The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Whitlam, Connor and their dismissals > Comments

Whitlam, Connor and their dismissals : Comments

By David Flint, published 7/2/2006

David Flint describes the lead up to the dismissal of Gough Whitlam by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr in 1975.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
We are still polarised by this matter. I think it probably represents the polarisation regarding our present government and prime minister. The latter is the true chameleon: 'everyone' purports to dislike him but he remains popular and unassailable.

The issue this article raises in my mind, however, is that discussed recently regarding the views of history. Some (I think conservatives and maybe historians) wrote statements such as 'there are facts and they remain facts' yet here we have the same versions of the same facts used again and again.

So where is the truth of this matter? I rather enjoy Professor Flint writing on matters like this because he reveals so much of himself with every word. But then we all do!
Posted by aka-Ian, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 11:45:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chainsmoker, i apolagise. You are right, as is the good Prof.
I confess to enjoying the biased claptrap he produces.
Village idiots have an important role in society and have had for centuries.
Posted by hedgehog, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 1:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have one query about the Whitlam dismissal that I have never been able to have answered, and if David or any of the posters could, I would be most grateful. I happened to hear of the dismissal only a few moments after the news arrived at the Herald, as I was on the phone to Column 8 asking about the senate writs. If you remember Whitlam wanted a half-senate election, which if held would mean the casual vacancies in NSW and Qld would be filled immediately. The theory was that these vacancies would be filled last, and with Labor's likely poor vote, they would get the last places. The question was WHY? Was it the wording of the writ? The most likley result is the NSW and Qld would have refused to issue the writs anyway. It's all academic now, but I would love to know why the casual vacancy was filled last
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 4:10:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Governmnet,did he send in army tanks and soldiers with orders to bayonet Mr. Whitlam and co.?, no he sent them back to the people and they made a judgement,and what was the result of that judgement?, they turfed him out in an absolute landslide and repeated it a few years later.
The same situation was with Premier Lang who was acting totally illegally in refusing to pay the State debts back and Governor Game dismissed him as he felt he could not possibly keep ministers in office who were acting illegally.
Premier Lang was too swept out in an electoral avalanche, so the Governor's decision was backed by the overwhelming majority of voters.
Posted by Mister H., Wednesday, 8 February 2006 6:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to Plerdsus:

Firstly, let me make clear that what I am writing is not based on any research but trying to make an educated guess, based on the original section 15 of the constitution (altered in 1977):

If a half-senate election took place, then any successor seats would be entitled to a three year term. It would make sense that the most popular three candidates be given a six year term and fourth placed candidate the three year term.

How does that sound? Like I said, it's just an educated guess.
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/amendment.asp?amID=15
Posted by David Latimer, Thursday, 9 February 2006 9:01:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fully agree with mr Flint that the Whitlam government was fiscally irresponsible. But elected government's have a right to govern, and the Whitlam government was forced to fight three elections in only three years.

It won it's first election by a landslide, because it was able to present it's policies to the new baby boomer generation as being progressive. It was then forced to fight another election only 18 months later, when the opposition leader Billy Snedden felt that he might win an election. 18 months later and Fraser did exactly the same thing.

No Australian government had ever had to suffer from such challenges to it's right to govern. This was third world politics, Liberal Party style.

For Labor supporters, many of whom were proud of the fact that Whitlam administration had helped to reform State divorce laws, ended conscription, withdrew Australian troops from the disasterous Vienam war, instituted free higher education and attempted to keep Australian mineral assets in the hands of Australians, the Dismissal was rightly seen as a conspiratorial legal coup by powerfull vested interests who would go to any lengths to prevent a government that they did not like from governing.

As such, the Dismissal was a usurpation of the democratic process and it was inimical to the concept of good governance. Opposition leaders should not have the power to call elections every time they percieve that a governemt has become unpopular over some issue, and the opposition leaders think that they have the numbers to win.

The Dismissal left a feeling of great bitterness towards the Liberal/Country Parties, and this contempt was probably instrumental in the support given from the electorate towards the creation of the Hawke/Keating governments.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 5:14:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy