The 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis: Explained Documentary
video description
Date: 2022-07-19
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
meAdOWS
what a joke, this information is actually derived from the end result of crimes committed by Whitlan against the common-wealth ''the people'', our Constitution and the crown, his crime put simply was the alteration of (the commonwealth Constitution act 1900) without public consent by referendum and there isn't many crimes bigger then high treason, well maybe ever since 75 the systematic silence and fear regarding the legal status of the adopted by government altered ver of our constitution entering the public's attention that would lead to something that everyone with awareness of it fears/compliance. i wish this was a joke and the ppl of Australia really did have a government controlled by a legitimate constitution, many things could be made much better an a lot quicker, but the powers granted to its self by the changes made to the constitution allowed the Federal and state governments to dissolve the source of authority granting judicial powers to the courts an simply left the courts infrastructure and employees in place, had a heated chat with high court judges who like everyone else bent the knee staying silent from the moment they had. now courts use same name ect but not legally grounded by the constitution but an Australian tax file number. reality is that any legal attempt at regaining legitimacy within the courts is nothing more then a stage show asking the bad thing to find find its self guilty of treason an head out for a hanging, high court rules they put in states it only has to file every case given but it has no obligation to hear the case. after removing all education regarding the constitution in 75 the different governments over the decades have done well dropping little deceptions in the public that makes it quite hard for alot of them to even want to see if there is something to all this, i myself was told by a primary school teacher that the reason Australians unlike american dont care for the constitution is thats its pointless and offers nothing but three rights 1 religion 2 war time conscription 3 forced voting. the voting was one of the changes made, as i see it by forcing the public to vote then the people are volunteering in an act of ignorant free will offering the grant of power to an illegitimate corporate governing body.
reply
what a joke, this information is actually derived from the end result of crimes committed by Whitlan against the common-wealth ''the people'', our Constitution and the crown, his crime put simply was the alteration of (the commonwealth Constitution act 1900) without public consent by referendum and there isn't many crimes bigger then high treason, well maybe ever since 75 the systematic silence and fear regarding the legal status of the adopted by government altered ver of our constitution entering the public's attention that would lead to something that everyone with awareness of it fears/compliance. i wish this was a joke and the ppl of Australia really did have a government controlled by a legitimate constitution, many things could be made much better an a lot quicker, but the powers granted to its self by the changes made to the constitution allowed the Federal and state governments to dissolve the source of authority granting judicial powers to the courts an simply left the courts infrastructure and employees in place, had a heated chat with high court judges who like everyone else bent the knee staying silent from the moment they had. now courts use same name ect but not legally grounded by the constitution but an Australian tax file number. reality is that any legal attempt at regaining legitimacy within the courts is nothing more then a stage show asking the bad thing to find find its self guilty of treason an head out for a hanging, high court rules they put in states it only has to file every case given but it has no obligation to hear the case. after removing all education regarding the constitution in 75 the different governments over the decades have done well dropping little deceptions in the public that makes it quite hard for alot of them to even want to see if there is something to all this, i myself was told by a primary school teacher that the reason Australians unlike american dont care for the constitution is thats its pointless and offers nothing but three rights 1 religion 2 war time conscription 3 forced voting. the voting was one of the changes made, as i see it by forcing the public to vote then the people are volunteering in an act of ignorant free will offering the grant of power to an illegitimate corporate governing body.
reply
pretzel
I recall it as a time when the constitution was in action, rather than a crisis. The Upper House had blocked supply (Finance bill) and the Governor General could not sit around and allow the country (government funded workers etc) to grind to a halt, so in short, he withdrew the commission of the PM (Gough) and appointed the then leader of the Opposition (Malcolm) to be the caretaker PM till elections could be held. Not sure that is noted in the video.
It was known that the GG (Sir John) had sought advice from several quarters about what he could/might/should do, and he always stated he did not advise others (such as the Queen) of his decision before he acted.
Note that in Australia, if the government of the day does NOT control the upper house, they still have to get their finance bill's (budget) through. Other countries may have mechanisms to cope with the Upper House blocking supply, rather than calling for fresh elections. But it worked. So whilst it was awkward/difficult/etc for many, it worked.
I also recall at the time there was mention that something not to dissimilar occurred in the state of Queensland.
reply
I recall it as a time when the constitution was in action, rather than a crisis. The Upper House had blocked supply (Finance bill) and the Governor General could not sit around and allow the country (government funded workers etc) to grind to a halt, so in short, he withdrew the commission of the PM (Gough) and appointed the then leader of the Opposition (Malcolm) to be the caretaker PM till elections could be held. Not sure that is noted in the video.
It was known that the GG (Sir John) had sought advice from several quarters about what he could/might/should do, and he always stated he did not advise others (such as the Queen) of his decision before he acted.
