9 ms·

The Queen’s Coup

103 points by hunglee2 4y ago

pestatije 4y ago
When's the next republic/monarchy vote? I missed the last one and sure want to vote in the next one.
- pretendgeneer 4y ago
  Albanese included a "Assistant Minister for the Republic" in his government so possibly soon.
  - doctor_eval 4y ago
    I believe he also said after the next election. Wants to build political capital first, apparently.
    - rswail 4y ago
      It will also require a referendum, which in Australia requires not only a majority of the population, but also a majority of the states (there are 6 states and 2 territories). Constitutional change in Australia is rare and difficult and requires bipartisan support to get the change across. The current government is already proposing a referendum on the "voice" of First Nations, which would make changes to the Constitution to formally recognize the presence of Aboriginal people prior to Australia's colonization, as well as requiring "consultation" when laws are passed that specifically address First Nation concerns. This will take all of the bandwidth Australia has for "change" in the first term (3 years for Federal Governments), so trying to get more than one referendum through would be impossible. We had a referendum on becoming a republic back in the late 90s, but our government at the time (led by John Howard) basically white-anted it, along with the pro-republic forces not having a settled agreement on what the republic would look like.
tragomaskhalos 4y ago
Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _petronius 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_and_supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_and_supply Confidence = voting for the government in confidence motions (or votes which are not explicit confidence votes but considered to be "matters of confidence"). Supply = voting for the budget (because if the government can't pass a budget, then it is considered to not have the confidence of the house, and has to be replaced).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jon_adler 4y ago
  In Australia, legislation needs to pass through both lower and upper houses. In this situation, the opposition party was able to block crucial legislation from passing through both houses and into law. If legislation is repeatedly blocked, it may lead to a double dissolution [1] of both houses where all parliamentarians require reelection. [1] https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/double-dissolution-what-is-it/# https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/double-dissolution-what-is-i...
  - CrInhabitant 4y ago
    Legislation only applies to citizens. Liz was in a different club the supplies of which has veto over the plebs
- skissane 4y ago
  It is analogous to a “government shutdown” in the US - the Senate refuses to pass appropriation bills, which will cause the government to run out of money to operate. While in the US either the House or Senate can do that, in Australia effectively only the Senate can - each “Administration” (we say “government”) gets its power from a majority vote of the House, so if the House votes against the budget, the government must resign. If the Senate does the same, it isn’t forced to. Another difference relates to the consequences - the monarch’s representative (the Governor-General) can use that as grounds to sack the Prime Minister, appoint a new one, and force a new election, as controversially happened in this case. In the US system there is no constitutional way to have an early election, plus sacking the President is a lot harder (needs an impeachment trial)
EdwardDiego 4y ago
The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same. The Wikipedia article on this is less... certain, shall we say. [0] We always knew that there was correspondence between the Governor General and the Palace, because after all, the GG is the representative of the current monarch, when a GG is going to wade in and cause a constitutional crisis, I'd expect there to be such correspondence. But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. And for fun, there's lots of salacious rumours that the CIA and UK's Foreign Office were encouraging the removal of Whitlam because he was perceived as too friendly to the darn Commies. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. Yes, I find the detailed history fascinating, but I am a bit unconvinced by the spin put on it. Clearly, the claim that the palace had no idea it was coming is false, but I don't read the supposedly damning quotes from the letters as the Queen (or anyone else in the palace) giving partisan advise about what action to take. I read it as advising him of what powers he held and that he was free to use them should he decide it was necessary. Frankly, I feel like this is exactly the sort of role that a Governor General should take: acting as a neutral referee when the children stop playing nicely. The Governor General's powers are quite limited, but they are very real. The fact that the Prime Minister can replace the Governor General more or less at will acts as a strong democratic check on this power. (This is more problematic in the UK where the King cannot be replaced.) Personally, I think the "theoretical monarchy" and the role of the Governor General is a very nice feature in Canada and Australia (and presumably other commonwealth realms).
  - mst 4y ago
    It is notable that the piece's primary author (as noted at the end) wrote a two volume biography of Whitlam. I'm not going to pretend to be informed enough about the overall events and motivations to have an opinion, but it does seem likely that the piece's overall tone is likely to be affected by that fact.
doingtheiroming 4y ago
The assumption that things like this necessarily increase support for republicanism is probably misplaced. In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. In both countries support for the EU is running at very high levels despite that. Higher levels in fact that when it happened. The U.K. monarchy clearly lacks the wherewithal to influence Australian politics today that it possibly had back then and has nothing like the influence (through the Euro) of the ECB on the democratic Governments of Eurozone countries. The lesson might actually be (ironically if so) that the monarchy would be more resilient to republican opinion if it wielded more power. It is the perceived pointlessness of it that will lead to its decline, not any strength.
- lb1lf 4y ago
