Home Blog Page 663

Challenge to king’s action has no basis in law or Constitution, says acting AG

By
Philip Cass
-

Acting Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions ‘Aminiasi Kefu, said this morning any legal action taken against the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly would be dismissed by the courts.

The Acting Attorney General was responding to an article in Kaniva News which quoted former Government Chief Executive Officer for Internal Affairs Mr. Lopeti Senituli urging the current Government to take legal action against King Tupou VI’s decision to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Senituli said the Government should apply to the Court for an injunction against the dissolution and for a review of the king’s actions.

Hon. Kefu said there was no provision in the Constitution or laws of Tonga to support Mr Senituli’s opinion.

He said His Majesty’s personal prerogative to dissolve parliament was not limited by the law.

The power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution was a personal Royal prerogative that had no “parameters” prescribed by any law, unlike the personal Royal prerogative to appoint successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates.

Accordingly, there was no basis for the Courts to analyse whether the decision taken by His Majesty the King to dissolve the Legislative Assembly had exceeded any legal parameters prescribed by the law.

“The wording of clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution puts this principle beyond doubt,” Hon. Kefu said.

“Clause 38 provides that the King may dissolve the Legislative Assembly at his pleasure and command that new representatives of the nobles and people be elected to enter the Assembly.”

Clause 77(2) also provided that “it shall be lawful for the King, at his pleasure, to dissolve the Legislative Assembly at any time and command that new elections be held.”

The Acting Attorney General said Mr Senituli had based his opinion on the Land Court case of Tupou Tongaliuaki Filo’auola Aleamotu’a v Fielakepa, [2015] Tonga LR 556 (Scott LCJ).

However, Hon. Kefu said that in the case relied upon by Mr Senituli, the court had ruled that the king could not be made a defendant to the case because the Courts had no jurisdiction over him.

Legal reasoning

Hon. Kefu then went into lengthy detail explaining the court’s reasoning for its finding.

“A distinction must… be drawn between the exercise by His Majesty of unfettered royal prerogatives retained by him under the Constitution, such as the power to confer titles (Clause 44) and the exercise by him either upon the advice of a body or person, of the powers specified in the relevant statute (e.g. Clause 50A(1) or Clause 50B).

“In Tu’ipulotu v Kingdom of Tonga [ [1997] Tonga LR 258] Hampton CJ held that in Tonga, as in England, the King in person (subject only to Clause 49) is immune from all actions at law whether civil or criminal: ‘No proceedings are maintainable against the King in person. The Courts are the King’s court and the Courts have no jurisdiction over him.’

“While the decision relates to Judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court…the principle is equally applicable to the Land Court.

“In paragraph 27 it added that:

“ Most of the previous cases dealing with the issue of contested hereditary titles may be found in Volume II, Tonga Law Reports.[…] In none of them, so far as can be seen from the report, was the Sovereign joined as a party. …The matters now before this Court for decision may be satisfactorily and comprehensively be dealt with without the need for any second defendant or third party to be joined.

“A Land Court case dealt with a personal Royal prerogative that is limited by the law: appointment of successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates,” Hon Kefu said.

He said the Land Court case dealt with different laws to the laws that applied in the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.

“The Land Court stated in this case that the power to appoint successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates is a personal Royal prerogative, and the Courts cannot direct His Majesty the King on making such appointments,” the Acting Attorney general said.

“However, the Courts can review the exercise of this particular power because of the procedures prescribed by law under sections 38(1) and 40(1) of the Land Act, and the rules of succession prescribed by clause 111 of the Constitution. The Land Court stated this by saying that:

‘…the powers and duties given to the King by Sections 40(1) and 38(1) [of the Land Act] are personal and not subject to direction by the Court. It follows that there is no basis for the King to be joined as a party when breaches of these sections are alleged.

‘To say however that decisions made by the King pursuant to sections 40(1) [and] 38(1) are not subject to order is not to say that they are not justiciable at all. The Court retains the right and indeed the duty to analyse the actions taken and, when it is of the view that the parameters within which the royal prerogative must be exercised have been exceeded it may, in its discretion, declare that to be the case.’

