Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Should Whitlam Have Been Sacked?

May 29th 2009 01:48
The events of 1975 cause controversy even till this day.




No other time in Australian history has been the subject of more controversy than Gough Whitlam’s government and the 1975 Constitutional Crisis when Gough Whitlam was sacked. This is the first of a 2 part series by The Independent Australian which will both look at the sacking of Gough as well as his reforms in government. Gough has left a huge mark not only on Australia's political history but its social history as well. The actions of the people involved within the crisis still cause much controversy and argument today.


The controversy of the Whitlam government originates from what it was trying to do. Australia had had 23 years of conservative Liberal government. Although admittedly good economic managers, they had left the country lagging behind in social reform and Australia went into the 1970’s a very traditional and conservative society. For example, Australia still had ‘God Save the Queen’ as the national anthem and people could still be made knights of the realm. Gough and Labor changed this, they introduced a wide range of reforms which aimed to modernise the country. Conservative politicians and voters did not always support Gough’s social change and his sometimes uninterested or unorthodox approach with the economy. Gough had been earmarked as a target by the conservative side of politics since he became Opposition Leader and this was no different when he became Prime Minister.


In 1972 Labor and Whitlam were successfully elected and disposed of the unpopular PM Billy McMahon and the Liberals by a primary margin of 5.4%. The people had clearly expressed the view at the polls that they wanted social change, and Gough agreed. Instead of waiting for the vote to finish and for caucus to elect the executive which was the custom, he had himself and Deputy Leader Lance Barnard in as sworn as a two man ministry and government. This kind of behaviour would set the tone for Gough’s primeministership, the inability to wait, even when circumstance demanded that he did.

Labor started their social, political and economic revolution quickly and in the space of three years he had established formal diplomatic relations with the China and had advocated Australia as a key stake holder in the S.E Asian Region. In the Education Department he legislated so the Federal Government assumed responsibility for tertiary education from the states, abolished tertiary fees and established the Schools Commission to distribute federal funds to assist non-government schools on a needs basis. Economically he cut tariffs across the board by 25% and abolished the Tariff Board. In regards to women and the family he introduced a supporting benefit for single-parent families; mandated equal opportunities for women in Federal Government employment; appointed women to judicial and administrative positions; abolished conscription; abolished the death penalty for federal crimes and reduced the voting age to 18 years. With immigration Gough abolished the last vestiges of the White Australia Policy; introduced language programs for non-English speaking Australians. For Aborigines he improved access to justice for Indigenous Australians and introduced the policy of self determination for Indigenous Australians; advocated land rights for Indigenous Australians; increased funding for Indigenous Australian's welfare. More reforms include the creation of the Order of the Australia and increased funding for the arts.

But these reforms did not come with out their fair share of trouble. The DLP/Liberal controlled Senate was not friendly to Whitlam and often blocked or threatened to block key bills like Medicare (free health care for all Australians) and giving the Northern Territory and ACT citizens representation in the Senate. The situation was made worse when Gough in an attempt to gain a majority in the Senate made Vince Gair, a DLP Senator for Queensland Ambassador to Ireland. This plan was discovered and became known as the Gair Affair and although it did not come to fruition the Liberal Senate decided to block supply in outrage against the Labor government. This move by the Liberals and conservative side of politics would be repeated again in 1975, the Liberals never sought negotiation and most importantly did not acknowledge that the elected government had a mandate to govern. Gough decided he would take his chances against Billy Snedden Liberal Leader and called a double dissolution election to be followed by a joint sitting to consider the blocked bills, Gough thought this move might give him that elusive Senate majority which would enable him to continue with his reforms. Unfortunately for Gough this did not happen and the double dissolution did not result in a senate majority but it did allow Labor to pass those bills.