  -Obviously, public opinion differs in different monarchies, but living in one constitutional monarchy - Norway - I feel that precisely as the monarchy is gutted of real power, its resilience is strengthened. One could quip that we need someone to inaugurate new infrastructure works, provide soothing, apolitical speeches in time of need and serve as an unelected symbol of our country - the 'unelected' bit being important, as otherwise we'd just end up with some has-been politician put out to pasture, someone probably the majority of the population had never voted for and don't see as 'their' head of state. Now, on principle, the monarchy is laughable, anachronistic and undemocratic - but donning my pragmatist glasses, I see it as probably the best way to ensure we have a (symbolic) head of state for performing just those duties where you need someone not overtly political. As long as the royals feel like doing the job, I say let them.
  - marcus_holmes 4y ago
    As a dual-national UK/Australian, I can say it's a little more complex for us. In the UK, the monarchy fits pretty well with the other European constitutional monarchies, and there are reasons to support it as you say. I still think hard questions need to be asked about the exact nature of the monarchy, but it's clearly an English/Scottish/Welsh institution that belongs here. In Australia, it's a remnant of colonialism, a foreign invader that destroyed one of the oldest, if not the oldest, civilisations on the planet. If we're ever going to get over this, then we need to remove these remnants. Having a British constitutional monarchy in modern Australia is a ridiculous anachronism. The "advantages" could clearly be replicated without the historical baggage. We need to be a republic.
emmelaich 4y ago
A controversial moment in Australian history. I can't be too exercised about it considering the government of the day fell for an advanced fee fraud scam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_affair More reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
m000 4y ago
Food for thought for any Britons that may believe that the Queen/PM weekly meetings were for tea and cookies.
- cph123 4y ago
  Not cookies, but tea, biscuits, and cake.
ggm 4y ago
I am an avowed republican, I waited until I didn't have to swear alleigence to the crown to take my citizenship in Oz. But I am aware of a 51/49 class split between Liberal and Labor over Gough, and so the belief this "they tried to overthrow Gough" thing translates to "OMG the republicans will win" is ludicrous. Enough people think Gough was bonkers, That even Razor-gang Malcom Frazer was better. I am glued on Gough/Labor. I don't agree with the people who preferred Frazer (who in later life became quite left) -I just want to note that this isn't a huge "this story breaks monarchism" because enough people actually wanted what the Queen and John Kerr did, to make it more nuanced.
- VictorPath 4y ago
  > Enough people think Gough was bonkers There is much discussion about how in the cold war, a swath of countries from East Germany to China ran as states led by one party. Not much discussed is how many western aligned countries did as well. As the Cold War heated up, from 1949 to 1972, the Liberal coalition ran Australia. In 1972 another party is elected into power, and an extraordinary amount of energy from within Australia and without (UK and US) went into undermining anything but the old one party led coalition. Whitlam was undermined every day for his less than three years in power, then ousted by the retainer of a foreign queen, so that the one party led rule would continue to 1983. Of course the undermined <3 year interruption to one party led rule was "bonkers" to those supporting decades of one party led rule. One party led rule from 1949 to 1983, with the one elected other party with less than 3 years ousted by a representative of a queen. These people then had the gall to criticize the one party led coalitions running China and East Germany as being one party states that blocked political pluralism. The same thing happened in the other western aligned countries in the Pacific during the Cold War - Japan, South Korea. The same case in South Africa, Italy, France etc.
  - flerchin 4y ago
    For crying out loud, a long term majority is not One Party Rule. The primary difference being that dissenting parties are not outlawed.
dools 4y ago
This is an excellent podcast on the same topic: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-eleventh/id1499296059 https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-eleventh/id1499296...
mellosouls 4y ago
This seems a rather passionately biased take on the - undoubtedly very controversial - constitutional moment, that seems determined to push "blame" onto the late Queen. The title is absurd clickbait. Reading into the background in less partial news articles it seems that the Royal team were rightly answering the GG's questions in his uncommonly frequent letters and stressing the action should be a last resort. If the guy was a bad choice, that's ultimately on the Prime Minister who selected him, the one he dismissed...
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  The monarchy means that prime ministers, who are generally only directly elected by people in a small geographic constituency, get to exercise the power of a head of state, via the monarch. Even weirder in this case, the prime minister (not directly elected by the general populace) appointed an Governor General (not elected at all) to a position with monarchic powers, and that power was used against him.
  - 3pt14159 4y ago
    I know this seems weird to outsiders, but as a Canadian I quite like it. Having PMs elected by MPs means that it is harder for a single rabble rousing politician to sweep to power and distort the use of, say, the military. Having Governers General appointed by PMs, and confirmed by the monarch, means that someone outside of politics (usually a well respected figure like a university president or astronaut) holds the final red line about whether or not an election must be called. Since it's via appointment, the monarch doesn't bear the brunt of the public rage for it. And since the monarch must confirm the GG it means that the position can't be stuffed with an obvious political hack. It jives better than it sounds it would jive. It's like checks and balances with as many arguments and gridlock. As an aside, I feel the same way about the Notwithstanding Clause[0] of the Canadian Constitution. It's a useful tool to diffuse hard issues that can't be used against the public to stop them from voting or speaking and since it automatically expires after a short, preset time the power is ultimately in the hands of the electorate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...
