In the six months leading up to the 1975 Federal election, Australia witnessed unprecedented governmental convolutions. These convolutions led to significant comment by editors of the Australian newspapers. These editors had never before, like the constitutional experts, given opinions to inform the general public about these daily upheavals in Australia. It is these opinions, considering that the constitutional issues where central to the 1975 Federal Election, that must be examined to test the notion of the propaganda model in the Australian press. There were four constitutional issues that were identified from the research. These were the Albert Field Senate Scandal, the 1975 Constitutional Convention, the Deferral of Supply, and finally the Dismissal and the Federal Election. These four issues were spread over a period from the 1^st July to the 13^th of December. They are discussed here in chronological order, even though the discussion of the Constitutional Convention overlaps the discussion of both Albert Field and the Deferral of Supply.

The examination of the editors indicated a number of patterns. In order to identify these patterns each editorial article received a score between +3 and - 3. An editorial favourable to the Whitlam Government received a positive score, while a negative article received a minus a score. This of cause varied according to the how supportive or not that an editorial was. Thus, a number of patterns were developed. The most important among them was how the diversity of opinion, in July, had changed to almost unison by December. Overall, only two editors, it could be argued, showed any support for the Whitlam Government in regards to constitutional issues during this period. One was the Newcastle Morning Herald which registered a positive score of +0.33. The only other paper was the Age, that remained basically balanced, which registered a slightly negative score of -0.04.

All the other newspapers returned scores, in regards to constitutional issues, well into negative numbers; thus indicating a total lack of support for the Whitlam Government during this period under investigation. The two most extreme newspapers of this group were the Sydney Morning Herald and the Hobart Mercury, while the Australian should also be included in this group. These three papers all set patterns early in the investigation that continued throughout this period, becoming more hysterical, which included frequent use of iconic signifiers, as November and December approached. By this stage all three papers, it can be argued, had no rational argument as their basis and all used selective evidence to support the editor’s opinion. The Sydney Morning Herald, as a result, received a final average score of -2.39. The Hobart Mercury was almoost as negative towards the Whitlam Government and received a final score of -2.16. The Australian, the paper that had been accused as being biased against the Whitlam Government from late 1974 onwards, received a negative score of -1.91 for constitutional issues. The other newspapers included in the research were the Melbourne Herald (score -0.71), the Courier-Mail (score -1), the Adelaide Advertiser (score -1.14), and finally the West Australian (score -1.05).

The Senate vacancy that occurred on the 29th June 1975 was to mark the beginning of the end for the Whitlam Government, although other events must likewise be recognised as contributing factors to the dismissal. Nevertheless, the decision by the Queensland Premier, Bjelke-Petersen, to send Albert Field to replace the Labor Party’s Senator Milliner, certainly marked how hostile the opposing political parties where. It also was an indication as to the kind of tactics, unseen before in Australian politics previously, that would be used in order to remove the Labor Party from government. These tactics caused concern in many political circles, including the Federal Liberal Party, due to the flagrant breaches of constitutional conventions.

These dubious actions by Bjelke-Petersen did not miss criticism by the national press. All, except for the Hobart Mercury, regarded the Queensland Premier’s, at first, procrastination as unwanted and proclaimed outrage at his final decision. The debate was first lead by the editor of the Melbourne Herald, who on the 1^st of July, supported the original announcement from Queensland that a Labor Party nominee would be sent to the Senate. However, he went further to warn that we:

This strongly worded opinion would become the typical cry of outrage from the Victorian newspapers as they were, more than any other newspaper, critical over this nefarious mater.

The only other newspapers to comment over this mater in July where also from the Herald and Weekly Times group. Opinion was expressed by the West Australian, the Adelaide Advertiser, and particularly by the Courier-Mail in Brisbane. All these newspapers supported Bjelke-Petersen’s announcement about selecting a Labor Party replacement. All three continued discussing the constitutional convention where the nominee was usually the next candidate on the particular parties previous senate ticket. The Courier-Mail’s editor demanded that "The Labor Party should have the right to decide who represents it in the Senate". In none of these subsidiaries of the Herald and Weekly Times, however, is there any attack and warning about possible future actions by Bjelke-Petersen. Only the Melbourne Herald expressed concerns, although the Courier-Mail later in July stated that "The Premier … is being needlessly mischievous over the filling of the casual Senate vacancy….".

From July the Albert Field scandal was not discussed again until late August. Issues such as the loans affairs involving Cairns and Connor, the worsening economy, and the threat over the deferring of Supply left the senate vacancy issue out of the discussion. But then on the 27^th of August, Bjelke-Petersen rejected the Labor Party nominee Colston and within days selected Albert Field to go to the Senate. Needless to say, not only did the Queensland Liberal Party expressed their objection to this decision, which their federal counterparts agreed, but the press, again lead by the editor of the Melbourne Herald, where critical of the actions of Bjelke-Petersen. In referring back to his previous editorial, the Herald’s editor denounced that "The Bjelke-Petersen government plied hillbilly justice on monstrous humiliation by refusing the nomination". Likewise the editor of the Age, more critical than the Herald, pointed out that:

Two other newspapers also had editorial columns that discussed this issue in late August. They were the Australian and the Courier-Mail. Both, through a carefully constructed written style, kept their criticism of the decision by the Queensland Premier to a minimum. They did, nevertheless, disagree with the rejection of Colson. In doing so, the Courier-Mail kept to the basic argument that the Labor Party nominee should be appointed to the Senate, even if the its editor called the current decision scandalous. The Australian followed along similar themes and introduced into the discussion reference the New South Wales premier, Lewis, and the appointment to the senate of Bunton. Although, the Australian’s editor pointed out that there where differences between the two appointments, there is without doubt, not the same level of criticism that is reflected in the objections raised by either the Melbourne Herald or the Age. Rather, it appears almost like an apology on behalf of the Queensland Government.

