federal crimes and reduced the voting age to 18 years. With immigration Gough abolished the last vestiges of the White Australia Policy; introduced language programs for non-English speaking Australians. For Aborigines he improved access to justice for Indigenous Australians and introduced the policy of self determination for Indigenous Australians; advocated land rights for Indigenous Australians; increased funding for Indigenous Australian's welfare. More reforms include the creation of the Order of the Australia and increased funding for the arts.
But these reforms did not come with out their fair share of trouble. The DLP/Liberal controlled Senate was not friendly to Whitlam and often blocked or threatened to block key bills like Medicare (free health care for all Australians) and giving the Northern Territory and ACT citizens representation in the Senate. The situation was made worse when Gough in an attempt to gain a majority in the Senate made Vince Gair, a DLP Senator for Queensland Ambassador to Ireland. This plan was discovered and became known as the Gair Affair and although it did not come to fruition the Liberal Senate decided to block supply in outrage against the Labor government. This move by the Liberals and conservative side of politics would be repeated again in 1975, the Liberals never sought negotiation and most importantly did not acknowledge that the elected government had a mandate to govern. Gough decided he would take his chances against Billy Snedden Liberal Leader and called a double dissolution election to be followed by a joint sitting to consider the blocked bills, Gough thought this move might give him that elusive Senate majority which would enable him to continue with his reforms. Unfortunately for Gough this did not happen and the double dissolution did not result in a senate majority but it did allow Labor to pass those bills.
The Senate situation was made worse when after the appointment of Labor Senator Lionel Murphy to the High Court in 1975, the NSW Government against convention replaced him with a non-Labor Senator. Again in 1975, Bert Millnier a Labor Senator from Queensland died and was replaced with a non-Labor Senator. Both these appointments aggravated the situation and ensured a deadlock between the government and the Senate. Both these state governments breached convention and democracy by appointing Senators no one voted for. The people felt so strongly about Senatorial vacancies being filled by Senators of the same party that a referendum on the issue passed a few years later.
The Senate situation was dire, but it may have been able to be resolved if it had not come at such a bad time not only for Australia but for the world as well. The world was in the grips of Global Recession brought upon by the 1973 Oil Crisis. Thousands of Australia lost their jobs and the high government spending and constant wage increases encouraged rampant inflation. The Economy began to slow to its slowest rate of growth in 10 years and the governments economic credentials took a blow when the Loans Affair was discovered. The Loans Affair was when Jim Cairns (Treasurer) acting alone and against Goughs orders attempted to borrow large amounts of money from overseas investors in order to pay for government projects. When this was discovered, Jim Cairns was forced to resign and a huge media beat up followed.
It was at this time with both the world and Australia economy in tatters, that the newly elected opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser and his Liberal party decided to boycott convention and the popular vote by blocking supply on a newly elected government. Malcom Fraser is often portrayed as a power hungry stooge by some Labor circles, but it must be recognised that Fraser thought he was doing the right thing, he honestly believed that Whitlam and Labor were destroying the country and it was up to him to stop Whitlam. After supply had been blocked initially there began a tense stand off between Whitlam and Fraser. Under the constitution if there is a dead lock between the two houses than the PM is allowed to call a double dissolution election, but Gough reasoned that he had just called a double dissolution election little more than a year ago and that he had a mandate to govern for the full term not just for a year, Fraser disagreed and wanted an immediate election as he believed the electorate was against Gough. Public opinion showed people were not impressed with Labors economic management and the Loans Affair, but a growing number of people blamed the opposition for the crisis.