Taniwha 4y ago
People may remember that the CIA also had a hand in this sordid episode, documented in the movie The Falcon and the Snowman (based on a real case) where someone working in signals (much like Edward Snowden) watching all the telexes go by realised that the US was taking part in the downfall of another democratic government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falcon_and_the_Snowman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falcon_and_the_Snowman
- nomdep 4y ago
  During the 60s an 70s, taking part in the downfall of democratic governments (see South America) was an usual Tuesday for the CIA
  - snapcaster 4y ago
    I'm sure they've stopped now though :)
  - vagrantJin 4y ago
    Also see Africa. Case in point of the modern US meddling for "freedom" is Libya. Once seen as a model of development African countries can look to, has spiralled into filth with open slave markets. I don't know whether to applaud the US for destroying a such a promising country with such effortless guile or spit on disgust that other powerful nations looked on and did nothing.
abbassi 4y ago
HuangYuSan 4y ago
Queen Elizabeth II "of England" well...
- andylynch 4y ago
  Yeah, in this context she was Queen of Australia.
birdsonthewire 4y ago
Jenny Hocking is considered by 'serious' historians as a hack. Her biography of Murphy borders on hagiography. The Palace Papers were a dud that she is still attempting to show point to QEII/Buckingham influence in the dismissal. Barwick, who was the chief justice of the high court at the time, said that the constitutional crisis was Whitlam refusing to resign upon failure to secure supply. Kerr dismissing Whitlam was resolving the crisis. In the end it is academic. The Australian people had their chance to judge the performance of the Whitlam government at the election held 13 December (both Whitlam and Kerr knew that 11 November was effectively the last day that this could be considered due to the requirements for elections to be held) and delivered a resounding message to the former Whitlam government. Even if Whitlam had the half senate election he wanted, it would not have achieved his aims and he would have had to take the issue to a full House election.
b800h 4y ago
In a British style constitutional monarchy, it is the job of the monarch to resolve these sorts of stalemates. The title is absurd.
- telmo 4y ago
  Ok, but then it must be accepted that a "British style constitutional monarchy" is not a full democracy, given that in certain situations a non-elected head of state holds real power. I believe this sort of news appears in the context of it being commonly argued that in a "British style constitutional monarchy" the monarch holds no real power, and people who suggest otherwise are often dismissed as lunatics. It is good to point out that one cannot have it both ways. Either this is indeed a coup, or the regime is not a full democracy.
  - Defletter 4y ago
    Anything short of a direct democracy is not a full democracy
    - Eleison23 4y ago
      Well get into your TARDIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
    - telmo 4y ago
      I disagree. Direct vs representative democracy is orthogonal to this issue. In a representative democracy, the mandate to exercise power still comes from popular vote. That is a qualitatively different situation from one where someone can exercise power by virtue of birth.
      - Defletter 4y ago
        They're not orthogonal, direct democracy is the logical conclusion to your definition. Moving on from that though, I disagree that being a Constitutional Monarchy means we're not a full democracy; likewise, being a Republic doesn't gurauntee full democracy... look at America for the easiest example of this. I can give more specific examples if you'd like. Anyway, the King exercises power with the acquiescence of the public. We can abolish the Monarchy but we choose not to. Indeed, Australia can choose to emancipate themselves from the Crown, they just haven't. The fact that we can choose and there's no limitation on our ability to choose proves that their mere existence in our establishment doesn't inherently diminish our democracy.
Naga 4y ago
The list of constitutional crises in the former Dominions is a short list, so I thought I'd point out a similar event that happened in Canadian history. Wikipedia calls it the King-Byng affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair), but my history professors usually referred to it affectionately as the King-Byng Thing.
knorker 4y ago
So can we stop hearing about how the British monarch is not political, and has no political powers?
icare_1er 4y ago
So, the Queen knew, but didn't interfere... which is what is expected of her: not to interfere with politicians and PMs.
PaulHoule 4y ago
It’s funny, I have read a lot about various intrigues in the UK parliament and felt I understood them (I was talking w/ a political science prof the other day about Disraeli and the Corn laws) but everything invested read about the Australia affair has come across like one of those personal conflicts that you can’t make sense of because they a talking about it a mile a minute without filling in the context. Is there a good account of it that would make sense to an American?
cafard 4y ago
In what sense is Charles King of Australia?
- caf 4y ago
  In the sense given by this proclamation: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/proclamation-King-Charles-III-with-seal.pdf https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/proc...
dannyphantom 4y ago
Hmm...the site may have been hugged a little too tightly; I can't seem to establish a connection to it. Thankfully someone archived it. [1] 1: https://archive.ph/2zqbE https://archive.ph/2zqbE I've really enjoyed reading the discussion in this thread; having approached this general topic with no prior knowledge I now have about 8 Wikipedia pages up that I'll skim throughout the day! Always a fun time.
rfreytag 4y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20221111090505/https://declassifiedaus.org/2022/11/11/the-queens-coup/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221111090505/https://declassif...
cryptonector 4y ago
This particular use of reserve powers probably made it harder to use those same powers in the future due to the outrageous failure to follow protocol, and the consequent deceit involved.

