quickflick - couple of points.

The problem in 1975 is that Kerr was acting outside of convention. The issue was the passing of supply. Whitlam was prepared to go to a half-Senate election to break the deadlock. The recent revelation that was made was that Kerr offered the role of caretaker PM to Fraser with no requirement to guarantee supply.

I never said the british acted improperly, or engaged in conspiracy. My point is that the constitution is completely vague on the issue.

You seem to lack any confidence in our ability to engineer a better system. I do not share your lack of faith. We can do better, much better.

AzzaMarch

I'm familiar with the Dismissal. When there's no supply, protocol is double-dissolution. This is the democratic solution. Whitlam, knowing he'd be trounced in the ensuing elections if he did this, tried to hold on to power. He abused his power and left the G-G with no alternative.

The key point, on which I think you're wrong, is that the G-G did not act beyond his remit. In those circumstances, he's supposed dissolve both houses of parliament. Reset the system, as it were.

Kerr acted as protocol and convention demanded (bearing in mind that it was unprecedented).

I have faith in this system because it is as close to perfect as any devised. There's legit no point in trying to make it better. Every proposal I have ever heard amounts to weakening it.

Let's look at the 1975 on a purely analytical level. Forget parties. I think you're giving in to your political preference too much (although that's an assumption, so I apologise in advance).

Pretend the Liberals are from Saturn and Labor are from Jupiter. It makes it easier to be objective.

The PM and leader of the party from Jupiter abused his power by failing to call an election when he had no supply. He subverted democratic and constitutional process. He basically no longer had the support of the people. This left the G-G with no alternative but to dissolve both houses of parliament, appoint a caretaker PM and call an election.

In the election Jupiter lost heavily and Saturn were voted in. The people wanted Saturn in government as demonstrated by the election results.

This demonstrates how great the system is. The abuse of power from the leader from Jupiter was checked, he was dismissed and a democratic outcome followed.

Everything was constitutional and democracy won.

Few things to address,

- I have no interest in being drawn into a tit for tat re. Whitlam but suffice to say, what transpired has nothing to do with the relative superiority of republicanism. Has everything to do with Constitutional processes and political convention.
- the argument from minimal consequences is utterly bemusing to me. If there is no discernable Constitutional provision afforded to the Windsors, surely one would not object to instituting an ammendment stipulating the the Governor General acts by the leave of the general will of the Australian people. As present, the GG serves as the representative of and by the leave of a hereditary sovereign. (A servile thought if ever there was one.)
- As to the broader constitutional question, most people are far too amenable. We have few firmly entrenched rights (the right to vote is very imperfectly established in the constitution for example), and much is left to the perogative of custom or convention. I should not need to say how dangerous this is. Unscrupulous politicians have ample room, by virtue of constitutional inadequacies, to institute whatever illiberal and demogagic pithel they see fit. Recall if you will the White Australia policy, the treatment of minorities historically, 'minor' procedural inequities (e.g. our parliamentary sitting opens with an overtly sectarian prayer, sectional interests propagating in public schools) etc etc.

As I've said, I am myself firmly on the more radical end of the spectrum.

quickflick - you have obviously missed the revelations that came out in the last month or 2 with the recent book release. It showed that the narrative which you described is not what actually happened.

And might I say you are being absolutely patronising in your statements about "giving in to political preference". I am not a fan of Whitlam, or Fraser for that matter.

Fraser was directly told by Kerr that he did not have to guarantee supply to get the job. The supply issue was pretext. The PM rightly should have prerogative to call an election.

Essentially the G-G dismissed the PM before he could call a half-senate election.

If things had played out in the way you described, I would be more in agreement that what you have stated is reasonable. But the point is that this is not what happened.

You just keep making absolute statements that "our system is as close to perfect as possible". There is no perfect system, each has strengths and weaknesses.

Our stability does not come from our constitutional set-up. That just ignores things like the general rule of law we have, political culture that is largely practical rather than ideological, etc etc etc.

The fact you think that everything may fall apart if we codified the G-Gs reserve powers still amazes me.