Australian 'double dissolution' in the 70's

Post Reply New Topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Austr ... nal_crisis

Ok, Aussie members, do you have any comments on this? It frankly made me jealous, as an American, to learn that this is possible in Australia... I wish that there was some way for the people as a whole (if not a single governor-general) to 'fire them all' here.

It is possible in the United States but you have to have a joint session of Congress beforehand. The Republicans would have an majority if that occurred and could pass pretty much any budget they liked. I do however like the Westminster convention of holding new elections whenever a budget cannot be passed, although that includes the executive.

The 1975 Crisis scared Australia, it led to the ending of universal healthcare (which had to later be reinstated) and the eviction of a democratically elected government through serious abuse of power.

That democratically elected government was incapable of securing supply, which is the fundamental responsibility of a government in a Parliamentary system. This is precisely why budgets are always confidence matters.

The "serious abuse of power" of which you complain, was to call upon the opposition to form a government for the purposes of advising a double dissolution and sending the conflict to the electorate for resolution. The Governor-General didn't call upon Fraser and give him carte blanche, he only called upon Fraser when Fraser agreed to take the matter to a general election.

Now, that's not to suggest that Kerr and Fraser had clean hands in this exercise, but Whitlam must accept a large share of the blame for his own demise in failing to present any credible plan to Kerr for securing supply. With both parties firmly entrenched and unwilling to compromise, what was the Governor-General to do? His primary constitutional responsibility was to ensure that there was a functioning government in office.

Some critics suggest that he was less than candid with Whitlam--not unjustifiably. However, there is a significant question about the degree to which the Governor-General can exercise the Crown's "right to warn," without that becoming political interference. Whitlam set up a political strategy to break Fraser, and was broken by it. Was it Kerr's responsibility to protect him from his own folly?

I have trouble concluding anything other than the Governor-General did exactly what he was supposed to do with his reserve powers, given the situation in which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition dropped him.

In the United States, the constitution does not provide for any dissolution of Congress.