The Queen’s Coup

103 points by hunglee2 4y ago

pestatije 4y ago

When's the next republic/monarchy vote? I missed the last one and sure want to vote in the next one.

pretendgeneer 4y ago
Albanese included a "Assistant Minister for the Republic" in his government so possibly soon.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  I believe he also said after the next election. Wants to build political capital first, apparently.
  - rswail 4y ago
    It will also require a referendum, which in Australia requires not only a majority of the population, but also a majority of the states (there are 6 states and 2 territories). Constitutional change in Australia is rare and difficult and requires bipartisan support to get the change across. The current government is already proposing a referendum on the "voice" of First Nations, which would make changes to the Constitution to formally recognize the presence of Aboriginal people prior to Australia's colonization, as well as requiring "consultation" when laws are passed that specifically address First Nation concerns. This will take all of the bandwidth Australia has for "change" in the first term (3 years for Federal Governments), so trying to get more than one referendum through would be impossible. We had a referendum on becoming a republic back in the late 90s, but our government at the time (led by John Howard) basically white-anted it, along with the pro-republic forces not having a settled agreement on what the republic would look like.

tragomaskhalos 4y ago

Crucial to this piece is "blocking of supply"; unfortunately there is no explanation of what this actually means.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_petronius 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_and_supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_and_supply Confidence = voting for the government in confidence motions (or votes which are not explicit confidence votes but considered to be "matters of confidence"). Supply = voting for the budget (because if the government can't pass a budget, then it is considered to not have the confidence of the house, and has to be replaced).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jon_adler 4y ago
In Australia, legislation needs to pass through both lower and upper houses. In this situation, the opposition party was able to block crucial legislation from passing through both houses and into law. If legislation is repeatedly blocked, it may lead to a double dissolution [1] of both houses where all parliamentarians require reelection. [1] https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/double-dissolution-what-is-it/# https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/double-dissolution-what-is-i...
- CrInhabitant 4y ago
  Legislation only applies to citizens. Liz was in a different club the supplies of which has veto over the plebs
skissane 4y ago
It is analogous to a “government shutdown” in the US - the Senate refuses to pass appropriation bills, which will cause the government to run out of money to operate. While in the US either the House or Senate can do that, in Australia effectively only the Senate can - each “Administration” (we say “government”) gets its power from a majority vote of the House, so if the House votes against the budget, the government must resign. If the Senate does the same, it isn’t forced to. Another difference relates to the consequences - the monarch’s representative (the Governor-General) can use that as grounds to sack the Prime Minister, appoint a new one, and force a new election, as controversially happened in this case. In the US system there is no constitutional way to have an early election, plus sacking the President is a lot harder (needs an impeachment trial)