The scandal however became a national discussion among editors within a week of the initial rejection of Colson. The editor of the Adelaide Advertiser continued the themes expressed by the Australian and the Courier-Mail, but objected to how Colson was rejected. It was alleged by Ministers of the Queensland Government that Colson was a suspect of arson in a school fire in 1962. The editor considered this to be "… an outrageous smear campaign against Dr. Colston….". The Melbourne Herald then continued that although Section 15 of the Australian Constitution had not been broken, Bjelke-Petersen should have nevertheless "… followed one of our parliamentary system’s unwritten laws….". The editor of the Courier-Mail shared similar views.

The discussion of this constitutional issue had mostly only revolved around the Herald and Weekly Times group. With only one comment from both the Age and the Australian. The official announcement of Albert Field on the 3^rd of September, however, as the new Labor Senator for Queensland, received comment from all the mainland Australian newspapers, except curiously the Melbourne Herald. The Hobart Mercury remained silent over this entire constitutional debate. The editors of the Age and the Adelaide Advertiser were the most critical of the decision, with the Age declaring that the decision "… was a sickening and fraudulent over-reach of power, a dangerous and disturbing precedent which contains the seeds of tyranny and the bitter disruption of reasonable processes of democratic government". The Advertiser argued along similar themes. The majority of the other newspapers also shared similar criticism with the editor of the Age. The editor of the Newcastle Morning Herald discussed in only one editorial the entire development leading up to the decision about the new senator. The only newspaper to come from a strong Labor Party region, it certainly indicated that for all the cynicism about the Whitlam Government’s administration abilities, the "… discreditable and discredited performance… [of Bjelke-Petersen] … struck at the foundations of the parliamentary system….".

There were, however, two noted exceptions to these expressions of concern. The first was from the editor of the Courier-Mail who expressed, at first, concern over the breaking of a long standing constitutional convention. In doing so, the editor, however, pointed out that in reality the decision of senator did not really change the balance in the senate. With political rumours abound at this time about the deferring of Supply, the Courier-Mail pointed out that "There still will be 30 Opposition Senators, and instead of 28 Government and two independent Senators there will be 27 and three". The editor totally ignored any reference that Albert Field had announced his complete opposition to the Whitlam Government and his purpose was to vote against them. Furthermore, no where in the editorial column of the Courier-Mail was it mentioned that Albert Field had been expelled from the Labor Party.

The other editor to hold back criticism of the Albert Field decision was the Sydney Morning Herald. Like the Newcastle Morning Herald, which is also part of the Fairfax group, it too only devoted one editorial to the senate vacancy replacement debate. It too discussed the issue in passing but instead of any direct criticism of Bjelke-Petersen’s decision, it did so constructing a reality of past events to almost forgive the actions of the Queensland Premier. It considered these events as retaliation and not too dissimilar to the decision by the New South Wales Premier’s actions in March earlier the same year. This was a similar, but a more blatant position than the opinion expressed by the Australian. The Sydney Morning Herald argued:

However, unlike the other editors from the other mainland newspapers, there was no condemnation, but a rather simple one liner: "That is quite unacceptable".

By the middle of September the concerns over the rights and wrongs of the appointment of Albert Field to the Senate had all but finished. The Australian had one last editorial dismissing him as inept. The Age continued with its criticism of Bjelke-Petersen by calling the Albert Field decision a "… absurd and dangerous break with precedent….". But in a brief analysis of developing patterns, the support of the editors for or against the Whitlam Government can already be identified at this stage, either by their lack of comment or their position on the Senate vacancy. It is no surprise then, as the investigation continues, that the editors of the Sydney Morning Herald, the Hobart Mercury, and the Australian, continue a trend that is highly critical of the Whitlam Government. Likewise, the editors of the Newcastle Morning Herald and the Age, in regards to constitutional issues, continue these early indicators of either marginal support for or a balanced stance towards the Whitlam Government.

Amongst the constitutional convolutions of 1975 the Constitutional Convention’s ability to discuss and recommend reforms had become impossible. The Convention had been promoted in 1969 by the Victorian Government which expressed concerned for constitutional reforms. The Whitlam Government, with a program of reforms at all governmental levels, accepted the challenge to continue with this constitutional reform process. However, even though in 1969 all political parties had good intentions towards constructive amendments to the constitution, due to the volatile political situation in 1975, the Convention became a total farce. The fact that only the Federal Government and the Labor States were actually present ensured that any recommendations for constitutional reform would be rejected by the Coalition in the Senate. In continuing the farce, the Federal Opposition held their own convention, also in Melbourne, where they and the Coalition States discussed apparent areas of reform. Needless to say, opposite recommendations where the result. The recommendations of the official Convention, were criticised as centralist, while the opposition convention recommended decentralisation.

The editors of the national press regarded the conventions as a side show. The Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Herald and the Courier-Mail did not discuss either convention at all. While the Australian had a brief editorial discussing the need for reform over drug laws. The Australian, however, observed that "… some premiers are already organising resistance to this attempt to ‘usurp States’ rights’". This was never the case, and although blame for useless confrontation was given to all sides, clearly the Labor Federal Government was singled out. Certainly this was the opinion of the Hobart Mercury’s editor. The Mercury agreed with the principle of constitutional reform but expressed concerns about centralism. It went onto attack Whitlam. The editor stated that the Coalition lead boycott was due to Whitlam’s "… contempt for the convention as a constructive forum…. ". This critical rhetoric of the Mercury would become the standard used over then few months in regards to the Whitlam Government. Furthermore, Tasmania was the only one of two states officially represented at the conference, hence the Mercury’s interest. In an editorial written about a month later it would declare that the "… Convention has survived determined efforts to sink it… Mr Whitlam set the pattern for political confrontation at the first session…. ". This exact line of argument was also supported by the West Australian who concluded that "The Whitlam Government has ignored the spirit of the constitution….", something Fraser and Sir John Kerr would do more so over the next two months.

