Talk:1975 Australian constitutional crisis
"not led to any constitutional changes"
I think this is wrong. There has since been a change in the way Senators are replaced when they resign. If you know some of the more obscure details of the crisis, you can see how this change was inspired by it.
- I think you're right in that the procedure for replacing Senators has changed, and it was inspired by 1975 when Sir Joh appointed a stooge to replace a dead Labour Senator. However, this wasn't a constitutional issue, IIRC, it was decided by agreement between the States and the Federal governments and implemented with normal legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong --Robert Merkel
It definatly was a Constitutional amendement that was passed by referendum in 1977 to ensure that States had to appoint people from the same party as that of the retiring/deceased Senator.
I want to make reference to the stories that Kerr was influenced by the United States and, specifically, the CIA, in dismissing Whitlam. Firstly, it seems reasonably well-established that Kerr received a briefing from the Defence Department and knew about American concerns about the future of Pine Gap. Secondly, Kerr had a background in intelligence and spent time with the CIA in the 40s and 50s. Thirdly, there are the claims of Robert Boyce who heard defence contractors closely connected with the CIA referring to "Our Man Kerr", amongst other things. Interesting those things may be, they hardly make a compelling case that Kerr was significantly influenced. Is the above an accurate summary of the evidence or otherwise for this proposition? --Robert Merkel
Dear maveric149 & 136.186.1.xxx ,
The paragraph starting "It is notable that although the crisis was accurately described as Australia's most dramatic political crisis" - shows the open "Arguably the most dramatic moment of" as indecisive. Given the title of the page , the phase "Arguably the most dramatic" is also somewhat redundant. That's why I think the article should get straight to the point of what the `crisis' was (esp. as that seems to be mis-understood by some). And then address the background etc. --Anon
- Sorry, I don't remember contributing to this article -- I just moved it to a title that conforms to our naming conventions. BTW Be bold in updating pages. Cheers!--maveric149
- Good-o ;-) I was just trying to get the other editors to read this page to understand why large sections need updating.
Lets appreciate the event a bit better. The crisis was not because Whitlam was 'fired'; and was not even that supply was blocked. Normally, if supply is blocked then the Lower House would amend the budget and then Upper House would pass it; if no agreement could be reached then the PM could call a snap election and force a resolution one way or another. The crisis was because the Lower House was refussing to amend and PM refussing to resolve the issue. I'm not saying the ALP created the crisis, after all it takes two block-heads to create an impass.
I feel the nature of the crisis should be described as clearly as possible in the first paragraph.
Irrespective of the two new senators, the Liberal party already had control of the Upper House - the extra two senators are often thought of as contributing factors in the Senates confidence/decision to block supply. The Senate certainly has the right and the obligation to block supply if they feel the proposed budget is totally out of reason.