EdwardDiego 4y ago

The narrative seems to conflate the Palace and the Queen as being one and the same. The Wikipedia article on this is less... certain, shall we say. [0] We always knew that there was correspondence between the Governor General and the Palace, because after all, the GG is the representative of the current monarch, when a GG is going to wade in and cause a constitutional crisis, I'd expect there to be such correspondence. But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. And for fun, there's lots of salacious rumours that the CIA and UK's Foreign Office were encouraging the removal of Whitlam because he was perceived as too friendly to the darn Commies. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

goodcanadian 4y ago
But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. Yes, I find the detailed history fascinating, but I am a bit unconvinced by the spin put on it. Clearly, the claim that the palace had no idea it was coming is false, but I don't read the supposedly damning quotes from the letters as the Queen (or anyone else in the palace) giving partisan advise about what action to take. I read it as advising him of what powers he held and that he was free to use them should he decide it was necessary. Frankly, I feel like this is exactly the sort of role that a Governor General should take: acting as a neutral referee when the children stop playing nicely. The Governor General's powers are quite limited, but they are very real. The fact that the Prime Minister can replace the Governor General more or less at will acts as a strong democratic check on this power. (This is more problematic in the UK where the King cannot be replaced.) Personally, I think the "theoretical monarchy" and the role of the Governor General is a very nice feature in Canada and Australia (and presumably other commonwealth realms).
- mst 4y ago
  It is notable that the piece's primary author (as noted at the end) wrote a two volume biography of Whitlam. I'm not going to pretend to be informed enough about the overall events and motivations to have an opinion, but it does seem likely that the piece's overall tone is likely to be affected by that fact.

doingtheiroming 4y ago

The assumption that things like this necessarily increase support for republicanism is probably misplaced. In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. In both countries support for the EU is running at very high levels despite that. Higher levels in fact that when it happened. The U.K. monarchy clearly lacks the wherewithal to influence Australian politics today that it possibly had back then and has nothing like the influence (through the Euro) of the ECB on the democratic Governments of Eurozone countries. The lesson might actually be (ironically if so) that the monarchy would be more resilient to republican opinion if it wielded more power. It is the perceived pointlessness of it that will lead to its decline, not any strength.

lb1lf 4y ago
-Obviously, public opinion differs in different monarchies, but living in one constitutional monarchy - Norway - I feel that precisely as the monarchy is gutted of real power, its resilience is strengthened. One could quip that we need someone to inaugurate new infrastructure works, provide soothing, apolitical speeches in time of need and serve as an unelected symbol of our country - the 'unelected' bit being important, as otherwise we'd just end up with some has-been politician put out to pasture, someone probably the majority of the population had never voted for and don't see as 'their' head of state. Now, on principle, the monarchy is laughable, anachronistic and undemocratic - but donning my pragmatist glasses, I see it as probably the best way to ensure we have a (symbolic) head of state for performing just those duties where you need someone not overtly political. As long as the royals feel like doing the job, I say let them.
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  As a dual-national UK/Australian, I can say it's a little more complex for us. In the UK, the monarchy fits pretty well with the other European constitutional monarchies, and there are reasons to support it as you say. I still think hard questions need to be asked about the exact nature of the monarchy, but it's clearly an English/Scottish/Welsh institution that belongs here. In Australia, it's a remnant of colonialism, a foreign invader that destroyed one of the oldest, if not the oldest, civilisations on the planet. If we're ever going to get over this, then we need to remove these remnants. Having a British constitutional monarchy in modern Australia is a ridiculous anachronism. The "advantages" could clearly be replicated without the historical baggage. We need to be a republic.

emmelaich 4y ago

A controversial moment in Australian history. I can't be too exercised about it considering the government of the day fell for an advanced fee fraud scam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_affair More reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

m000 4y ago

Food for thought for any Britons that may believe that the Queen/PM weekly meetings were for tea and cookies.