The Senate situation was made worse when after the appointment of Labor Senator Lionel Murphy to the High Court in 1975, the NSW Government against convention replaced him with a non-Labor Senator. Again in 1975, Bert Millnier a Labor Senator from Queensland died and was replaced with a non-Labor Senator. Both these appointments aggravated the situation and ensured a deadlock between the government and the Senate. Both these state governments breached convention and democracy by appointing Senators no one voted for. The people felt so strongly about Senatorial vacancies being filled by Senators of the same party that a referendum on the issue passed a few years later.

The Senate situation was dire, but it may have been able to be resolved if it had not come at such a bad time not only for Australia but for the world as well. The world was in the grips of Global Recession brought upon by the 1973 Oil Crisis. Thousands of Australia lost their jobs and the high government spending and constant wage increases encouraged rampant inflation. The Economy began to slow to its slowest rate of growth in 10 years and the government’s economic credentials took a blow when the ‘Loans Affair’ was discovered. The Loans Affair was when Jim Cairns (Treasurer) acting alone and against Gough’s orders attempted to borrow large amounts of money from overseas investors in order to pay for government projects. When this was discovered, Jim Cairns was forced to resign and a huge media beat up followed.

It was at this time with both the world and Australia economy in tatters, that the newly elected opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser and his Liberal party decided to boycott convention and the popular vote by blocking supply on a newly elected government. Malcom Fraser is often portrayed as a power hungry stooge by some Labor circles, but it must be recognised that Fraser thought he was doing the right thing, he honestly believed that Whitlam and Labor were destroying the country and it was up to him to stop Whitlam. After supply had been blocked initially there began a tense stand off between Whitlam and Fraser. Under the constitution if there is a dead lock between the two houses than the PM is allowed to call a double dissolution election, but Gough reasoned that he had just called a double dissolution election little more than a year ago and that he had a mandate to govern for the full term not just for a year, Fraser disagreed and wanted an immediate election as he believed the electorate was against Gough. Public opinion showed people were not impressed with Labor’s economic management and the Loans Affair, but a growing number of people blamed the opposition for the crisis.

It was during this tense stand off that Governor General John Kerr entered the scene. Kerr had been watching the situation closely and he recognised that the country was in political and economic turmoil and that a quick resolution was needed, he began to consider using his “reserve powers” held under Section 64 of the constitution. His relationship to Gough Whitlam is also significant, although Gough had appointed him to Governor General a few years previously, they both held each other in contempt, and Kerr felt Gough made fun of him and his position as Governor General. Some commentators have suggested Kerr may have been more likely to sack Whitlam because of this relationship. Kerr decided against convention decided to consult Chief Justice Barwick (former Liberal) of the High Court and also Malcom Fraser in his fight of conscience of whether to use the “reserve” powers and remove Whitlam as Prime Minister. One has to question the impartially of both these “experts” considering they were Liberals. Barwick told Kerr that he did indeed have the power to sack Whitlam, and Fraser encouraged Kerr vehemently to do so. Gough was left out of the dark about these conversations and he did not think for one second that he might be sacked and thus did not consult Kerr about the possibility.

Fraser and Barwick won the battle and on November 11 John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam as PM and put Fraser in his place as caretaker PM on the condition he that passed supply and called an election, both of which he did. The ironic thing is when Whitlam had gone to Government House to see Kerr, he went there with the intention to call a half Senate election, which would have resolved the deadlock. As news spread around Australia, the country spun into impromptu protests, and thousands of people descended upon Canberra to participate in rallies both for and against Whitlam. Hardcore Labor voters were shocked and saw the events as a conservative plot to sack a Labor government, while a large minority of people welcomed the news as they thought it put the country on the road to economic recovery. Many people including Gough saw the sacking as a blatant breach of democracy by both Kerr and Fraser, the country was such in turmoil that the SAS was mobilised.

When the election was held Fraser was elected overwhelmingly and had control of both houses, he got on with the job as PM but could not improve the economy any more then Gough could and was kicked out of office by Bob Hawke in a landslide in 1984. Kerr finished his term as Governor General but was dogged by protesters about the dismissal where ever he went, he died in self-imposed exile in England. Whitlam went on to contest the 1977 election which he lost, he then quit politics but is still considered a Labor legend by some and a Labor loser by others.The dismissal was written into history and is still the most controversial event in Australia’s history.