It was during this tense stand off that Governor General John Kerr entered the scene. Kerr had been watching the situation closely and he recognised that the country was in political and economic turmoil and that a quick resolution was needed, he began to consider using his reserve powers held under Section 64 of the constitution. His relationship to Gough Whitlam is also significant, although Gough had appointed him to Governor General a few years previously, they both held each other in contempt, and Kerr felt Gough made fun of him and his position as Governor General. Some commentators have suggested Kerr may have been more likely to sack Whitlam because of this relationship. Kerr decided against convention decided to consult Chief Justice Barwick (former Liberal) of the High Court and also Malcom Fraser in his fight of conscience of whether to use the reserve powers and remove Whitlam as Prime Minister. One has to question the impartially of both these experts considering they were Liberals. Barwick told Kerr that he did indeed have the power to sack Whitlam, and Fraser encouraged Kerr vehemently to do so. Gough was left out of the dark about these conversations and he did not think for one second that he might be sacked and thus did not consult Kerr about the possibility.
Fraser and Barwick won the battle and on November 11 John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam as PM and put Fraser in his place as caretaker PM on the condition he that passed supply and called an election, both of which he did. The ironic thing is when Whitlam had gone to Government House to see Kerr, he went there with the intention to call a half Senate election, which would have resolved the deadlock. As news spread around Australia, the country spun into impromptu protests, and thousands of people descended upon Canberra to participate in rallies both for and against Whitlam. Hardcore Labor voters were shocked and saw the events as a conservative plot to sack a Labor government, while a large minority of people welcomed the news as they thought it put the country on the road to economic recovery. Many people including Gough saw the sacking as a blatant breach of democracy by both Kerr and Fraser, the country was such in turmoil that the SAS was mobilised.
When the election was held Fraser was elected overwhelmingly and had control of both houses, he got on with the job as PM but could not improve the economy any more then Gough could and was kicked out of office by Bob Hawke in a landslide in 1984. Kerr finished his term as Governor General but was dogged by protesters about the dismissal where ever he went, he died in self-imposed exile in England. Whitlam went on to contest the 1977 election which he lost, he then quit politics but is still considered a Labor legend by some and a Labor loser by others.The dismissal was written into history and is still the most controversial event in Australias history.
Now for the hard bit.It is a commonly held belief that the convincing election win to Fraser in 1975 and the troubled economy is confirmation that what Kerr did was justified. But what Kerr and Fraser did was both unconstitutional, a gross breach of democracy and an infliction upon the values of which Australia stands for.
The constitution states in S64 that the Governor General has the power to remove ministers as the head of the executive. But convention says that the PM has control of the executive not the Governor General, it is implied within the constitution that the PM is in charge. Just because something is written in the constitution does not mean it is an excercis alste power. For example the Governor General is technically in charge of the Armed Forces but this is not the case in practice, that power is fictional, that power is symbolic. The same logic can be applied to removing ministers from executive. The power of the Governor General is strictly symbolic and is not intended for actual use. This understanding makes what Kerr did both unconstitutional and illegal.
Kerr and Fraser also breached democracy, a non-elected official is not allowed to sack an elected government no matter what the circumstance. Especially one which was only elected a year before. What Kerr and the Liberals did was simply disgraceful, democracy is not there to be paid lip service to. It ensures the smooth governance of the country, democracy does not get it wrong. Therefore it should not be tampered with by people who do not understand its conventions.
1975 was a dramatic time in Australias history and the drama of the dismissal still exists today. But what we learn from these events is that what Kerr and Fraser did was wrong. You cannot sack democracy and you cant sack convention. There have been social, economic and political lessons of Gough Whitlams time in government all which have been described but the most important lesson we have learnt is that as a result of 1975, democracy is not the most powerful force in Australia.
| 11 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Comments (3)
Read More
Comment by Tom Craven
on A Rebuttal To the Arguments Against Socialism
Independent Australian By Thomas J Craven
If we look at our society now, the people at the bottom or the majority do the bulk of the work, but they receive the least award in terms of money,in a social democracy the majority of the people are rewarded. If people these days work to empower the people at the top, than surely people will work even harder if it directly empowers them.
Private companies are run for the benefit of the shareholders this means that the company will do anything to get ahead. Under a Democratic Socialist regime the company is run to benefit the community. This means the company's reason to exist is to benefit the community not for the profit. It's a totally different philosophy. I don't agree that there would be greed under Democratic Socialism due to the nature of everyone owning the means of production, but even if there was it would be far, far less than what we have now.