cph123 4y ago
Not cookies, but tea, biscuits, and cake.

ggm 4y ago

I am an avowed republican, I waited until I didn't have to swear alleigence to the crown to take my citizenship in Oz. But I am aware of a 51/49 class split between Liberal and Labor over Gough, and so the belief this "they tried to overthrow Gough" thing translates to "OMG the republicans will win" is ludicrous. Enough people think Gough was bonkers, That even Razor-gang Malcom Frazer was better. I am glued on Gough/Labor. I don't agree with the people who preferred Frazer (who in later life became quite left) -I just want to note that this isn't a huge "this story breaks monarchism" because enough people actually wanted what the Queen and John Kerr did, to make it more nuanced.

VictorPath 4y ago
> Enough people think Gough was bonkers There is much discussion about how in the cold war, a swath of countries from East Germany to China ran as states led by one party. Not much discussed is how many western aligned countries did as well. As the Cold War heated up, from 1949 to 1972, the Liberal coalition ran Australia. In 1972 another party is elected into power, and an extraordinary amount of energy from within Australia and without (UK and US) went into undermining anything but the old one party led coalition. Whitlam was undermined every day for his less than three years in power, then ousted by the retainer of a foreign queen, so that the one party led rule would continue to 1983. Of course the undermined <3 year interruption to one party led rule was "bonkers" to those supporting decades of one party led rule. One party led rule from 1949 to 1983, with the one elected other party with less than 3 years ousted by a representative of a queen. These people then had the gall to criticize the one party led coalitions running China and East Germany as being one party states that blocked political pluralism. The same thing happened in the other western aligned countries in the Pacific during the Cold War - Japan, South Korea. The same case in South Africa, Italy, France etc.
- flerchin 4y ago
  For crying out loud, a long term majority is not One Party Rule. The primary difference being that dissenting parties are not outlawed.

dools 4y ago

This is an excellent podcast on the same topic: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-eleventh/id1499296059 https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-eleventh/id1499296...

mellosouls 4y ago

This seems a rather passionately biased take on the - undoubtedly very controversial - constitutional moment, that seems determined to push "blame" onto the late Queen. The title is absurd clickbait. Reading into the background in less partial news articles it seems that the Royal team were rightly answering the GG's questions in his uncommonly frequent letters and stressing the action should be a last resort. If the guy was a bad choice, that's ultimately on the Prime Minister who selected him, the one he dismissed...

anonymous_sorry 4y ago
The monarchy means that prime ministers, who are generally only directly elected by people in a small geographic constituency, get to exercise the power of a head of state, via the monarch. Even weirder in this case, the prime minister (not directly elected by the general populace) appointed an Governor General (not elected at all) to a position with monarchic powers, and that power was used against him.
- 3pt14159 4y ago
  I know this seems weird to outsiders, but as a Canadian I quite like it. Having PMs elected by MPs means that it is harder for a single rabble rousing politician to sweep to power and distort the use of, say, the military. Having Governers General appointed by PMs, and confirmed by the monarch, means that someone outside of politics (usually a well respected figure like a university president or astronaut) holds the final red line about whether or not an election must be called. Since it's via appointment, the monarch doesn't bear the brunt of the public rage for it. And since the monarch must confirm the GG it means that the position can't be stuffed with an obvious political hack. It jives better than it sounds it would jive. It's like checks and balances with as many arguments and gridlock. As an aside, I feel the same way about the Notwithstanding Clause[0] of the Canadian Constitution. It's a useful tool to diffuse hard issues that can't be used against the public to stop them from voting or speaking and since it automatically expires after a short, preset time the power is ultimately in the hands of the electorate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...

Taniwha 4y ago

People may remember that the CIA also had a hand in this sordid episode, documented in the movie The Falcon and the Snowman (based on a real case) where someone working in signals (much like Edward Snowden) watching all the telexes go by realised that the US was taking part in the downfall of another democratic government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falcon_and_the_Snowman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falcon_and_the_Snowman

nomdep 4y ago
During the 60s an 70s, taking part in the downfall of democratic governments (see South America) was an usual Tuesday for the CIA
- snapcaster 4y ago
  I'm sure they've stopped now though :)
- vagrantJin 4y ago
  Also see Africa. Case in point of the modern US meddling for "freedom" is Libya. Once seen as a model of development African countries can look to, has spiralled into filth with open slave markets. I don't know whether to applaud the US for destroying a such a promising country with such effortless guile or spit on disgust that other powerful nations looked on and did nothing.

