Talk:1975 Australian constitutional crisis

Royal involvement
The section dances around but does not clearly state what the National Archives decided. My internet is limited right now so I can't go into the guts of it, but could someone make it clearer?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole section is conspiracy theory. Lots of dots for the reader to connect, but no actual connections. WP:SYNTH applies. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That the Australian monarch chose not to intervene, is in itself royal involvement. Nothing would've prevented Elizabeth II, either way. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Twaddle. She did not and does not have any power to intervene. Please outline a mechanism she might have used, along with the relevant section(s) of the Constitution. --Pete (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Could we get back to the point, which is the cohesiveness of that section?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My suggestion, implicit above, is to remove the lot. It's speculation and opinion a long way removed from anything that actually happened. This is Lee Harvey Oswald being in the same city at the same time as a Mafia boss and leaving it up to the reader to imagine they were in bed together. It's rubbish. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the section, there is no "Royal involvement" at all. We don't have any source for what is in the personal correspondence between Kerr and HM. It could be talk about the weather for all we know. Wikipedia is not the place for breathless speculation about what is contained inside a locked box.


 * The guts of the section boils down to the fact that Kerr was contemplating his powers and possible courses of action before acting. Well, whoop-de-doo. Of course he didn't just come up with the notion on 11 November 1975. He was well aware of the reserve powers before accepting the position, and he contemplated his potential for action as the Whitlam government went increasingly off the rails. He makes it clear that he thought the Loans Affair was unsound if not illegal. As a former NSW Chief Justice, he had his own views on constitutional practice. Whitlam was of the opinion that Kerr could not act except under advice from him, but Kerr certainly did not share that view.


 * As the Queen via Charteris made plain after the event, Kerr had kept her informed about the situation in Australia. A Charteris based source confirms that the Queen would delay acting on any advice from Whitlam to dismiss Kerr - by insisting on written advice and time for consideration. This is hardly surprising and does not amount to "Royal involvement". On the contrary.


 * I think that we can usefully ditch the whole misleadingly-titled section. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's a question of whether the entire section should be deleted or not? then perhaps an Rfc is required? It's up to you guys. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't said that, but this and the CIA section seem to be ever expanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has grown, in less than a year, by some ten percent, see here, and, as I said, mostly in the CIA and Royal sections. Much of it is allegations that have not been the source of proper proof, or of somewhat dubious relevance because Kerr did not need to be told what the reserve powers were. Cannot we dispose of the Archives matter in, request was made, request denied (or so I assume, the article does not say), matter brought in the courts. Update when necessary, if the matter fails in the courts, possibly reduce to a single or at most two sentences. And I'd like to see better sourcing than to Wikileaks without a URL for the document in question.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've cut some matter in the CIA section that seems unduly long and detailed, especially since much of it is sourced to primary sources, and it is very detailed and given a more favourable placement (the last word) considering that we sum up those who say there was no CIA involvement in a few words, including Paul Kelly. What remains needs to be better sourced, with specific links. I wonder that we use a 20 year old oral history at all when there are more comprehensive and recent secondary sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These sections should exist because reliable sources discuss them, even if certain Wikipedians think they are twaddle.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but the same high standards as in the rest of the article need to apply here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the paragraph is not needed unless there's an actual scandal. If there's anything meaningful in it, it can probably go elsewhere. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Heseltine confirmed this account" - this appears to be the first mention of any Heseltine, and it is not wikilinked. It might refer to Michael Ray Dibdin Heseltine, Baron Heseltine, but this is not at all clear. 81.105.46.48 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