These opinions of the Mercury and the West Australian totally ignored the fact that it was the Coalition who decided to boycott the Conference. It was to left three newspapers, the Age, the Adelaide Advertiser, and the Newcastle Morning Herald to consider the political games being conducted and the wider implications of the Convention. The editor of the Advertiser observed that "The Opposition withdrawal from the Melbourne talks, for which no convincing explanation was ever given, may now be seen as a possible political mistake". It continued to point out that if the convention was to be successful full participation was required by all parties. The Newcastle Herald agreed and added that there "… have been fewer more depressing situations than that presented by the twin ‘constitutional’ meetings in Melbourne….". The editor of the Age considered "… the constitutional wreckage they have jointly wrought was nicely symbolic". Nevertheless, the Age then went onto analyse, unlike the other newspapers, the different reforms recommended. After such scrutiny, the Age was unconvinced about the reforms offered by the Opposition conference. Although it did express some concern to the centralist suggestions in the Whitlam reforms, the Age stressed that, in a country heading for the Twentieth Century, the proposals of the Coalition where counter productive. In conclusion, the editor remarked that "Any proposal which would give more financial autonomy and power to Queenslands’ Mr. Bjelke-Petersen needs to be considered with more than a little caution".

As with the Albert Field Senate discussion, particular editors took a similar position on these constitutional conventions. Even though the conventions where a side issue to the other political events of the time, as will be discussed elsewhere, a pattern is emerging indicating the particular interest and theme taken up by individual editors. The Hobart Mercury, for example, taking a regional interest and criticising the official convention which Tasmania participated in. The Age attempted to remain balanced in its attempt to discuss the reform recommendations from both conventions before then expressing concern over the Opposition’s reforms. However, the position of the whole Herald and Weekly Times groups’ general response to this event is that of either ignorance or criticism of the Whitlam Government. Only the Advertiser raised genuine criticism of the Coalition. The Australian virtually ignored the conventions, while the two Fairfax owned newspapers, the Age and the Newcastle Morning Herald, expressed opinions supportive of the Labor Government.

Speculation over the deferral of Supply started when Fraser became the leader of the Opposition. The previous attempt by Snedden in 1974 was constitutionally questionable then and the deferral of Supply on the 16^th October 1975 would again raise debate. It was never tested before the High Court, as Parliamentary business is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the constitutional sections that deal with this event, Sections 53 and 57, never mention the word to defer. Rather, it uses the phrase rejects or fails to pass it. This is an important aspect for when the Senate defers a Bill it is by a Senate Constitutional Convention. Hence, one must question the rationale that Sir John Kerr used on the 11^th of November where he declared:

Furthermore, the Founding Fathers did not mention anything about a power to defer. Barton, on this mater, was noted as explaining that the term failed to pass was defined as shelving and stipulated that only the Governor General, after being advised by the Executive Council, could decide when the Senate had failed to pass a bill. What the Founding Fathers certainly stipulated in Section 53 and 57 was to ensure that the House of Representatives was the House of Government. Both Reid and Barton stressed the point that only the House of Representatives could reject and find a Government to lack confidence in that House. Reid certainly acknowledged that the Senate could reject a supply or money bill, but that the Senate could never ‘blackmail’ the House into submission.

The editors of the newspapers in 1975, however, failed to acknowledge much at all of what the Founding Fathers discussed some 75 odd years earlier, although they certainly referred vaguely back to them. A similar criticism can be made towards the constitutional arguments of Ellicott who, like Kerr, based their legal interpretations upon the written constitution only, and not upon the discussions at the Constitutional Conventions in 1890, 1897 and 1898, or any of the seventeen drafts of the final document. This was contrary to Griffith, basically the author of the Australian Constitution and first High Court Chief Justice, who advised that all constitutional deliberations be made with consultation of the original intentions and meanings of the various sections of the constitution. Yet as the examination of the editorials on this mater will demonstrate, very little reference is made to anything other that the vague notion that the Senate has the power to reject all bills presented to it.

The Sydney Morning Herald would push this argument even further. In early August, before any of the other editors started to discuss the deferral of supply, the Herald expressed sympathy towards Fraser when he refused to commit himself over the deferral question and force a federal election. Yet the editor argued that considering the economic disaster that Australia was in, Fraser should use every opportunity to put pressure upon the Whitlam Government. The Herald concluded that Fraser should reject Supply as it would be"… the Opposition’s action as the response to popular demand". This argument was further supported by the Adelaide Advertiser some two weeks later that after "… almost unending disasters… exceptional circumstances could justify the denial of a full term for an elected government". Clearly it would appear, that by early September, the newspapers had already started to justify any future actions by the Opposition.

A number of the papers were creating this press reality except one. As the Age had demonstrated earlier, it again started to analyse the actions of Fraser. It certainly noted in early September that the motives behind the Opposition were to get into Government. The editor claimed that the Opposition was being nothing more than opportunistic and claimed that businessmen, farmers and certain State leaders where putting pressure on Fraser to defer Supply. All this in the face of constitutional conventions that are a central and essential part of Australian democracy. Furthermore, the editor argued that "… the Budget is basically responsible and he [Fraser] cannot be sure for a least six months how well or poorly it will work". As the weeks progressed, it was the only the Age that continued to question the validity of Fraser’s decision to defer Supply and continued to argue that the Budget was a separate mater to the continued loans dealings of Connor.

