Why did the Governor-General dismiss Whitlam and could it happen again?

Thanks Tom, that is a very complex topic! A number of events led to the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his government.

On 15 October 1975, the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, announced the opposition would block the government’s supply bills in the Senate until an election was called. If these bills do not pass, the government cannot pay wages or fund public services. This created a deadlock between the Senate and the House of Representatives, because the House had passed the bills.

Fraser claimed Whitlam led ‘the most incompetent and disastrous government in the history of Australia.’ He said the opposition would ‘use all the constitutional opportunities available’ to force an election to be held so the people could decide. Whitlam said he would not be ‘forced’ to an early election.

On 11 November, the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, decided the only way to break this deadlock was to use his reserve powers and dismiss Whitlam and his government. It is the first and only time the Governor-General has dismissed a prime minister who had the support of a majority of members in the House of Representatives.

Kerr appointed Fraser as prime minister on the condition he:

• guarantee the supply bills would pass the Senate
• immediately request a double dissolution election.

The supply bills were passed that afternoon and Fraser asked the Governor-General to dissolve both houses of Parliament so a federal election could be held. To this day, some people still debate whether the Governor-General had the power to dismiss the prime minister.

Since the dismissal, the powers of the Governor-General remain the same under the Australian Constitution. The Senate still has the power to block supply.  There is nothing in the Constitution to say an election should be called to break a deadlock between the Senate and House. If a deadlock occurred again, the Governor-General could still dismiss a prime minister and government.