Constitution Law Essay: The Dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam

This essay analyzes the constitutional validity of the dismissal of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in 1975. It examines the events leading up to the dismissal, the constitutional powers of the Governor-General, and the arguments for and against the legality of the action. The essay explores relevant sections of the Australian Constitution, particularly Section 64 regarding the appointment and dismissal of ministers, and the concept of reserve powers. It discusses the roles of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the impact of the political climate, and the conventions surrounding the appointment of senators. The essay considers the perspectives of key figures, including Whitlam, Kerr, and Malcolm Fraser, and evaluates the impact of the dismissal on Australian democracy. It references various constitutional principles and precedents, including the double dissolution and the role of the Governor-General in Westminster systems, ultimately concluding whether the Governor-General's actions were constitutionally justified and whether they were more democratically questionable.

Running head- CONSTITUTION LAW
Constitution Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1Constitution Law
On the day of 11 November 1975 the “Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam” was
discharged by the “Governor-General Sir John Kerr” who was the member of the “Australian
Labour Party”. The leader of the opposite party was commissioned as the “Malcolm Fraser of
the Liberal Party” was appointed. The Labour administration of Whitlam had been designated
in the year 1972 with a slight preponderance in the “House of Representatives”, but with the
steadiness of the Senate the was control being apprehended by the “Democratic Labor
Party” who generally reinforced the “Liberal-Country Opposition”. Later in the year 1974
occasioned in little change. Though the administration of Whitlam announced various new
strategies and packages, it was also astounded by disgraces and governmental inaccuracies. In
the year 1975, the disagreement used its mechanism of the Senate to accede the channel those
bills that had been conceded by the “House of Representatives”. The removal and the
proceedings prominent to it established the resistance amongst the constitutional power and
the accountable Administration1. Following such proceedings, accountable Administration
and the complete notion of social equality was deliberately disregarded, and procedures
inside the establishment that were neglected, prominent to the removal of a constitutionally
designated Prime Minister. Although the Governor General’s judgment could be allowed
constitutionally and was under the vested reserve influences of the Governor-General to
appoint or eliminate the Prime minister and elect a new. The primary aim of this essay is to
analyse whether the act of the discharge of the Prime Minister by the Governor-General was
constitutionally valid.
Regardless of the conquest as mentioned in the double-dissolution appointment of
1974, the “Labor Party” established that deprived of a bulk of the members of the Senate, the
1 Tsacalos, Ashley. "Effective appellate advocacy: the ideal and the reality: explored through the advocacy of
Sir Garfield Barwick in constitutional law cases." (2012).

2Constitution Law
impasse was with the national Alliance at 29 seats, with two profitable to the independents.
They expected an additional setback with the dismissal of one member2. The Senator at the
acquiescence of others. In this specific condition, conferring to the Constitution, it is
mentioned under Section 15, that such positions shall be complete by the state under which
from the past Senator was elected by the recommendation of the joint sitting that was held in
the House of Parliament3. Though in the foremost responsibility of the Administration and
democracy was the understood agreement had established that the unpremeditated position
should be complete by an associate or any member of the same political party and not the
opposition4. Following this process, the fair party could be maintained and the illustration of
the earlier vote would be same. Together the New South Wales and Queensland
administrations violated this convention as two positions were not occupied by the nominees
of the Labor Party. Even at this initial argument the tension amongst the written and the
implied parts of the constitutions were under the conflict. As recognized by the Constitution
of Australia, the Legislature of Australia is regulated by two houses, mainly the “House of
Representatives and the Senate, together with the Queen”. The “monarch” is signified
through the “Governor-General”, who possess the decision-making control that has been
vested by the Constitution as well as infrequently drilled reserve controls. The reserve
controls are those implemented by the “Governor-General” deprived of necessitating
guidance, which is habitually indicated complete the saying that the “Governor-General in
Council”. Beneath the “Australian Constitution” the “Governor-General” has to act by way of
the guidance of the “Federal Executive Council” in the nomination of administration parsons,
2 Low, D. A. "The dismissal of a prime minister: Australia, 11 November 1975." Constitutional Heads and
Political Crises. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1988. 90-106.
3 Mayer, Kenneth R., and Howard H. Schweber. "Does Australia Have a Constitution-Part I: Powers-A
Constitution without Constitutionalism." UCLA Pac. Basin LJ 25 (2007): 228.
4 Fraser, Malcolm, et al. "Democracy anD LiberaLism in austraLia."(2014)