The Sydney Morning Herald, however, was to have none of this. Its editor again, unlike most of the other newspapers at first, supported the argument that the Senate had the right to withhold Supply thus forcing an election. It was quick to disregard Enderby’s position where the Senate’s power to reject a Supply bill no longer existed. Enderby argued that because the Senate had never used this power since Federation, despite it being clearly written in Section 57 that it can reject but not amend monetary bills, that this power, as is the custom in with the House of Lords at Westminster, had been defaulted. The Herald summarised argument, in defiance of this Westminster convention, with a quote from Menzies:

The Herald finished by arguing that if such a power was usurped by the Labor Government then Parliament, Constitution and Government would become arbitrary and dictatorial. This editorial would become the standard style and structure from the Herald. Clearly deferral and discussion about its Constitutional validity is missing from the discussion and the editor displays no consideration at all for the deliberate breaking of long held constitutional conventions.

The Australian, like the Sydney Morning Herald, used the same argument and even misquoted from Section 53 in regards "… to the power to reject any bill, and this includes money bills". Section 53 permits:

There is, although the Australian and the other newspapers infer this, no deferral power suggested in Section 53. Nevertheless, this select argument was taken up by the Hobart Mercury who furthered this pseudo-legal position against the Labor Government by claiming that it "… is a Government seemingly determined to cling to power even if it means invoking untested Constitutional theories".

The Age, the Melbourne Herald, and the West Australian, however, expressed other concerns that, although not of great support for the Whitlam Government, certainly questioned the legal and moral validity of the increased chances of the deferral of Supply. The West Australian simply warned of the dangers involved with a stable democracy if central conventions where broken and agreed with Professor Sawer "… that the [High] [C]ourt should be able to give a guide to its probable decision…" about the Senate’s power to reject Supply. Needless to say deferral again is not mentioned. The editor of the Age, remedies this situation by asking Fraser to "… put an end to the increasing speculation that the Opposition will use its numbers in the Senate to block the Budget Supply Bill". The editor continued, as previously that the Budget was a separate issue from Government competence, especially if the Budget was a responsible one.

The Melbourne Herald, although keeping out of the constitutional legal arguments, agreed with the Age in general and argued that "The party with a majority in the House of Representatives should provide the government of the country. This is our custom, as Mr Fraser, a declared man of principle, should accept". However, the Herald, unlike the Age, was not prepared to distance itself from the rejection of a responsible Budget. Like most newspapers commenting at this time, the Herald argued that such an act could only occur when extraordinary events develop. This position was also argued two days later by both the Courier-Mail, Adelaide Advertiser , and a week later by the West Australian, who where all part of the Herald and Weekly Times group.

Speculation continued from early October as the Budget day approached on the 16^th. The editor of the Age discussed the various legal positions involved with Section 53 of the constitution and concluded that "There is nothing in Section 53 which compels the Government of the day to call a general election if the Senate does refuse to pass Supply". A similar position was adopted by the Melbourne Herald albeit with caution. The Sydney Morning Herald and the Hobart Mercury argued otherwise; in fact they made no mention of the constitution at all. The editors concentrated on the mismanagement of the Whitlam Government and therefore the current economic and social crises where the extraordinary events required to reject Supply. The editor of the Sydney Morning Herald went even further and expressed the opinion that "… the question he [Fraser] now poses is whether or not the Opposition has a duty to get rid of ‘the worst Government in history’". Thus, the editor has taken the debate from one of constitutional legalities to one of moral duty regardless of the legal restraints in the constitution. The Mercury somewhat agreed with the Sydney Morning Herald, although argued that another event needed to occur by which Fraser had no other choice but have the Senate reject Supply. By Budget day, the 14^th October, this conservative moral and duty opinion of the Mercury’s had also been adopted by the West Australian and the Adelaide Advertiser. And then extraordinary event occurred.

It is will some suspicion that the Khemlani Loans affair was renewed, this time alleging that Whitlam was always aware of the loan negotiations, at the same time as Fraser had to decide about deferring Supply. Not one of the Australian newspapers gave any support to the Whitlam Government when the resulting decision to defer Supply was announced. The Age, although stating that the Senate should not break this convention, suggested that the Whitlam Government should resign considering previous faults, failures, and current allegations. Even the Newcastle Morning Herald suggested that "Mr Whitlam could resolve the situation reasonably clearly by following his own precedent and calling a double dissolution".

The Australian was relentless from the 15^th October onwards in its attack on the Whitlam Government. From simply calling the government "… a farrago of fiascos…", to restating its interpretation of Section 53. As stated earlier, this position of the Australian was highly questionable even though the Australian’s constitutional experts agreed with the editor, although these experts were never named. The editor continued to argue that Whitlam had already made constitutional convention, in regards to the blocking of Supply in 1974, and must now call a double dissolution. The Sydney Morning Herald editor agreed entirely with the Australian, except it conveniently stayed out of the constitutional legalities and concentrated upon the "… out-of-date socialistic theories…" that were damaging the country and that it was the duty of Fraser to force the Government to an election.

The Melbourne Herald, over this Budget week, kept to a mixed opinion. It continued with its editorials to express the view that "… an Opposition Senate move to defeat supply is wrong". Nevertheless, after devoting one sentence on that position, it discussed throughout the rest of the column its outrage at the incompetence of the Whitlam Government. It stressed the point, as the other newspapers had, that "Labor can no longer claim any kind of majority support", as if the newspapers where speaking for all Australians. It goes without saying that the Melbourne Herald then called for a general election. The other Herald and Weekly Times newspapers all agreed. The Adelaide Advertiser announced "A doomed Government", while Courier-Mail argued that all these constitutional breaches started with Whitlam’s involvement in the Gair affair, hence the current crisis is of Whitlam’s making. The West Australian’s editorials followed the same arguments as that Courier’s. The Hobart Mercury got rather confused when it called "… for Mr Whitlam, who is so strong on upholding Westminster conventions, is to resign and take his Government with him". As was pointed out by the Age earlier, there is nothing in Section 53, or Section 57 for that mater, which demands that a Government must resign if the Senate rejects a monetary bill. Furthermore, it is a Westminster convention that only permits the Lower House to find that a government has no confidence, and not the Upper House, hence it must resign.