Now for the hard bit.It is a commonly held belief that the convincing election win to Fraser in 1975 and the “troubled economy” is confirmation that what Kerr did was justified. But what Kerr and Fraser did was both unconstitutional, a gross breach of democracy and an infliction upon the values of which Australia stands for.

The constitution states in S64 that the Governor General has the power to remove ministers as the head of the executive. But convention says that the PM has control of the executive not the Governor General, it is implied within the constitution that the PM is in charge. Just because something is written in the constitution does not mean it is an excercis alste power. For example the Governor General is technically in charge of the Armed Forces but this is not the case in practice, that power is fictional, that power is symbolic. The same logic can be applied to removing ministers from executive. The power of the Governor General is strictly symbolic and is not intended for actual use. This understanding makes what Kerr did both unconstitutional and illegal.

Kerr and Fraser also breached democracy, a non-elected official is not allowed to sack an elected government no matter what the circumstance. Especially one which was only elected a year before. What Kerr and the Liberals did was simply disgraceful, democracy is not there to be paid lip service to. It ensures the smooth governance of the country, democracy does not get it wrong. Therefore it should not be tampered with by people who do not understand its conventions.

1975 was a dramatic time in Australia’s history and the drama of the dismissal still exists today. But what we learn from these events is that what Kerr and Fraser did was wrong. You cannot sack democracy and you can’t sack convention. There have been social, economic and political lessons of Gough Whitlam’s time in government all which have been described but the most important lesson we have learnt is that as a result of 1975, democracy is not the most powerful force in Australia.






11
Vote
   


The Second Coming of Socialism

May 27th 2009 10:16
This Will be 2009 and Till The End of Time, If We Keep Capitalism. That Could Be you



Another car, another TV, another computer and another house. “ Enrich yourselves” said socialist Bukharin and it appears we have done just that. The days of wealth distribution are gone, enter the days of wealth creation.
The Labor Party was founded as a Democratic Socialist party: it was once dedicated to the democratic socialisation of the means of production, but this has changed. Now it is unpopular to be a Democratic Socialist, nowadays people are Social Democrats. So we ask “What happened to the Democratic Socialists?” What happened to these Labor men? What happened to their dreams of an honest ideal that hoped to make life better for the working man and woman? 
We still have Democratic Socialists, or at least we think we do. We have, for example, these groups of militant university students who run around protesting against this or that. It was their Democratic Socialist Movement that organized the anti-Pope protests at World Youth Day. But surely, these people are not real Democratic Socialists. They show no sign of believing in the socialisation of industry and are mosy obviously interested in protest as a pastime.. Since when was protesting against a Pope a requirement to a be a Democratic Socialist and what does a papal protest do to improve conditions of labour? But if all we have is these people, then who will offer the alternative for the economically progressive voter?
What is needed is a rejuvenation of the Labour movement, with none of this “enrich yourself” philosophy. A genuine commitment towards wealth distribution is required.As Australia’s moves towards total capitalism the gap between rich and poor increases each day. People often talk about how caring the Australian system is when compared to the American system, but do not understand that this is the system we are gradually inching towards.
Worse, this is not just an Australian tendency,but part of a global epidemic. The Labour Party in Britain suffers from an identity crisis similar to that of our own Labor Party. This debate needs to be settled once and for all and the Labor Party must remember that Kevin Rudd comes from the same party as Ben Chifley, not Robert Menzies. 
It is a common belief that socialism or any degree of socialism does not “work”. The alleged inefficiency of government-owned companies is said to be proof of this. But, surely, this current Global Financial Crisis is compelling proof that total capitalism does not work? The Boom and Bust cycle is an inevitably recurring pattern of capitalism, with each segment of the cycle making some rich and even more poor. We have to ask ourselves “Is this worth it?”
Not if there is a real alternative that puts an end not to capitalism itself, but to the worst parts of capitalism. This is where Democratic Socialism comes in, allowing you to have your free enterprise cake but allow a reasonable number of people to eat it too. The central issue here is why bother with extreme capitalism when it simply does not work and when there are better systems available?  
But we live in bizarre times, we people pretend capitalism works. I wonder what George Bush was thinking when he funded the bailout, or Obama when he part-nationalise US banks? I wonder what Rudd was thinking when he made his 2nd Stimulus Package?