CIA involvement section
This section has serious issues - why are uncritically quoting a random American journalist's claim that Kerr received CIA funding? Why are we uncritically using a John Pilger opinion piece - a non-historian, non-Australian resident who is "a strong critic of American, Australian, and British foreign policy" - as a major source? Should Christopher Boyce's claims be included in the article at all given his background? Why are none of the numerous academic works about the dismissal cited in this section? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would favour getting rid of the section, which has a tendency to grow, either by deletion or by spinning it out to its own article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with both. I hadn't looked at Boyce before, but now suspect that someone who gave him as an example of a person without credibility might be accused of overkill. Pilger (who can be good) has little else. And, to my recollection, the claim never had Whitlam's support.  Yes, let's remove the section.  I can't see enough in it for a stand-alone article. Errantius (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well Pilger had this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger in case you wonder how bias he is. 78.62.14.179 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree: this allegation sometimes gets referred to and should be covered here. I don't see the relevance of the fact that Pilger is a "non-Australian resident". I also don't see the relevance of Boyce's "background".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, it's bizzare. For context, John Pilger is busy right now blaming NATO for Russian invasion of Ukraine. In case you had any questions about his "neutrality". 78.62.14.179 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That you disagree with it doesn't make Pilger's view of no value here. Allegations of CIA involvement in Australian politics were rife before, during, and for a long time after the dismissal. They probably contributed to public disquiet about the events. It would be wrong for this article to not mention those allegations. So long as we describe them that way, all is fine. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone has removed the CIA involvement section. This should not have been done without more discussion. That there was involvement is not even controversial (there's a discussion of the release in 2020 of formerly secret documents here), though of course the extent and effect of the involvement are controversial. The facts (e.g. the telex sent by Thomas Shackley - head of the CIA East Asia desk - to ASIO, and shown to Kerr) should be stated as facts, and allegations arising therefrom should be described as allegations. This is an important matter that should not simply be airbrushed out of what purports to be a serious summary of the history. The section should be reinstated. Insulation2 (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have created a new article based on the deleted section: Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam Dismissal.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to it at the bottom of the Intro section as it seems odd to just have a link to it in Further Reading when it such a related page (Which maybe should be a part of this page to be honest) Greenking2000 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As an Australian American who lived through this era in Australia as a young teen and who still lives there I can confirm that regardless of the truth or otherwise of the claim it is still very much a an issue in the collective Australian consciousness.  Even referring to it obliquely as a single sentence note would be preferable to removing it all together. Rags17 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the new article in the See Also section. I was a little puzzled to be unable to find any mention of the CIA in this article at all; noting the choice to move the allegations into a separate article, a link seemed to be the sensible choice. Rolandturner (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is surprising that the allegation of CIA involvement was, until recently, neither mentioned nor linked in this article. It should be described as an "allegation", not a "conspiracy theory". Burrobert (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But given that there was consensus to remove the section, if only by no one restoring it in a reasonable amount of time, then I'm wondering if anything should be said about it at all in the lede of this article. The lede is a summary of the article, after all. Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it deserves a mention in the lead and the current sentence seems reasonable. Agree that it should not be mentioned in the lead without some reference in the body. Now that we have an article dedicated to the allegation we don't need to go into much detail. Is there a suitable spot in the body where we can make a brief mention of this issue? Burrobert (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we removed it and not to have a mention of it carries a certain level of consensus. I personally feel that the link is adequate, and that the "brief mention" would eventually come to resemble what was already removed from the article once. Open to ideas. Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I missed the earlier discussion about its removal. The sentence that is in the lead is a reasonable coverage of an issue that has received wide coverage over time, and has been addressed by the main participants in the affair. I don't think we should hide it in a link. My suggestion is to place a copy of the sentence at an appropriate place in the body. Burrobert (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to compose a sentence and find a source, I guess. Probably the "Reactions" subsection. Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought the sentence that is in the lead would do the job. It may be boring but the lead would then be a summary (in fact a copy) of the body. The source for the allegations and Whitlam's response is . The source for Kerr's response is Burrobert (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

net/overall majority
G'day Graham87, don't political scientists say an "overall" majority (own side + speaker), leaving "net" to statisticians? Errantios (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea; I was just undoing edits by a banned editor. If you want to take over responsibility for the edit I undid, you can feel free to revert me. Graham 87 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem: see the reason for my change. Errantios (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

does the Constitution *actually* say this?
@Wehwalt it's an established belief, repeated in this very article, that the Constitution forbids the Senate amending money bills or the Budget.... but i can't see that in the actual Constitution. Doubtless it is another convention that has become so established that it is thought to be "fact". AUSPOLLIE (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See section 53 of the constitution. ITBF (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications

My point is that the Constitution does gives the Senate some leeway and this also seems to be why blocking outright is not forbidden. The intention seems to be that both the ability to suggest amendments/ommisions to money and Budget bills combined with the Senate's right to block those bills outright, gives the Senate quite a lot of intended power over the Budget. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * All of s 53 needs to be read, including these earlier bits (my italics):
 * Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation.
 * 53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.
 * [...]
 * The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.


 * The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.


 * Errantios (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this in the article at the moment -- whether it can be sourced from Paul Kelly, Nikki Sava or whomever
Under the Kerr (and Barwick) doctrine Fraser was commissioned on the basis that he would secure supply for the Crown, and then advise a double dissolution election.

However, when Fraser agreed to ensure supply, he made a commitment that he could not guarantee.

Whitlam, with his majority in the House of Representatives, could have denied supply to Fraser:

Before the Senate had passed the Appropriation bills, the House of Representatives could have rescinded the House's previous motions carrying the bills; and asked the Senate to return the bills. This could have been done immediately without debate and achieved before the Senate had voted on the Appropriation bills. The House could have then agreed to sit until Kerr recommissioned Whitlam.

In the Senate, Labor could have used every possible procedural motion and its control of the Chair to delay the reintroduction of the supply bills. Even after the Senate had passed Supply, the House of Representatives could have directed the Speaker not to send the Supply bills to Government House for the Governor-General to give the Royal Assent.

If Whitlam had resolved to take the above actions he would have denied supply to Fraser. Kerr could not have called an election (supply needed to be guaranteed before an election was called). By the same logic Kerr sacked Whitlam, Kerr would then have to sack Fraser and reappoint Whitlam. It appears Kerr's strategy worked, at least in part, because of its innovation and element of surprise. Now that the weaknesses in the strategy are better understood, should a similar situation occur again, it is unlikely that a future caretaker Prime Minister in the same position as Fraser would be able to secure supply. 144.6.1.58 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the article make clear that Fraser succeeded because of the element of surprise and because many members of the ALP party both in the Senate and House were unaware what was going on, or at least did not react quickly enough? I'm not sure what we need to add to that. I don't know if we should be speculating about what might have happened had Fraser been balked. I will agree that such events in the age of instant information seem unlikely. Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)