Note that in Australia, if the government of the day does NOT control the upper house, they still have to get their finance bill's (budget) through. Other countries may have mechanisms to cope with the Upper House blocking supply, rather than calling for fresh elections. But it worked. So whilst it was awkward/difficult/etc for many, it worked.
I also recall at the time there was mention that something not to dissimilar occurred in the state of Queensland.
reply
Javier
In Spain we also have a Congress and a Senate but a constitutional crisis like this one could never happen since only the Congress really matters when electing the Prime Minister, removing them or voting laws. The Senate only serves to either re-approve an already approved law by the Congress or decline it but by doing so it simply means the Congress has to immediately vote for it again and the second time around the Senate has no say so the law will pass anyway. So it can basically confirm a law or just slow down its enforcement but never cancel it. Those aren't all the functions of the Senate however, since it also works as a sort of house of representation of each of Spain's 17 autonomous regions and 2 autonomous cities (similar to US states and Washington DC but not quite) when general elections are held (some Senators are directly elected by the general population while others are elected by the local parliaments/city halls of the regions/cities.
reply
In Spain we also have a Congress and a Senate but a constitutional crisis like this one could never happen since only the Congress really matters when electing the Prime Minister, removing them or voting laws. The Senate only serves to either re-approve an already approved law by the Congress or decline it but by doing so it simply means the Congress has to immediately vote for it again and the second time around the Senate has no say so the law will pass anyway. So it can basically confirm a law or just slow down its enforcement but never cancel it. Those aren't all the functions of the Senate however, since it also works as a sort of house of representation of each of Spain's 17 autonomous regions and 2 autonomous cities (similar to US states and Washington DC but not quite) when general elections are held (some Senators are directly elected by the general population while others are elected by the local parliaments/city halls of the regions/cities.
reply
education
The crisis was political NOT constitutional. A PM has the Queen's Commission to form govt on 2 conditions; confidence & supply. Whitlam couldn't maintain both so had to go -sooner or later. If Whitlam had rumbled the GG's plan and tried to get Kerr replaced that would only have brought matters to a head. It would have been an acknowledgement that there was a problem that Kerr, however chaotically, was trying to resolve. I suspect that when the Queen was asked to appoint a new GG a compromise would have been fixed up behind the scenes that would have led, sooner or later, to an election. I am always surprised that Australia never tried passing a UK style Parliament Act, that stops the upper house of parliament blocking the budget and causing this kind of crisis.
reply
The crisis was political NOT constitutional. A PM has the Queen's Commission to form govt on 2 conditions; confidence & supply. Whitlam couldn't maintain both so had to go -sooner or later. If Whitlam had rumbled the GG's plan and tried to get Kerr replaced that would only have brought matters to a head. It would have been an acknowledgement that there was a problem that Kerr, however chaotically, was trying to resolve. I suspect that when the Queen was asked to appoint a new GG a compromise would have been fixed up behind the scenes that would have led, sooner or later, to an election. I am always surprised that Australia never tried passing a UK style Parliament Act, that stops the upper house of parliament blocking the budget and causing this kind of crisis.
reply
Nigel
I am not sure why youre talking in the past tense about the Governor General being the viceroy of the Queen, he still occupies that position and the Queen is still the Queen of Australia. The Whitlam sacking was necessary and totally justified and the recent release of the correspondence between Kerr and Buckingham Palace makes it abundantly clear that the Queen remained above reproach and that Kerr acted honourably, within the framework of our Constitution and this was afterwards confirmed by the fact that the Australian People (who are collectively the Crown in our Constitution) voted overwhelmingly to confirm what Kerr had enacted, and that they rejected the more extreme socialist and republican policies of Whitlam.
reply
I am not sure why youre talking in the past tense about the Governor General being the viceroy of the Queen, he still occupies that position and the Queen is still the Queen of Australia. The Whitlam sacking was necessary and totally justified and the recent release of the correspondence between Kerr and Buckingham Palace makes it abundantly clear that the Queen remained above reproach and that Kerr acted honourably, within the framework of our Constitution and this was afterwards confirmed by the fact that the Australian People (who are collectively the Crown in our Constitution) voted overwhelmingly to confirm what Kerr had enacted, and that they rejected the more extreme socialist and republican policies of Whitlam.
reply
John
The King-Byng crisis in Canada in 1926 was very similar -- a dispute over the power of the governor general (Lord Byng) who had refused Mackenzie King's request for a general election and appointed Arthur Meighen instead (King was a Liberal, Meighen a Conservative. The significance of all this was that it led to the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which freed the Dominions from British control. Meighen's government fell, King became prime minister again and started organizing a movement to end Britain's ability to override any decisions made by the governments of the Dominions, and in 1931 the Dominions became fully independent. That could be the subject of a video, especially in connection with this one.