We do not need to have this system: we can move towards a new system which eliminates the worst effects of capitalism without adopting the worst features of socialism, and incorporates the best features of each under the Democratic Socialist banner.
We need a party to lead us in this direction and we cannot go on for much longer pretending that the present Labor Party really still is Democratic Socialist. The party and the Labour movement must make a decision. Do they still believe in a democratic socialisation of the means of the production and the closing of the gap between the rich and the poor, or do they simply propopose to tinker with the rattling mechanisms of extreme capitalism?
The decision must be made, and that decision must be a reassessment and rejuvenation of the ideology and principles behind Democratic Socialism. The Labour movement and the Labor party was not founded for the rich, it was founded for the working man and woman. Working men and women do not want or need the rich getting richer, they want the odd evening out and a helping hand;they want the light on the hill. And the workers’ party and movement has a duty to deliver. 
31
Vote
   


The Child and Gay Adoption

May 26th 2009 03:32


Recently ‘Gay Adoption’ has been brought to the forefront of state politics in NSW, it has already been legalised in WA, and it was expected that NSW would follow suit. Unfortunately for the Gay Lobby this will no longer be the case, Fred Nile a Member of the Upper House cracked a deal with Premier.Nathan Ree’s that means in exchange for Nile's vote on future government bills, gay adoption will no longer be a platform for the current state government. This is not only a victory for common sense but for the Australian public,
Your text goes here
of which the majority or so at seems are against Gay Adoption, in a democracy such as ours it is important that we acknowledge the wishes of the majority not of a few leftist reformers who are more out of touch with the community than George Bush is with Al Qaeda.

Gay Adoption is a trivialising issue and has the ability to divide. The main argument from the Gay Lobby for gay adoption revolves around an adult right: ‘to have a child.’ The fatal flaw of this argument is that no one, gay/straight has the right to have a child. Having a child is a total privilege, and thus not a right. The central point of gay adoption should be what is best for the child, if that child is acquired by two people who are obsessed about their right to have a child, then the reason they are having a child is about the couple itself, not the child. Gay adoption is rarely about what is best for the child, it is usually about what is best for the adopters.

The other question we must ask ourselves is how will this child develop a totally normal outlook on human relationships and life if they are adopted by a gay couple, (and not to say all gay couples are because the great majority are not) who possess a very ‘them versus us’ attitude, when it comes to society. If the child is brought up hating ‘the heterosexual regime’ then what chance does that child have of gaining a normal perspective not just of life, but of relationships as well. This leads to the point that same sex couples can love each other, but how will this child deal without having a mum and dad?

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals and believe it or not there is nothing wrong with being a heterosexual either (just don't listen to the Greens), however when it comes to the issue of gay adoption we must look at common sense, public opinion; and most importantly what is best for the child. Is it best for the child to be brought up in a family where the parents are obsessed with their rights not the child’s, and finally is it best for the child to not have a mum and a dad.The best families are built on Mum’s and Dad’s, and there is no compensating for this fact, children have a right to a mum and a dad.
24
Vote
   


The Religion Of Atheism

March 10th 2009 22:37
These comment are in response to TOM FLYNN, who is trying to excommunicate himself from the Church, it's shame he hasn't read the Cathechism, as it would save him a lot of trouble. You can read about his bigoted adventures at:http://www.secularhumanism .org/index...age=flynn_29_2)


[ Click here to read more ]
33
Vote
   


The Catholic Church

May 27th 2008 08:30
What seems to be the social norm these days is for everyone to have a go at organised religion, calling it the root of all evil and openly declaring one’s atheism like itself were a religion. But what our anti-religion friends forget to tell you, in between their unsubstantiated rants is the facts, and the facts are good.

