This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1975 Australian constitutional crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1975 Australian constitutional crisis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 10, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 11, 2005, November 11, 2006, November 11, 2007, November 11, 2010, November 11, 2013, November 11, 2016, November 11, 2020, November 11, 2021, and November 11, 2022. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1975 Australian constitutional crisis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1975 Australian constitutional crisis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 10, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 11, 2005, November 11, 2006, November 11, 2007, November 11, 2010, November 11, 2013, November 11, 2016, November 11, 2020, November 11, 2021, and November 11, 2022. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)