3Constitution Law
though the ministers attend at his desire, and the “Executive Council” is prearranged by the
“Governor-General” unaided. He is customarily destined by agreement to perform only upon
the guidance of the Administration along with the Prime Minister but can perform
autonomously in contradiction of the guidance in working out the reserve commands
provided under the Constitution5. The Governor-General could be removed or dismissed
from his powers by the “Queen” on the direction of the “Australian Prime Minister”. As
“Liberal Party leader Malcolm Fraser”, who played a considerable amount in the catastrophe,
place it. Although the Queen has tenancy, and she can not be discharged. The “Governor-
General” embraces the office at pleasure, and if he terminates to content, then the Prime
Minister may remove him.
The Constitution provides certain reserve influences of the Governor-General. Under
the reserve powers, all critical decision-making is done in the designation of the Governor-
General as approved by the Queen. Thus, the governor-general is mandated to track the
guidance of their ministers the standby control of the “governor-general” and in a ballot, of
the Governor-General is liable or eligible to stop or avert such notion. The classification S51
and 52 of the Constitution disperse the board lawmaking influences linking to a variety of
focuses and determinations6. It can be described as the commandment ‘with admiration to’
the business trouble of the Commonwealths that is considered as the head of power, and it is
contained by residual powers. However, in certain situations where it surpluses that
construction, it shall be considered as ultra vires, or outside the reserve powers of the
Governor. The Exclusive Powers are defined as those lawmaking powers that the
Commonwealth grips completely7. “Section 51 of the Constitution” conditions that the
powers consist of the powers in regards to the defence, management of the judicial procedure
5 Grewal, Bhajan S. "Australian Loan Council: arrangements and experience with bailouts." (2000).
6 Hocking, Jenny, et al. Gough Whitlam: Guide to Archives of Australia's Prime Ministers. National Archives of
Australia, 2016.

4Constitution Law
etc. Under section 52, it has the authority to brand the commandments with reverence to the
base of the Administration, Commonwealth seats or the community facility. The Concurrent
Controls are considered as these are jurisdictive controls that the Commonwealth has
concluded subjects that are also obtainable and accessible for the States to Governor. Under
the Section 51 (xxi) – the Commonwealth has the control over the matrimonial and
annulment of the marriage which is detained simultaneously with the Circumstances to
regulator. The residual powers denote to those issues enduring to the conditions after the
Commonwealths numbered controls that can be made accounted for8. As in
supreme Westminster system assemblies such as Australia's Administration is usually
moulded by the party relishing the sureness of the subordinate House of Parliament, that is
the House of Representatives9. Though, Australia's Assembly contained an influential higher
house, known as the Senate, that was responsible for badging any lawmaking introduced by
the House of Representatives in terms when it is required to formulate or pass a new law. The
confirmation of the Senate, in which both governments have an equivalent quantity of the
members of the senators irrespective of that state's populace, that was initially intended to
fascinate the Australian gatherings into one Alliance. The Constitution prohibits the Senate to
create or revise a money bill but dwells no restraint on the Senate's aptitude to overthrow
them. In the year 1970, Gough Whitlam, as the Lead of the Opposition, the conflict raised
7 Galligan, Brian J. "The Kerr‐Whitiam debate and the principles of the Australian constitution." Journal of
Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 18.3 (1980): 247-271.
8 Metin, Cyrille Daniel. The state of play involving intelligence agencies, politics and economics. Diss. 2003.
9 Galligan, Brian, and Scott Brenton, eds. Constitutional conventions in westminster systems. Cambridge
University Press, 2015.

5Constitution Law
due to the starting of a budget bill10. The primary intention for such initiation was to
anticipate and to suppress the opposition by all accessible revenues on all associated
procedures held by both the Houses. The conflict was raised, and the majority was with the
thought that in case of the defeat of the motion, the maximum vote would go against the Bill
and in the Senate. We determine to extinguish or abolish this Budget and terminate the
Administration which has backed it.
Preceding to the year 1975 catastrophe, the “Governor-General's” authority to
terminate a Prime Minister in contradiction of the appointee's well below “Section 64 of the
Constitution” had indeed not been implemented. However, in the year 1904, the “Labour
Prime Minister Chris Watson” counselled an initial vote, but “Governor-General Lord
Northcote” declined, eliciting the resignation of Watson's and the selection of Obstruction
Forerunner “George Reid as Prime Minister”. Double since Alliance, battles amongst state
leaders and the state-owned governors, who achieve similar purposes to the “Prime Minister”
and “Governor-General” correspondingly at the national level, had occasioned in the parting
of one or the additional. In the year 1916, William Holman was disqualified from
the “Australian Labor Party” for associate recruitment11. He accomplished to grip on to
control with the assistance of the conflict parties and referred the “Governor, Sir Gerald
Strickland”, suggesting to pass regulation to encompass the period of the subordinate
household of the national government by a year. When “Strickland” protested, uttering that
such a progression was partial to Labor, Holman had him substituted. In the year 1932 the
“New South Wales Labor Premier, Jack Lang”, declined to recompense cash payable to the
10 Kemp, Paul William. Paul Kelly and George Megalogenis: media intellectuals in Australian politics. Diss.
2018.
11 Young, Katharine G. "American exceptionalism and government shutdowns: A comparative constitutional
reflection on the 2013 lapse in appropriations." BUL Rev. 94 (2014): 991.