After a short period of reflection, the Newcastle Morning Herald and the Age analysed the situation. The Age reverted to its argument that the Senate should not block Supply, while the Newcastle Morning Herald discussed the proper relationship between the Senate and the government. The editor quoted from Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice:

This warning was certainly put to Fraser as the editor pointed out that the Opposition controlled Senate was using its power capriciously and, although suggesting the idea of a double dissolution, noted that a half Senate election could be held in December to allow the electorate to "… pass judgement on a government without upsetting its right to govern". In amongst the hysteria that the other newspapers editors where creating, save for the Age, only the Newcastle Herald analysed what was supposed to be Senate practice. It was also the first to support Whitam’s suggestion that a half Senate election could be held to validate the behaviour of both the Senate and the Government. All other newspapers, even the Age at this point, all agreed a general election was the only acceptable outcome.

In the next four weeks leading up to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government on the 11^th November 1975, the newspapers had developed into three main groups. None of these groups really ever showed much support for the Whitlam Government, although as the examination has discussed so far, the Age and the Newcastle Morning Herald could be considered to be balanced in their editorial columns. The Herald and Weekly Times group took a critical stance almost in unison in editorial opinion, certainly there was no independent stance displayed by each paper as appears to be the case with the Fairfax newspapers. The last group was the most extreme in their attacks upon the Whitlam Government and included the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian.

The Sydney Morning Herald editorial columns over this period continued to concentrate on the popularist themes of demanding a general election while ignoring any in depth analysis of the current constitutional situation. It started that "… in war, truth is the first casualty, then the second, frequently, is reason" when discussing Whitlam’s suggestion of a half Senate election. This iconic cultural signifier was again used where it was claimed near hysteria had taken control of the Whitlam Government in it’s attempts to hold onto power. Furthermore, the Herald pointed out that the Labor Party in 1970, then in Opposition, was more than happy to try and defeat the Supply bills of the then Coalition Government, and reminded readers that Whitlam said:

Having positioned the Herald in such a self righteous position, the editor concluded that Whitlam was, again, dishonest and without credibility.

This line of editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald continued into November, with Fraser being depicted as the sensible and honourable leader while Whitlam was arrogant and uncompromising. The Australian shared similar views, although, instead of a rather popularist style, continued with a pseudo-intellectual discussion. Within a week of the Budget deferral the editor was already indicating that the Governor-General would have to become involved. The Australian claimed that Sir John Kerr had "… the power to end the stalemate and ultimately, as the final protector of constitutional government in Australia, it seems that he will have to act". No where, however, does the editor discuss where this power comes from. When Menzies released a statement supporting the deferral of Supply, the Australian still never indicates where in the constitution such a power exists. Yet, the editor is only too eager to commence a thorough examination of where the Labor Governments alleged constitution breaches occur.

As the editorials continued the Australian, like the Sydney Morning Herald, started to develop the two main players as Fraser sensible and Whitlam as irrational and incompetent. The editor, more than the other newspapers, certainly re-enforced Whitlam’s problems when "… wild accusations that members of the Federal Opposition are in the pay of the CIA are a measure of the hysteria that is being introduced into the crisis". The editor then reiterates its main constitutional theme that the blocking of Supply is well in accord with Section 53, and that Whitlam’s allegations are a further sign of his true character. The editor argues that the Australian’s interpretation of what, was apparently, meant by the Founding Fathers, in regards to this section of the constitution, is correct and Whitlam is trying to divert the blame of the crisis on the Coalition. This is besides that fact that it was confirmed that Anthony was a friend, and rented a house in Canberra, to Richard Lee Stallings, an employee of the CIA, who had established the Pine Gap base. The Australian left that information out of its editorial, even though Paul Kelly, who is referenced for this point, was a reporter for the Australian.

Needless to say, having stated the connection between Whitlam’s hysteria and his incorrect interpretation of the constitution, the Australian concentrated on its constitutional opinion, which is debatable at best and had no basis for any of the claims that it was making. That did not stop, however, the editor from calling on Professor Howard to comment upon the current climate who, in turn, argued that "… elections to the House of Representatives should not be forced by the Senate". Nevertheless, the editor rejected this opinion and continued with his previous argument, who we were assured earlier that all of the Australian’s experts agreed with, that the constitution gave the Senate the power to block Supply.

The Melbourne Herald, like the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, argued that it was time for a change in government. It agreed that the various affairs and mismanagement of the Whitlam Government meant that it should resign. But, as it had in the past, disagreed with the tactics of the Opposition, especially in regards to the Senate. Unlike the Australian, the editor argued that "… this newspaper is pursuing its consistent belief that no case exists for the refusal of Supply by an upper house in this country". This argument is consistent with the constitutional convention held until now and the discussion earlier on Sections 53 and 57. Unlike the other newspapers in the Herald and Weekly Times group, the Melbourne Herald discussed little about the possible intervention by the Governor-General. The Hobart Mercury, however, headlined its editorial "Political Thunggery" in an attack on Whitlam for not calling a general election and over the next week called upon Kerr to act. Likewise the West Australian, the Adelaide Advertiser, and the Courier-Mail all called upon Kerr to force an election. In making such a call, the West Australian simply stated that "By convention, the Governor-General usually takes the advice of his Ministers, but there is nothing in the Constitution which says that he must make his decisions on that advice alone". As the next section about the Dismissal shall demonstrate, Section 64 of the Australian Constitution ensures that the convention, as stated by the West Australian, is actually constitutional law and the Governor-General can only act on the advise of his Ministers.