abbassi 4y ago

HuangYuSan 4y ago

Queen Elizabeth II "of England" well...

andylynch 4y ago
Yeah, in this context she was Queen of Australia.

birdsonthewire 4y ago

Jenny Hocking is considered by 'serious' historians as a hack. Her biography of Murphy borders on hagiography. The Palace Papers were a dud that she is still attempting to show point to QEII/Buckingham influence in the dismissal. Barwick, who was the chief justice of the high court at the time, said that the constitutional crisis was Whitlam refusing to resign upon failure to secure supply. Kerr dismissing Whitlam was resolving the crisis. In the end it is academic. The Australian people had their chance to judge the performance of the Whitlam government at the election held 13 December (both Whitlam and Kerr knew that 11 November was effectively the last day that this could be considered due to the requirements for elections to be held) and delivered a resounding message to the former Whitlam government. Even if Whitlam had the half senate election he wanted, it would not have achieved his aims and he would have had to take the issue to a full House election.

b800h 4y ago

In a British style constitutional monarchy, it is the job of the monarch to resolve these sorts of stalemates. The title is absurd.

telmo 4y ago
Ok, but then it must be accepted that a "British style constitutional monarchy" is not a full democracy, given that in certain situations a non-elected head of state holds real power. I believe this sort of news appears in the context of it being commonly argued that in a "British style constitutional monarchy" the monarch holds no real power, and people who suggest otherwise are often dismissed as lunatics. It is good to point out that one cannot have it both ways. Either this is indeed a coup, or the regime is not a full democracy.
- Defletter 4y ago
  Anything short of a direct democracy is not a full democracy
  - Eleison23 4y ago
    Well get into your TARDIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
  - telmo 4y ago
    I disagree. Direct vs representative democracy is orthogonal to this issue. In a representative democracy, the mandate to exercise power still comes from popular vote. That is a qualitatively different situation from one where someone can exercise power by virtue of birth.
    - Defletter 4y ago
      They're not orthogonal, direct democracy is the logical conclusion to your definition. Moving on from that though, I disagree that being a Constitutional Monarchy means we're not a full democracy; likewise, being a Republic doesn't gurauntee full democracy... look at America for the easiest example of this. I can give more specific examples if you'd like. Anyway, the King exercises power with the acquiescence of the public. We can abolish the Monarchy but we choose not to. Indeed, Australia can choose to emancipate themselves from the Crown, they just haven't. The fact that we can choose and there's no limitation on our ability to choose proves that their mere existence in our establishment doesn't inherently diminish our democracy.

Naga 4y ago

The list of constitutional crises in the former Dominions is a short list, so I thought I'd point out a similar event that happened in Canadian history. Wikipedia calls it the King-Byng affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair), but my history professors usually referred to it affectionately as the King-Byng Thing.

knorker 4y ago

So can we stop hearing about how the British monarch is not political, and has no political powers?

icare_1er 4y ago

So, the Queen knew, but didn't interfere... which is what is expected of her: not to interfere with politicians and PMs.

PaulHoule 4y ago

It’s funny, I have read a lot about various intrigues in the UK parliament and felt I understood them (I was talking w/ a political science prof the other day about Disraeli and the Corn laws) but everything invested read about the Australia affair has come across like one of those personal conflicts that you can’t make sense of because they a talking about it a mile a minute without filling in the context. Is there a good account of it that would make sense to an American?

cafard 4y ago

In what sense is Charles King of Australia?

caf 4y ago
In the sense given by this proclamation: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/proclamation-King-Charles-III-with-seal.pdf https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/proc...

dannyphantom 4y ago

Hmm...the site may have been hugged a little too tightly; I can't seem to establish a connection to it. Thankfully someone archived it. [1] 1: https://archive.ph/2zqbE https://archive.ph/2zqbE I've really enjoyed reading the discussion in this thread; having approached this general topic with no prior knowledge I now have about 8 Wikipedia pages up that I'll skim throughout the day! Always a fun time.

rfreytag 4y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20221111090505/https://declassifiedaus.org/2022/11/11/the-queens-coup/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221111090505/https://declassif...

cryptonector 4y ago

This particular use of reserve powers probably made it harder to use those same powers in the future due to the outrageous failure to follow protocol, and the consequent deceit involved.