reply
The King-Byng crisis in Canada in 1926 was very similar -- a dispute over the power of the governor general (Lord Byng) who had refused Mackenzie King's request for a general election and appointed Arthur Meighen instead (King was a Liberal, Meighen a Conservative. The significance of all this was that it led to the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which freed the Dominions from British control. Meighen's government fell, King became prime minister again and started organizing a movement to end Britain's ability to override any decisions made by the governments of the Dominions, and in 1931 the Dominions became fully independent. That could be the subject of a video, especially in connection with this one.
reply
MJ
Basically, liberals went mask off when it comes to their support for completely undemocratic institutions like monarchies which they constantly say are symbolic but never are when it really matters. If any constitutional monarchy were to have a popular uprising, whether left or right wing, I would bet any amount of money that liberal elites would use every bit of that symbolic power to stop it. Power to Barbados for expunging every trace of that disgusting filth from their government. And power to the people everywhere. As soon as Lizzie dies off we will see a wave of countries finally becoming at least slightly more democratic.
reply
Basically, liberals went mask off when it comes to their support for completely undemocratic institutions like monarchies which they constantly say are symbolic but never are when it really matters. If any constitutional monarchy were to have a popular uprising, whether left or right wing, I would bet any amount of money that liberal elites would use every bit of that symbolic power to stop it. Power to Barbados for expunging every trace of that disgusting filth from their government. And power to the people everywhere. As soon as Lizzie dies off we will see a wave of countries finally becoming at least slightly more democratic.
reply
Dom
Recently, uncensored documents reveal alleged conspiracy/collusion during this crisis. It is alleged that John Kerr had long been close with the CIA. When Gough Whitlam made clear plans to nationalise natural resources the CIA called in a favour to Kerr. Under pressure from the CIA, Kerr used the situation in the Senate as a reason to fire Whitlam. Malcom Fraser is alleged to be involved in this conspiracy/collusion. As Opposition Leader he continually blocked legislation in the Senate as he had the majority. It is alleged that Kerr told Fraser he was going to fire Whitlam before telling Whitlam.
reply
Recently, uncensored documents reveal alleged conspiracy/collusion during this crisis. It is alleged that John Kerr had long been close with the CIA. When Gough Whitlam made clear plans to nationalise natural resources the CIA called in a favour to Kerr. Under pressure from the CIA, Kerr used the situation in the Senate as a reason to fire Whitlam. Malcom Fraser is alleged to be involved in this conspiracy/collusion. As Opposition Leader he continually blocked legislation in the Senate as he had the majority. It is alleged that Kerr told Fraser he was going to fire Whitlam before telling Whitlam.
reply
Ooilei
Isn't this an example of how a constitutional monarchy actually works better? Because in a republic, at least in one like the American system, all the power is invested in one person, the head of state, government, and the military are all over person, the president, so it's next to impossible to fire him which often leads to a dictatorship, but this with it's check and balances and separation of head of state and government make it function better for the people
reply
Isn't this an example of how a constitutional monarchy actually works better? Because in a republic, at least in one like the American system, all the power is invested in one person, the head of state, government, and the military are all over person, the president, so it's next to impossible to fire him which often leads to a dictatorship, but this with it's check and balances and separation of head of state and government make it function better for the people
reply
Ronald
A lot of factually incorrect statements about my country. Starting with the opener, The British Parliament had limited authority to legislate on behalf of Australia. I know that there is a lot to summarise in less than five minutes, but brevity does not excuse this inaccuracy. For me, it casts a pall over the whole report, which has several things wrong. I caution anyone against using this video as a historical reference.
reply
A lot of factually incorrect statements about my country. Starting with the opener, The British Parliament had limited authority to legislate on behalf of Australia. I know that there is a lot to summarise in less than five minutes, but brevity does not excuse this inaccuracy. For me, it casts a pall over the whole report, which has several things wrong. I caution anyone against using this video as a historical reference.
reply
Atomic
Just to Clarify: 0: 11
The Belgian King was Catholic, and did not wish to breach those terms by agreeing to the abortion liberalization laws passed by the government. So the King agreed with the Prime Minister t to declare himself unfit to rule for 44 hours so the law could be passed. Everyone agreed to it. It wasn't that he didn't want to agree, it was that he couldn't agree.
reply
Just to Clarify: 0: 11
The Belgian King was Catholic, and did not wish to breach those terms by agreeing to the abortion liberalization laws passed by the government. So the King agreed with the Prime Minister t to declare himself unfit to rule for 44 hours so the law could be passed. Everyone agreed to it. It wasn't that he didn't want to agree, it was that he couldn't agree.