The calls from the newspapers for a solution to the crisis continued into November. The Melbourne Herald continued on its argument that the Opposition should not have blocked Supply, yet agreed it was time for Labor to go. Nevertheless, it supported the actions of Whitlam in rejecting Fraser’s offer to pass Supply in return for a general election within 6 months. The Adelaide Advertiser suggested, however, that Whitlam "… could end the impasse immediately by surrendering to the Oppositions demands for a double dissolution". While the Courier-Mail furthered this line of editorial opinion by adding, after Whitlam had accused the Opposition of taking CIA money added to the general call the Whitlam should resign. Unlike the Australian’s version of this story, the Courier-Mail ,however, put Whitlam’s allegations down to the tensions created by the constitutional crisis and not a sign of hysterical behaviour.

Unlike the vigorous one sided editorials of the other newspapers, the Age, and to a lesser extent the Newcastle Morning Herald, continued to discuss and analyse the constitutional crisis in a rational way, explaining to the readers events that have occurred leading up to the current situation. This would be a more accurate description of the Age rather the Newcastle Morning Herald which was more inclined to argue a slight pro-Labor position than any other newspaper in the research. As the other newspapers accepted Menzies position on the deferral of Supply, the Age, although accepting that the position is not clearly defined in the constitution, continued to support Whitlam on the argument "… that Governments are, and should be, made or broken in the Lower House which is representative of the people in a way in which the Senate is not". The Newcastle Morning Herald agreed and reminded its readers that "Since it was Mr Fraser who broke the conventional political rule regarding the passing of the Budget he could hardly expect the Prime Minister meekly to accept the Opposition’s chosen course of action".

As the interest then lead towards possible intervention by Kerr, the Age rejected the notion that the Governor-General could dismiss the Government. It saw such an idea a concern for democracy and argued that the "… Queen’s representative may advise, warn and consent. He cannot dictate to her Ministers, nor to the Opposition". This is in contrast with the position taken by the other papers, except for the Newcastle Morning Herald, and is consistent with the position that Whitlam took during this crisis and that of the Founding Fathers in regards to Section 64.

The Age continued and, after conducting opinion polls, suggested that the public considered the was Opposition to blame for the current political crisis. The Age suggested, based upon the public comments in their opinion polls, that:

This position was, likewise, supported by the Newcastle Morning Herald. Both these newspapers position on the constitutional issues on the eve of the dismissal, as already noted, stood alone in stark contrast with all the other main newspapers.

On the 11^th November 1975 the Governor-General dismissed the Whitlam Government from office. After consulting with the Chief Justice Barwick, Kerr argued that:

We have already discussed Section 57 earlier and can summarise two points, that the Governor-General in Council can call a double dissolution when a bill or several bills have been rejected by the Senate, or when the Prime Minister advises that a bill has failed to pass. It is the last part of Kerr’s statement that displays his constitutional position when it came to the dismissal and how he, by Royal decree, invoked Section 57 by himself without being in Council. Therefore, he did so without taking the advise of the Executive Council or the Prime Minister.

Kerr, in a letter to Whitlam formally announcing him of his dismissal, made the selective comment that:

This is a very subjective and narrow interpretation of Section 64. It certainly, if the other paragraphs of the Section are not read in conjunction with the first part, do indicate that the Governor-General has the powers that Kerr claims. There are, however, two clauses and not one that concern us here:

Certainly, the first clause supports Kerr’s position to act as he did, but very few raised the counter point that balances the exercise of the claimed reserve powers. It was the demand for this balance, as seen in the second clause, that caused considerable debate at the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s. It was always intended by the writers of the Constitution, that Ministers of the Australian Government would have the same constitutional powers as their English counterparts did in every respect. This was constantly stressed by Deakin who reminded the convention of an incident where the Victorian Supreme Court had ruled that on certain matters, in regards to immigration in this particular instance, that limited the Victorian Government of its sovereignty and permitted independent arbitrary intervention by the Crown. He argued that this was unacceptable, not only to the colonial governments that, it was presumed to have responsible Westminster government, but also for the Federal Government.

After much debate, the wording for the second clause was finally accepted by the Convention. The delegates concluded, in fact Griffith considered that they had demand too much, that Australian Ministers would have complete authority in every respect of all matters that concerned Australia. Furthermore, at no time was there any consideration given to reserve powers as Kerr understood them to be. As far as the Founding Fathers where concerned, the Crown could never act without the advise from a Minister of State, thus the same applied to the Governor-General. Yet, none of the newspapers, let alone most of the constitutional experts, examined these definitions that the Founding Fathers had applied to the constitution. In fact the Founding Fathers had envisaged that disputes would arise between the House and the Senate and in doing so wrote Sections 56 and 57 into the constitution. It was always, thus intended, that any such dispute would always be resolved in favour of the House. Needless to say, this did not occur in 1975.

The editorials, after the dismissal, split into two basic groups. The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald would remain the most critical of the Labor Party, but the Herald and Weekly Times group editorials now matched their level of negativity. The only newspapers whose editorials that appear to remain balanced were the Age and the Newcastle Morning Herald. While all the other editors discussed the rights or wrongs of the action of Kerr on the next day, the 12^th November, curiously the Sydney Morning Herald published an editorial on the economy without any comment at all on the events of Remembrance Day 1975. The Australian continued its established pattern of argument and declared that after trying to destroy the Senate Whitlam had done nothing more than to confirm its power. It repeated its continuous argument, with an additional iconic signifier, warning that:

A government that can govern without getting its funds authorised

by the Parliament can do anything, and we all need to be on guard to prevent

that, however well-intentioned the immediate purpose or strategy.

The Courier-Mail and the West Australian all basically agreed with the with the Advertiser in assuring their readers that "In the circumstances the Governor-General adopted what he obviously saw as the only appropriate course open to him". The Melbourne Herald, although stating the Kerr’s decision was wrong, added that "The legality of his ruling must also be accepted".