Hon. Kefu said the Privy Council had confirmed that Land Court case dealt with a personal Royal prerogative limited by the law

“The limitation by the law of the personal Royal prerogative to appoint successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates was confirmed by the Privy Council in the appeal from this Land Court case,” he said. The Privy Council stated as follows:

‘ Relevant to the interpretation to be given Clauses 104, 111 and 112 of the Constitution is HM King George Tupou I’s address to parliament in 1875 as quoted by our distinguished predecessors in Tu’ipulotu v Hon Niukapu (supra) at 83:

I have made up my mind absolutely not to alter names or nominate chiefs so that the estate shall go with the title and the succession shall be from father to son forever. The Law of Succession is stated in the Constitution, and such succession shall be by blood relationship only …. Should there be any dispute it shall be tried by Justices of the Court in accordance with the usage of civilised Governments. You Chiefs of Tonga all of you who have titles estates when the Constitution came into force: I affirm to you the right of yourself and your children by marriage to hold and possess your titles and estates forever, as stated in the Constitution.

‘His Majesty [King George Tupou I] clearly contemplated that succession to the noble titles he had created to reinforce his reign and the unity and wellbeing of the Kingdom would henceforth devolve according to law and not by royal pleasure.’

“The Attorney General’s Office therefore wishes to confirm that it is of the view, that the decision by His Majesty the King to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution was an exercise of a personal Royal prerogative that is not limited by the Constitution or the laws of Tonga, and therefore such decision cannot be reviewed by the Courts.”

The main points

  • Acting Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions ‘Aminiasi Kefu, said this morning any legal action taken against the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly would be dismissed by the courts.
  • He was responding to an article in Kaniva News which quoted former Government Chief Executive Officer for Internal Affairs Mr. Lopeti Senituli urging the current Government to take legal action against King Tupou VI’s decision to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.
  • Kefu said there was no provision in the Constitution or laws of Tonga to support Mr Senituli’s opinion.
  • He said His Majesty’s personal prerogative to dissolve parliament was not limited by the law.

For more information 

Former gov’t political adviser urges Pōhiva to launch legal challenge against King’s decision to dissolve Parliament

Agreement on direct Samoan flights could be only a week away

By
Philip Cass
-

Real Tonga could sign an agreement for new flights between the kingdom and Samoa as early as next week.

There has been no direct air service between Tonga and Samoa for a decade.

Real Tonga’s CEO, Tevita Palu, said the date would depend on how soon approval for the flights was approved.

Negotiations have been underway with Samoan airline authorities over a shared twice weekly service.

Palu said he was looking forward to providing an alternative route to and from Samoa and improving relationships with the Samoan Government.

As Kaniva News reported in July, the suggested cost of tickets on the proposed route was less than TP$874.

There are many Tongans in Samoa and Samons in Tonga, but at the moment they have to take a long and expensive route home via Fiji or New Zealand.

The Samoan Observer  said the proposed service would fly between Fagalii in Samoa and Vava’u in Tonga.

Polynesian Airlines General Manager Seiuli Alvin Tuala told the Observer that Talofa Airways would serve the direct connection between Fagalii and the kingdom with flights on Tuesdays and Saturdays.

The Samoa-Tonga link come in the lead-up to the launch of the country’s national carrier, Samoa Airways, in November.

Tuala predicted that  Samoa Airways and Samoa would be used as a transit point by other Island nations for travel to New Zealand and Australia.

The main points

  • Real Tonga could sign an agreement for new flights between the kingdom and Samoa as early as next week.
  • There has been no direct air service between Tonga and Samoa for a decade.
  • Negotiations have been underway with Samoan airline authorities over a shared twice weekly service.
  • As Kaniva News reported in July, the suggested cost of tickets on the proposed route was less than TP$874.

For more information

Tonga-Samoa ties re-established 

Regional service to Samoa could be reality by August says Real Tonga CEO

Kingdom’s snap election affects overseas Tongan potential candidates

By
Kalino Latu
-

Tonga’s early general election has affected some of the Tongan citizens living overseas who had planned to run for Parliament in 2018.

The election date had been changed and Tongan voters will now go to the polls in two months time.

Tonga’s electoral laws required all potential candidates who wish to register to be in Tonga on a certain period of time before the election begins.

This is what the law says:  “Provided that a person resident outside of Tonga who is qualified to be an elector will qualify as a candidate only if he is present in Tonga for a period of 3 months before the election.”

Auckland-based business man Vaʻa Taliaʻuli said he was planning to stand for Tongatapu 3 electorate in the 2018 general election.