Firstly, let us briefly examine the history of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church came into being around 40 A.D with the first Pope St.Peter it became legal around 400 A.D (following 400 years or rigorous persecution) with the reign of Emperor Constantine. The Church continued as the one branch of Catholicism up until 1000 with the first schism and then leading up to the reformation in the 1500’s. There have been no substantial break ups since the 1500’s. In that entire time, around 2000 years the Church has never changed its stance on any area of teaching, it has equivocally held up the same teachings for over 2000 years. Those teachings for the most part have been of peace and following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and since when was following Jesus’ example a bad thing


[ Click here to read more ]
163
Vote
   


The Working Poor

May 26th 2008 11:01
Too often in our capitalistic society we hear the common upper class phrase “poor people should just work harder”, every time this horrendous muttering is spoken we as a society suffer as a result. It is not just about working harder, being poor does not mean you are lazy. Being poor means that our society has gone past you, its means that you have been disenfranchised by a society filled with a greedy and selfish nature. If this is news to you, and you still subjectively believe that ‘poor people should just work harder’, read these stories, with an objective mind.

It may comes as news to you but in the 1890’s, Australia suffered one of its worse economic recessions. Every single bank in Australia closed down and ceased to exist along with the money in its over filling coffers. Imagine if that happened today, if Westpac, Commonwealth, NAB and ANZ closed down along with your money. Imagine the rebellion and imagine the poverty. A man named James Butlin was 65 at the times of the collapse he built himself a fortune out of fruit selling and was retired. He was living his ‘golden years’ with wealth and affluence. But when the banks collapsed his money vanished, with no money or savings he could not afford to live. He was forced to sell his house. James at the age of 65 had to work the same job as he did when he was 13, shearing sheep. He went from the squatocracy to someone living on the street, shearing the occasional sheep, begging for money for survival. This is capitalism, this is our country


[ Click here to read more ]
108
Vote
   


Recently I posted an article named 'Socialism Is Not A Dirty Word By John Stirlingclick here to see the article. It has received both of praise and criticism. In this follow up I would like to rebut the arguments against socialism that were raised is comments and emails.

Firstly, I totally and equivocally reaffirm my belief that Democratic Socialism is the best system of governance and economics that we posses. There is nothing wrong with putting some of the means of production into the hands of the workers, not the owners. We must spread the wealth, so that we no poor and no rich. Everyone is equal, there is no greed, no profit rather consumption. Every man is judged by his need not his want. Capitalism has had its turn, and its failed, it is the time of the worker. It is the time for Democratic Socialism


[ Click here to read more ]
97
Vote
   


By John Stirling

The Independent Australian
The Independent Australian

[ Click here to read more ]
144
Vote
   


Parliament Needs Urgent Tweaking

May 11th 2008 09:39
Parliament is supposed to be the start and end of society, but it is riddled with errors and needs urgent reform.

Parliament is supposed be made up of parliamentarians who represent their individual communities, this role has changed so much over time that MP’s (especially in Federal Parliament) rarely represent their local community. Individual MP’s usually act to represent their party and its policy. Obviously acting when within the bounds of party policy MP’s are restricted to what they can do for their local areas. MP’s become subordinate to party discipline, but this subordination also extends to the executives power over MPs. Due to the executive’s power and party alliances, parliament has in some ways become little more than a rubber stamp for the public record which leaves the real governance to the executive


[ Click here to read more ]
119
Vote
   


The Hidden Beauty of Britannia

May 5th 2008 13:32


God Save the Queen,

[ Click here to read more ]
132
Vote
   


More Posts
3 Posts
1 Posts
7 Posts
17 Posts dating from April 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Tom Craven's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Tom Craven
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]