Whitlam Dismissal? (1 Viewer)

[santaslayer]

Was the GG's decision to dismiss the 1975 Whitlam Government a constitutionally legal one? I always thought it was but some people are hold that it went beyond the Governor-General's legitimate authority and threatened Australian democracy. Any thoughts?

 

[Soma]

I haven't done enough coverage of this issue to answer with much conviction but from what I can gather the issue is one of contention.
I'm pretty sure that the GG as head of the executive arm was entitled to dissolve the government but whether or not he violated other areas of the constitution and jeopardised our democracy seems an issue which can not easily be decided, one way or the other.

 

[santaslayer]

I haven't done enough coverage of this issue to answer with much conviction but from what I can gather the issue is one of contention.
I'm pretty sure that the GG as head of the executive arm was entitled to dissolve the government but whether or not he violated other areas of the constitution and jeopardised our democracy seems an issue which can not easily be decided, one way or the other.

Yeah, something to do with reserve powers...but I'm thinking more to the seperation of powers as well... It just doesn't seem right for the GG to intervene...esp when there was little or no notice of the incumbent government's dismissal.

 

[Newbie]

its convention for the GG to stfu
but the provision is in the constitution for the sacking

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think it was at least inappropriate for Barwick CJ, as he then was, to advise Kerr

What if it had come before the HC? That would be messy.

The problem is how do you decide on the legality of a convention?

 

[mr EaZy]

hmmm the governor general (G-G) does represent the Queen
however, the Queen did say shae didnt want to meddle with our affairs.

i dont think the separation of powers is an issue here. what was that again? the separation of powers between the feds and states or was it between the three branches of govt?

either way, the G-G maintains the govt. He is the executive. he must have found a loop hole somewhere and did what he did. i dunno if he jeopardised our democracy but if it does in the slightest way, then that should explain why there are so many republicans around these days

 

[Newbie]

damn we get to convention vs form later on in public
right now public is so dry