He said he cannot now fulfil his dream because the election date had been changed and he could not qualify.

He said he has other commitments for his businesses and family.

Taliaʻuli, who owned the Velata Restaurant and Catering centre in South Auckland said the unexpected election meant he did not have enough time to prepare.

King Tupou VI has stunned the Tongan political world by calling for an early general election to be held before November 16, seeking new Members of Parliament to run the country.

Acting Attorney General ʻAminiasi Kefu said the upcoming election was a general election and the new elected representatives will become Members of Parliament for the next four years after the election.

When asked if his Office could consider the situation and do something to allow the potential candidates who were not in Tonga before the election to be able to register Kefu said that was impossible.

He said the Legislative Assembly was the only body that can change the law but it has been dissolved.

Tongan woman admits guilt to providing illegal immigration advice in Pacific community

By
Kaniva Staff
-

An Auckland woman of Tongan nationality has pleaded guilty to 14 charges laid by the Immigration Advisers Authority (IAA) for illegally providing New Zealand immigration advice.

Maria ‘Ilaisaane Valu-Pome’e appeared in the Waitakere District Court yesterday following a thorough investigation by the IAA into her history of providing New Zealand immigration advice in the Pacific community.

Registrar of the IAA Catherine Albiston says Mrs Valu-Pome’e, who previously held a practising certificate with the New Zealand Law Society, continued to provide immigration advice after it expired.

“People giving New Zealand immigration advice must be licensed by the Immigration Advisers Authority or be exempt. We have no tolerance for those who act outside the law,” says Ms Albiston.

“This case serves a further reminder to people in our Pacific communities to check that their immigration adviser is licensed or exempt.”

Mrs Valu-Pome’e pleaded guilty to three charges of providing immigration advice without a licence or exempt status while knowing she was required to be licensed; three charges of advertising herself as legally able to provide immigration advice; and four charges of receiving fees for providing immigration advice.

In addition to these charges, Mrs Valu-Pome’e also pleaded guilty to two charges of dishonestly using a document, one charge of using a forged document, and a representative charge for multiple instances of using forged documents under the Crimes Act 1961.

“The IAA was set up to promote the interests of people receiving New Zealand immigration advice and looks into all complaints,” adds Ms Albiston.

“Anyone can talk to the IAA about their experience without their immigration status being affected.”

Mrs. Valu-Pome’e will appear in the Waitakere District Court on 22 November 2017 for sentencing.

Heart surgery equipment for scheduled training in Tonga stolen

By
Kaniva Staff
-

An important training session in Tonga scheduled to be held this morning in Tongatapu was affected after equipment was stolen, reports said.

Two Australian heart experts had their hotel room burgled in Nuku’alofa last night and instruments brought to assist with training of local heart surgeons and nurses were taken, Radio Tonga Broadcom report says.

The details of the instruments and the way how they were stolen remained unknown.

It is understood a complaint had been launched with Police.

No arrests have been made.

Former gov’t political adviser urges Pōhiva to launch legal challenge against King’s decision to dissolve Parliament

By
Kalino Latu
-

The government of ‘Akilisi Pōhiva has been urged to take legal actions against the king’s order to dissolve the Parliament, with a former Political adviser to government saying he disagreed with the  Acting Attorney General’s claim the royal command could not be challenged in court.

Lōpeti Senituli, who was also a former government CEO, was responding to request from Kaniva News this morning regarding a post he made on Facebook last night saying “If I had a say in matters I would advise the Hon Prime Minister to seek an immediate injunction and the judicial review of His Majesty’s proclamation.  God Bless Tonga!”

The rest of his response is published verbatim below:

“I stand by my opinion that the Hon Prime Minister and Cabinet should apply to the Supreme Court for an immediate injunction on the dissolution of the Legislative  Assembly and for a judicial review of His Majesty’s proclamation to ensure that it is constitutional.

I say that with the greatest of respect to the Acting Attorney General and his opinion that His Majesty had exercised his Persona Royal Prerogative which he says is beyond judicial scrutiny.

I disagree with the Acting Attorney General. The basis of my disagreement is the decision of the Supreme Court in 2016, (which was later endorsed on appeal by the Privy Council in 2016) relating to His Majesty’s decision to appoint the current Chief of Defence Staff of His Majesty’s Armed Forces to the Hereditary Noble title of Lord Fielakepa.

