opinion

Comments on the Comparison of the Present Constitutional Question with the Dismissal of the Whitlam Government in Australia

3 December 2018 - 143   - 0


There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about Sri Lanka’s Constitution with respect to the President’s power to dissolve the Parliament. It is claimed that under the parliamentary system, the President may dissolve the Parliament at his or her discretion at any time during its term. This is the central question before the Supreme Court in the proceeding challenging the President’s proclamation purporting to dissolve the current Parliament. I have expressed my opinion on this question elsewhere.

The purpose of this note is to clear up another confusion. Hon Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa, among others, have cited as a precedent the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament by the Governor-General in 1975. This involves serious misunderstandings of the facts concerning the dismissal and the relevant provisions of the Australian Constitution.

The political events surrounding the dismissal of Whitlam were both acrimonious and controversial. They are too complex to document here. The immediate cause of the dismissal and dissolution was the Senate’s denial of supply to the government by deferring decisions on two Appropriation Bills which had already received Lower House approval. The protracted deadlock breaking process set out in s 57 (that can involve a double-dissolution and a General Election) could not be used as supply would have run out by then. G-G John Kerr tried but failed to persuade Mr Whitlam to advise
dissolution on the principle that a government that cannot secure supply through Parliament should either resign or advise a new election.

The G-G then sought the following guarantees from the Leader of the Opposition Mr Malcolm Fraser, namely, that if appointed Caretaker PM, he would:
1. Ensure that the Appropriation Bills will be passed by the Senate to secure supply,
2. Advise the G-G to dissolve both House and hold a general election, and
3. Maintain the status quo on policy, appointments etc during the caretaker period.
The G-G, armed with these assurances, dismissed Whitlam, appointed Fraser as Caretaker PM and dissolved both Houses. The two Houses can only be simultaneously dissolved under s 57 to break deadlocks. There were several other bills of the Whitlam government that were deadlocked and served as triggers for a double dissolution.

It is important to note a few salient constitutional rules and principles and points of difference between the Whitlam saga and the present impasse in Sri Lanka.
1. The claim that in the classic Westminster parliamentary democracy, the monarch has untrammelled power to dissolve the Parliament is fallacious. Since the early 19th Century at least, the monarch was constrained by convention to follow the PM’s advice and the PM was likewise restrained by convention. Whatever discretion the monarch had in the UK was removed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (c. 14). The Act, which fixes the term of the House of
Commons as 5 years, allows earlier dissolution only if:
(a) A vote of no confidence in the government is carried in the House of Commons, or
(b) The House of Commons requests a dissolution by a vote of two thirds of the House.
2
The Nineteenth Amendment incorporated these two conditions in limiting the President’s power to
dissolve Parliament.
2. According to s 64 of the Australian Constitution, the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, serve at the pleasure of the Governor-General. The President of Sri Lanka has no such power. He or she must choose as PM a member likely to command the confidence of the House who can then be dismissed only by Parliament.
3. Unlike the Whitlam Government, PM Wickremasinghe and the Cabinet have obtained supply and have shown the ability to secure future funding for the government’s recurring expenditure.
4. Sri Lanka is not a classic parliamentary system in the Westminster model. The President’s has no prerogative powers. His powers are limited by the express words of the Constitution which he has undertaken by affirmation to observe.

 

Suri Ratnapala
Emeritus Professor of Law
The University of Queensland
Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law
Attorney-at-Law, Sri Lanka

  Comments - 0

  • Leave a comment



Top Stories

CID arrests four suspects with 100 kg of explosives

Four individuals have been arrested by the CID with 100 kilograms of explosives in Wanathawilluwa earlier today (Jan 17). A stock of wires,...

17 January 2019 - Views : 50

High Court imposes death sentence on convicted cocaine dealer

17 January 2019

FR petition filed against private Chinese law firm in Sri Lanka

17 January 2019

Deputy Mayor of the Akkaraipattu Municipal Council released on bail

17 January 2019



style="display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-6200193111498313"
data-ad-slot="1999573490">

 

Features & Analysis

Fairway Galle Literary Festival 2019 kicks off

The Fairway Galle Literary Festival 2019 kicked off yesterday. This marks the 10th anniversary of The Festival, which...

Renowned director and producer Vinodh Senadeera passes away

Renowned Director and Producer Vinodh Senadeera has passed away today. A familiar name in the local English t...

In Pictures: Preparations for Thai Pongal

With Thai Pongal set to get underway tomorrow our photographer captured these images of celebrants in the midst of pr...

Top Gear teases latest season with Matt LeBlanc racing in a Tuk in Lanka

Top Gear has teased its upcoming series with a trailer featuring supercars, Sri Lankan tuk-tuks and Matt LeBlanc in a...



style="display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-6200193111498313"
data-ad-slot="1999573490">