The Sydney Morning Herald, albeit a day late, blamed the entire crisis upon Whitlam. It went on to argue that the current crisis is not about the power of the Senate, or about the dismissal, but about the economy and the loans affair. Furthermore, the Sydney Morning Herald the next day, increased the rhetoric by attacking Whitlam’s now famous speech on the front steps of Parliament. It, not only considered it to be inciting a crowd to violence, but considered it insulting to Fraser and more importantly the Governor-General.

Again, as before, the editor continued with the characterisation of Whitlam as the leader of these revolutionary forces, when he argued:

Clearly this rhetoric is another signifier relating to the possibility of a violent communist revolution replacing a peaceful democratic system of government. Furthermore, this kind of rhetoric would now become typical of the most of the editors leading up to the election: a combination of the constitutional authority of the Senate and the Governor-General combined with the iconic warnings of what the Whitlam Government might have intended for Australia. Further warnings about possible violence was also copied by other editors. The Hobart Mercury added the iconic message that "Australians have seen what three years of socialism have done to the nation", as if the Tasmanian newspaper was the spokesperson for all of Australia, further re-enforcing the message of pending communist revolution.

All of this was considered sheer nonsense by the Age and the Newcastle Morning Herald. Both editors argued that Kerr was wrong and used their own cultural icons of an imperialist "coup d’etat". The Newcastle Herald argued that:

The editor continued to argue that, after such a shocking decision, it is no wonder that Whitlam, who was ready to advise a half Senate election, was outraged at Kerr’s decision. It was the same "… grievance that spilled over when the seamen promptly walked off their ships, the waterside workers took industrial action and called for a general strike". Yet, these observations and considerations were no where to be found in any other newspaper.

The Age simply stated that Kerr was wrong. The editor argued that it was a decision of legalism over common sense, and although backing away from declaring Kerr’s actions as unconstitutional, declared that:

The entire dismissal, one of fundamental constitutional significance, was announced by a document of less than 150 words. It simply states a system of government that is a misinterpretation of the definitions and intensions of the Founding Fathers, as discussed earlier, and, therefore, a misuse of Sections 57 and 64. No other editor even alluded to the questionable rationale of the dismissal, although the Newcastle Herald agreed with the Age that the decision was wrong.

The Age would continue with this analysis, briefly commenting that Whitlam’s outburst was understandable at Kerr’s decision. It commenced to discuss the upcoming election and stressed the advantages of incumbency. All the other editors ignored this fact whereby the party that was in government has particular advantages over opposition in a number of key areas. One of these being able to call an election when it suits the government. The other is having the advantage of knowing particular facts, such as treasury forecasts and budgets, which the opposition will never know when developing and announcing policies.

However:

This certainly, as the election campaigns commenced, summed up the difficulties for Whitlam and the Labor Party. This was certainly an issue that the other editors kept distant from. Furthermore, as the other editors started to call Whitlam the former prime minister, a rather derogative term, the Age continued with Prime Minister as the above quote from the 17^th November clearly indicates.

The emotions of the dismissal calmed down as November moved in to December when the parties launched their campaigns. The Labor Party started first and the newspaper editors attacked the Labor Party’s policies with renewed vigour. The Australian claimed that it was "… an impressive mixture of clever demagoguery and shrewd editing". The Adelaide Advertiser, the West Australian and the Courier-Mail all agreed. They all basically followed by explaining, again, that the constitutional claims by Whitlam were unsupported by the Constitution and the actions of the Senate and Kerr where within the legality of the Constitution. This is besides that fact that Professor Howard, earlier in the Australian, had suggested otherwise and that the Founding Fathers certainly defined the opposite view.

The Sydney Morning Herald went even further and claimed that, in reality, Whitlam was a heretic. It explained:

This was further supported by the editor of the Australian a few days later which then gave a warning that "… there is much more evidence of a predilection for a republic and a presidency in what about Mr Whitlam has lately been about".

These unsubstantiated arguments that are clear iconic signifiers constructing Whitlam as the next Hitler or Stalin, where given some pseudo-creditability by the Melbourne Herald’s editor who reviewed 21 bills that had been held up by the Senate. In the editorial "21 Bills threat to democracy", the editor claimed that these bills had been overlooked due to the issue of the dismissal. The editor reassures the readers that:

Their range is so wide, and their potential effect so profound, that they

The editor, however, fails to provide any detailed comment on what these bills may be, apart from a list covering varied issues as minerals and resources, electoral boundaries, broadcasting control and the appeals to the Privy Council. Ironically, most of these reforms where introduced, in one form or other, by the Fraser Government, even though the editor warned us that "Collectively they amount to an assault on both federalism and democracy".

Only the Newcastle Morning Herald made any supportive comments about Labor’s election program. The Age remained quiet until the 12^th December. The Newcastle Herald continued to support that this election was really about the dismissal.

The editor argued sympathetically that because Whitlam has been:

provide the bag of traditional election promises

Yet it admitted that Labor was in trouble for re-election due to the state of the economy and the perceived incompetence of ministers. By the election, even though the Newcastle Herald pointed out to readers that "Contradictions and confusions about the nature of a Fraser Government are starting to show…", the editor fully admitted that the campaign by the Coalition had been extremely successful in being able to ignore the constitutional issues and to concentrate on the economy and mismanagement issues. Finally the editor alluded to the suggestion that Labor would not be returned to office.