The Supreme Court declared His Majesty’s appointment as null and void. Part of their reasoning was that although it was His Majesty’s Personal Royal Prerogative to appoint Nobles of the Realm, he still had to make those appointments according to the law (the Land Act) and the Constitution.

So I agree that His Majesty in dissolving the Legislative Assembly was using his Personal Royal Prerogative, and is not required by the Constitution or any law to disclose reasons. However it is my opinion, His Majesty must use that Personal Royal Prerogative according to the letter and the spirit of the constitution and laws of the land.

The Legislative Assembly is the highest democratic mechanism in the Kingdom of Tonga and the current structure was adopted after the reforms in 2010 with the full approval of His Majesty’s predecessor.

The functioning of the Legislative Assembly therefore should only be disturbed or interfered with in extreme circumstances where the sovereignty and integrity of the country as an independent nation state is being threatened.

I do not regard the 8 reasons that the Hon Speaker had released as good enough to warrant the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. They do not amount to a threat to the nation’s sovereignty and integrity as an independent state

I classify the Hon Speaker’s 8 reasons into two groups. The first group I have classified as:

  1. Alleged Threats to His Majesty’s Royal Prerogatives.
  • The draft Bill to review or amend clause 41 of the Constitution which grants His Majesty’s authority to assent to all legislation adopted by the Legislative Assembly before they become law.
  • The government’s earlier plans to sign and ratify CEDAW thereby bypassing His Majesty’s authority under clause 39 to make treaties and sign conventions on behalf of the country
  • The government’s earlier signing of the PACER Plus agreement which is a regional convention without prior authorisation by His Majesty in accordance with clause 39.
  • The draft Bill to amend the Constitution to remove His Majesty’s authority (clause 31A) to appoint the Attorney General and to appoint the Police Commissioner (under the Police Act) and transfer these powers to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

In my view the draft Bills that the Hon Speaker referred to should be allowed to be tabled and discussed by the Legislative Assembly and if necessary the Legislative Assembly should conduct public and community meetings to discuss these proposals so that the whole country can express an opinion on it.

Dissolving the Legislative Assembly because of the fear of these alleged threats to His Majesty’s Prerogative is an extreme knee-jerk reaction of people who are afraid of the democratic process! We should let the people hear and express their opinion on these proposals through their elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly as well as in public meetings on these proposals.

In respect of CEDAW and PACER Plus, Hon Prime Minister Pohiva and Cabinet acted in accordance with legal advice it was given by legally qualified people in government. (I know this because I was responsible for the CEDAW initiative.)

If that advice clashed with advice given by His Majesty than that can be resolved by going to court for a declaration as to which advice is correct. It does not warrant dissolving the Legislative Assembly.

The second group of reasons I have classified as:

  1. Mismanagement by Hon Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  • Lying to the Legislative Assembly that Hon Etuate Lavulavu would be punished and not delivering on it.
  • Misleading the Leg Ass on the Pacific Games 2019 and continuing to collect the foreign exchange levy though hosting the Games had been cancelled.
  • Raising their own salaries in response to a tax increase whilst the rest of the country carry the extra tax burden.
  • Petitions of impeachment not worth of the Legislative Assembly’s time and resources.

This second group of reasons I regard as specious. These could have been dealt with by The Hon Speaker as he has considerable powers under the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly and under the Constitution (clause 70) to punish members who behave in contempt of the Legislative Assembly.

They certainly do not warrant the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly!”

Speaker Lord Tuʻivakanō finally speaks out after king dissolved Parliament

By
Kalino Latu
-

The Speaker of Tonga’s Legislative Assembly broke his silence Monday and delivered a statement on air detailing what advice he offered the king before His Majesty dissolved the Parliament.

As Kaniva News reported, the surprise dissolution on Thursday 24 followed an approach by the Speaker Lord Tu’ivakanō to King Tupou VI and a decision made by the Privy Council.

According to the  government gazette, fresh elections have to be held by November 16.

Acting Attorney General ‘Aminiasi Kefu said the king’s decision to dissolve Parliament was part of his royal  prerogative and could not be challenged in court.

Kefu said when the king proclaimed such royal command he was not required, according to the constitution, to explain it.

The royal command left the public in a state of limbo with many wanting to know why the king made such a surprising decision.

However, it is understood the Speaker went public with the grievances he presented to the king on TBC.