reply
Charlie
Whitlam is legendary. Brought in our medicare universal health system (FREE, DECENT healthcare, revised our higher education system (FREE education, established diplomatic relations with China, brought in a raft of social, indigenous and arts policy. Imagine a political leader that ushered in good, progressive, beneficial changes to society. hard to imagine nowadays, hey?
reply
Whitlam is legendary. Brought in our medicare universal health system (FREE, DECENT healthcare, revised our higher education system (FREE education, established diplomatic relations with China, brought in a raft of social, indigenous and arts policy. Imagine a political leader that ushered in good, progressive, beneficial changes to society. hard to imagine nowadays, hey?
reply
gujwdhufj
Australians also dont have any guaranteed rights through any laws. Any rights Australians have are just rights the government feels like giving at the moment. Every time theres talks of adding a set of human rights to law or the constitution, the parties cant agree on what those rights should be so it never gets through.
reply
Australians also dont have any guaranteed rights through any laws. Any rights Australians have are just rights the government feels like giving at the moment. Every time theres talks of adding a set of human rights to law or the constitution, the parties cant agree on what those rights should be so it never gets through.
reply
Portadelaidefan28
Forgot the part where Gough Whitlam effectively made Australia bankrupt with his back door loan dealings with foreign nations. Pensioners had no pensions.
As much as this displayed the loophole in Australia's parliamentary system. Gough Whitlam was a shit PM, good ideas just couldnt make them actually work.
reply
Forgot the part where Gough Whitlam effectively made Australia bankrupt with his back door loan dealings with foreign nations. Pensioners had no pensions.
As much as this displayed the loophole in Australia's parliamentary system. Gough Whitlam was a shit PM, good ideas just couldnt make them actually work.
reply
Silver
The crisis is still ongoing because they rewrote the Australian Constitution without consent of the Australian people, meaning a referendum Must be Held for any law changes in Oz as stated by the Original Australian Constitution and not the fraudulent Australian constitution which Oz is currently being controlled from
reply
The crisis is still ongoing because they rewrote the Australian Constitution without consent of the Australian people, meaning a referendum Must be Held for any law changes in Oz as stated by the Original Australian Constitution and not the fraudulent Australian constitution which Oz is currently being controlled from
reply
Albert
Much as I wanna be angry about this, much as I wanna blame CIA conspiracies, Regal plotting and Canberra chicanery, any system which totally breaks down but where the worst outcome is that an election is called, is not a bad system. The people decided, and the life of the nation moved on.
reply
Much as I wanna be angry about this, much as I wanna blame CIA conspiracies, Regal plotting and Canberra chicanery, any system which totally breaks down but where the worst outcome is that an election is called, is not a bad system. The people decided, and the life of the nation moved on.
reply
Charles
I am not a particularly cunning linguist, but I'm pretty sure that Stroopwafels Zijn Heerlijk - the National Motto of Belgium and about the only thing we can agree on in this country - at 0: 16 does not translate into French as whatever nonsense L'Union Fait La Force is supposed to mean.
reply
I am not a particularly cunning linguist, but I'm pretty sure that Stroopwafels Zijn Heerlijk - the National Motto of Belgium and about the only thing we can agree on in this country - at 0: 16 does not translate into French as whatever nonsense L'Union Fait La Force is supposed to mean.
reply
Kerryn
Ultimately at the next election Labor didn't get re-elected, so the action was justified. If it had gone the other way at the next election that would justify becoming a republic. Labor is still but-hurt about this. as soon as QEII is off the throne they'll try the republic push again.
reply
Ultimately at the next election Labor didn't get re-elected, so the action was justified. If it had gone the other way at the next election that would justify becoming a republic. Labor is still but-hurt about this. as soon as QEII is off the throne they'll try the republic push again.
reply
Rise
Malcolm Fraser visited mum's school after being PM. She was about 6 at the time and excitedly ran home to tell my grandfather that she shook hands with the Prime Minister. When she told him he replied I would have spat on his foot. She didn't understand at the time but does now.
reply
Malcolm Fraser visited mum's school after being PM. She was about 6 at the time and excitedly ran home to tell my grandfather that she shook hands with the Prime Minister. When she told him he replied I would have spat on his foot. She didn't understand at the time but does now.
reply
romulusnr
You know I've even looked into this quite a bit and you've mentioned things in here I either haven't come across or skipped over. Particularly Kerr's ties to the US. I did catch your cur reference which as I do know is of course actually relevant to the story.
reply
You know I've even looked into this quite a bit and you've mentioned things in here I either haven't come across or skipped over. Particularly Kerr's ties to the US. I did catch your cur reference which as I do know is of course actually relevant to the story.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