This was certainly the argument of the Sydney Morning Herald. As the other editors concentrated on economic or government management issues for the forth coming election, the editor continued to renounce Whitlam’s behaviour, now claiming that "The truth is that he [Whitlam] knows he lacks conviction on the issue of the damaged economy…" and proceeded to argue why the dismissal is a non issue in the election. This appears to be, not only the opinion of the majority of the other newspapers, but as pointed out, how the Coalition approached the election campaign as well. Only the Age devoted an editorial, other than the Newcastle Morning Herald, to the constitutional issues of the election. The Age, however, concluded that, although the dismissal should never had come about, the problems involved with the economy and government management are too large to ignore. The editor concluded that "This newspaper thinks time is up for Labor. We also think that, no mater who wins, it’s time to return to political decencies".

The aftermath of the election was one, not of recriminations against Labor, but one of congratulations for the new Fraser Government. All debate about the rights or wrongs of the dismissal had finished, although the occasional comment was to put the dispute and political grievances of the past behind for the good of the nation. There was some speculation about whether Whitlam would remain as leader of the Labor Party, but within a week, after he had been re-elected Labor’s leader, all political interest had shifted to the Fraser Government and what it could do to bring good management and rescue the Australian economy.

There are a number of clear patterns that have emerged from the study period that can be seen in the examination of the editorial columns. This varies according to which of the four issues the different editors wrote opinions on. However, regardless of the issue, the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, and the Hobart Mercury gave as little support as possible towards the Whitlam Government. It would be fair to argue that no editor gave any qualified support at any time. Only the editors of the Newcastle Morning Herald and the Age could be considered balanced in regards to constitutional issues. They where, unlike the Herald and Weekly Times group of the Melbourne Herald, Courier-Mail, Adelaide Advertiser, and the West Australian, consistent in their style and balance of opinion. The Herald and Weekly Times group, between July and December, moved from a slightly critical position to one of open hostility mirroring that of the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, and the Hobart Mercury.

These patterns can be seen in the five tables below where the average scores indicate the editors response to the different issues discussed. As can be seen, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian editors give minimal support over the Albert Field Scandal while the other editors who commented on this issue, especially the Age, gave full support to the Whitlam Government. Yet within weeks, especially when we examine the Supply table, only the Newcastle Morning Herald gave minimal support. Clearly as we examine the Dismissal Table, seven out of the nine editors where extremely hostile towards the Whitlam Government.

If we, however, examine the overall averages for this chapter, certainly some of the findings do not appear too extreme. There appears to be three main groups. Yet, as the above figures indicate, the Herald and Weekly Times group, by the time of the Federal Election holds as much a critical stance as the Sydney Morning Herald, Mercury, and the Australian group. Hence, there is the indication that the majority of editors in Australia were biased against the Whitlam Government due to the extremely negative results from seven of the nine editors. This indication of bias can be supported by several patterns that have developed from this examination of editorial opinion on constitutional issues.

The first pattern that emerged from above figures is a correlation between the score for each editor and the style of writing that was used. Clearly, as the editors became more critical of the Whitlam Government so the iconic signifier rhetoric of the columns increased. Hence, it is not surprising to find that the Sydney Morning Herald and the Hobart Mercury on numerous occasions resort to emotional language bordering on the hysterical. Furthermore, most of these newspapers, especially from the 12^th November onwards, used iconic signifiers in their columns to readily indicate to their readers that Whitlam was evil, a socialist, and next possible Hitler or Stalin. Such language was avoided by the Newcastle Morning Herald and the Age. Certainly the majority of the editors created a persona of Whitlam that was based upon fiction and not fact.

Another correlation between the above figures and editors was the style of writing. Again, the more negative an editor became, the more selective the argument. It was typical of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian to discuss these issues from only one position: the editor’s one. No consideration at all was given to an essay style debate, which the Age used, to analyse the particular event. This lead to an over simplification of an issue, to distortion, to the opinion editorial being completely unfounded. Often comments, contrary to the opinion of the editor, were ignored totally or simply rejected. The Australian did this repeatedly with an editorial column that was pseudo-intellectual at best. The Sydney Morning Herald simply ignored the complex legal debate and concentrated on the popular theme that only Fraser could save Australia from the alleged, but accurate according to the editor, incompetence of the Labor Government. The message from the Sydney Morning Herald was that constitutional legalities did not matter when the future of the country was at stake from a communist revolution.

There is also a correlation between the pattern figures and the different newspaper groups. Clearly the Herald and Weekly Times group operated in union. Only the Hobart Mercury stands out in its overall average figure. The other newspapers of this group are all hovering around the -1. Furthermore, it was common to find a similar opinion expressed in all the mainland papers of this group. All, for example would express concern at the deferral of supply, then go on to criticise the Whitlam Government. Likewise, as the weeks went by, all would by the Federal Election, become highly critical of the Whitlam Government. This pattern seems to suggest that the editors of the Herald and Weekly Times group acted without a great deal of independence from Melbourne. Clearly this was not the case with the Fairfax group. The two wholly owned papers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Newcastle Morning Herald, expressed opposite opinions over every issue, while the partly owned Age, expressed more in common with the Newcastle Herald than it did with the Sydney Herald. While the opinion of the Sydney Herald had more common with the Australian from the News Ltd. Group, albeit in a different style and format, than with its Fairfax affiliates.

Finally, the Australian editors, for the most part, created a reality that was selective based upon the misrepresentation of the facts.. Certainly, the readers in the smaller states received a constant representation of Whitlam, regardless of the issue, as a dangerous leader, that was hysterical, irrational and above all a socialist. In regards to the constitution, most of the editors stressed the point that Whitlam broke constitutional conventions first by appointing Gair as ambassador to Ireland. Now, according to the majority of editors opinion, Whitlam would break, not only constitutional law to stay in power, but was likely to start a revolution in order to do so. It was only the Age and to a lesser extent the Newcastle Morning Herald , that tried to have a discussion based upon facts and not upon rhetoric with an analysis of the situation. As is indicated, a propaganda model certainly existed in how the editors constructed their columns.