Former Political advisor and government CEO Lōpeti Senituli has posted the Speaker’s grievances in English on Facebook.

The Lord Speaker said he was concerned “that a bill had been submitted to the Office of the Speaker that seeks to amend the Constitution so as to revoke His Majesty’s right of assent to legislation approved by the Legislative Assembly before it could become law.

“That the intent of the Bill is in keeping with the Cabinet’s earlier plans to bypass His Majesty’s prerogative to sign treaties and conventions entrenched in clause 39 of the Constitution when they tried to sign and ratify CEDAW without His Majesty’ prior approval.

“That Cabinet had also become party to PACER Plus without His Majesty’s prior approval.

“That another Bill had also been submitted to the Office of the Speaker that seeks to amend the Constitution so as to remove His Majesty in Privy Council’s right to appoint crucial positions such as the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General.

“That Hon Prime Minister Pōhiva had intervened and prevented the Legislative Assembly from sanctioning former Cabinet Minister Etuate Lavulavu for abuse of office on the understanding that he would punish him instead. It later became apparent that he did not punish Lavulavu as promised.

“That several petitions have been submitted to the Office of the Speaker that seeks to impeach various members of the Legislative Assembly and the Speaker feels spending time on these petitions would be a waste of time and resources.

“That Cabinet had deliberately misled the Legislative Assembly regarding the hosting of the Pacific Games in 2019 and after the legislation was passed authorising the collection of the foreign exchange levy tax in order to fund it, Cabinet cancelled the hosting of the Games and yet they continued to collect this tax.

“That Cabinet had recently approved a 5% salary increase for all Ministers in response to a recent increase in income tax, yet the tax increase applies to the whole country especially all the civil servants and people in private enterprises”.

Decision to dissolve Parl’t can’t be challenged, but caretaker administration still  needed

By
Philip Cass
-

Acting Attorney General Hon. ‘Aminiasi Kefu said this afternoon the Pohiva government had  been given a caretaker role because the constitution did not clearly state that once Parliament was dissolved the Prime Minister and his cabinet were automatically dismissed.

Speaking to a press conference in Nuku’alofa, Hon. Kefu said there was still a need for a government to run the country even in times when the Legislative Assembly was dissolved.

He implied  this was why the King’s proclamation of the dissolution in the Government Gazette did not say the Prime Minister and his cabinet were also dismissed.

Hon. Pohiva’s government was given the word caretaker now because the Parliament was closed and there was no mechanism in place to hold them accountable.

Hon. Kefu said the king’s decision to dissolve Parliament was part of his royal  prerogative and could be not challenged in court.

The Attorney General said if Hon. Pohiva was re-elected in November and he was re-elected by Parliament to resume his office, his premiership could not be affected by this incident.

Tonga is due to go to the polls no later than November 16.

The Attorney General told Radio New Zealand the situation in the kingdom was “testing.”

“Oh it’s groundbreaking, definitely, quite profound for a sleepy small island country, but there’s never a dull moment in Tonga and I’m just glad that the machinery of government continues,” he said.

“This is obviously a testing of the constitutional provision. This is the first time that his majesty has used his personal prerogative power to dissolve parliament.”

In other developments, a small detachment of New Zealand SAS soldiers who were in Tonga on a training exercise.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Gerry Brownlee said Wellington was keeping a close eye on developments in Tonga.

Meanwhile, Tongan academic Dr Malakai Koloamatangi has told Radio Australia that while King Tupou VI had the right to dissolve Parliament, his action had undermined the P:rime Minister.

Dr Koloamatangi said the motives behind the Tongan King’s decision remain a mystery.

The main points

  • Acting Attorney General ‘Aminiasi Kefu said this afternoon the constitution did not clearly state that once Parliament was dissolved the Prime Minister and his cabinet were automatically dismissed.
  • Kefu said there was still a need for a government to run the country even in times when the Legislative Assembly was dissolved.
  • Pohiva’s government was given the word caretaker now because the Parliament was closed and there was no mechanism in place to hold them accountable.
  • Kefu said the king’s decision to dissolve Parliament was part of his royal prerogative and could be not challenged in court.

For more information 

Attorney General’s press conference

Tongan government in caretaker role after sudden dissolution

Parliament dissolution ‘undermined’ Tongan PM, says expert

AG advises caretaker gov’t to avoid any new deals at Pacific Forum meeting

By
Philip Cass
-

Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pohiva’s caretaker government has been advised not to make any new commitments at the Pacific Leaders Forum in Samoa next week.