6Constitution Law
Centralized Administration, which immobilized the state's panel interpretations, producing
Lang to instruction that expenditures to the state administration be only in cash. Among the
controls approved to the “Governor-General” has the control to disband both families of
Assembly falling under “Section 57 of the Constitution” in the occasion that the “House of
Representatives” double permits a bill at slightest three months separately and the Senate
declines to permit it. In both occurrences where those situations ascended previous to the
“Whitlam Government”, in the year 1914 and 1951, the “Governor-General” met the
legislature for the powers of "double dissolution" voting on the guidance of the Prime
Minister. The Constitution, in concept, provides the Governor-General comprehensive
controls. He can assign and discharge entire administrations, and Sir John Kerr had
represented inside his prescribed constitutional controls in discharging “Gough Whitlam”. As
stated in “Section 64 of the Constitution”, the Governor-General might employ majors to
manage such sections of National of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Board
may institute12. Such generals shall embrace the office all through the desire of the Governor-
General. The Governor-General and “Chief Justice Barwick” had vindicated the discharge on
the surroundings that Whitlam had been absent from gaining the confidence of the Senate
when it impassable the source bill. They contended that self-assurance was wanted from both
houses of parliament and meanwhile they did not have this they were below compulsion to
leave or plea an overall election. This change by the Governor-General though was in
shortest inconsistency to the essential foremost that a mainstream in the “House of
Representatives” should sustenance the distinct prearranged.
12 Young, Katharine G. "American exceptionalism and government shutdowns: A comparative constitutional
reflection on the 2013 lapse in appropriations." BUL Rev. 94 (2014): 991.

7Constitution Law
In conclusion, it can be stated that following the situations and the occurrences, it can
be stated the dismissal by the Governor-general was guarded and provided by the
Constitution. He possesses the authority to appoint or to terminate the member as per the
guidelines and the principles. Though the Constitution can indeed be influenced if taken
entirely accurately, and it depends upon the interpretation of the authorities to use such
powers. Though conflicts persist in regards to the constitutionality of the act as it was
regarded as more democratically wrong than upon the constitutionality. Hence it cannot be
confirmed that the act was unconstitutional as it was under the stand-in powers of the
Governor provided under the Constitution and he abided by that. Hence the act was not
against the constitutional guidelines or the constitutionality of the state.

8Constitution Law
Bibliography
Fraser, Malcolm, et al. "Democracy anD LiberaLism in austraLia."(2014)
Galligan, Brian J. "The Kerr‐Whitiam debate and the principles of the Australian
constitution." Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 18.3 (1980): 247-271.
Galligan, Brian, and Scott Brenton, eds. Constitutional conventions in westminster systems.
Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Grewal, Bhajan S. "Australian Loan Council: arrangements and experience with bailouts."
(2000).
Hocking, Jenny, et al. Gough Whitlam: Guide to Archives of Australia's Prime Ministers.
National Archives of Australia, 2016.
Kemp, Paul William. Paul Kelly and George Megalogenis: media intellectuals in Australian
politics. Diss. 2018.
Low, D. A. "The dismissal of a prime minister: Australia, 11 November
1975." Constitutional Heads and Political Crises. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1988. 90-
106.
Mayer, Kenneth R., and Howard H. Schweber. "Does Australia Have a Constitution-Part I:
Powers-A Constitution without Constitutionalism." UCLA Pac. Basin LJ 25 (2007): 228.
Metin, Cyrille Daniel. The state of play involving intelligence agencies, politics and
economics. Diss. 2003.
Smith, David. "Australia's head of state: The definitive judgment." Quadrant 61.4 (2017): 43.

9Constitution Law
Tsacalos, Ashley. "Effective appellate advocacy: the ideal and the reality: explored through
the advocacy of Sir Garfield Barwick in constitutional law cases." (2012).
Young, Katharine G. "American exceptionalism and government shutdowns: A comparative
constitutional reflection on the 2013 lapse in appropriations." BUL Rev. 94 (2014): 991.
Young, Katharine G. "American exceptionalism and government shutdowns: A comparative
constitutional reflection on the 2013 lapse in appropriations." BUL Rev. 94 (2014): 991.