The Forum will be held in Apia from September 4-8.

The Attorney General, Hon. ‘Aminiasi Kefu, has advised the caretaker government that it should defer any new policy decisions on bi-lateral or international relations until the next cabinet.

He told Kaniva News this afternoon this applied to the Forum Leaders Meeting. However, he said Cabinet Ministers may attend and deal with existing political commitments.

Hon. Kefu said representation at Ministerial level may be re-considered to avoid a Cabinet Minister making political commitments that might be changed by a new Cabinet.

The caretaker government has also been warned to keep a lid on expenditure while it is in caretaker mode.

Cabinet Ministers should not incur any unusual or unnecessary expenditure outside the normal operations of Ministries and agencies.

This included incurring loans or spending large amounts of money without the written approval of the caretaker Minister for Finance.

Normal necessary expenditure of Government Ministries and Agencies would continue. This would include projects already underway such as the construction of the Popua Park or the signing of contracts already approved as a proper public procurement under the Public Procurement Regulations.

New appointments to statutory posts should be deferred, unless they were normal public service appointments made by the Public Service Commission, such as to Government chief executive officer level; and

All Cabinet or Ministerial decisions or activity outside the normal operations of the government should be avoided if it decided they would be better left to a new cabinet.

The Attorney General said it was up to Cabinet whether or not to accept his advice.

The main points

  • Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pohiva’s caretaker government has been advised not to make any new commitments at the Pacific Leaders Forum in Samoa next week.
  • The Forum will be held in Apia from September 4-8.
  • The Attorney General, Hon. ‘Aminiasi Kefu, has advised the caretaker government that it should defer any new policy decisions on bi-lateral or international relations until the next cabinet.
  • He told Kaniva News this afternoon this applied to the Forum Leaders Meeting. However, he said Cabinet Ministers may attend and deal with existing political commitments.

For more information 

48th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Meeting

For Australians, Tongan dismissal has parallels with events of 1975

By
Philip Cass
-

For Australian observers of the unfolding crisis in Tonga, there are inescapable parallels between the events of August 25, 2017 and November 11, 1975.

Shortly after lunch on that November day Australians learned that the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, had sacked the Labour government of Gough Whitlam.

Parliament was dissolved and after an often violent election campaign, Labour was defeated, but the bitterness engendered by The Dismissal, as it became known, left a permanent stain on Australian politics.

Like King Tupou VI, Australian Governor General was acting legally and within the powers granted to him by the constitution.

However, his action was seen by many Australians as an unwanted interference in the democratic process.

Kerr was the representative of Australia’s Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II, and conspiracy theorists claimed that the dismissal was part of a royal plot.

Others claimed that Kerr was working for the CIA and it emerged long after Kerr’s death that during the political crisis leading up to the dismissal on November 11, 1975, he had met regularly with the head of the CIA station in Sydney.

Like Pohiva, Whitlam was a visionary who swept into power on a tide of popular approval in 1972, fought and won a second election in 1974 and overturned decades of rule by conservative politicians who were often criticised for acting as if they thought they had a right to rule.

Whitlam introduced new rules that brought greater equality and freedom to Australians, introduced free tertiary education, supported the arts, strengthened Australian’s sense of pride and national identity, gave proper recognition to Aboriginal Australians and supported the campaign for women’s rights.

But for all his achievements, his government was fatally damaged by Whitlam’s inability to control his cabinet, catastrophic misjudgements of public opinion and major errors of judgement on international issues.

He was accused of sometimes acting as if he was the only member of the government and was blamed for the deterioration of the Australian economy  in the wake of the global oil crisis.

Whitlam left Parliament after a series of defeats by Liberal Party leader Malcolm Fraser, who had engineered the 1975 political crisis by refusing to pass the Whitlam government’s budget.

Fraser left Parliament after he was defeated by Labor’s Bob Hawke. In the years that followed, the enmity between Fraser and Whitlam cooled and they became political allies on a number of causes, particularly the push to make Australia a republic.

The dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor General in 1975 strengthened the support for a republic among many Australians who felt angry that a royal representative could interfere in their country’s political life.

For more information 

The Whitlam dismissal

1...662663664...953Page 663 of 953