History should record 'Rex' Connor as a visionary whose timing was out by thirty years. The transcontinental gas pipeline is back on the agenda because of the changed economics of energy. Similarly the need for electrification of interstate railways. It seems prescient that these ideas were canvassed in the 1970s. If such projects do materialise the financing may well be unorthodox by the standards of the past.

I was working in the WA mineral sands industry at the time of the Whitlam government. My belief was that the money Rex Connor was trying to raise was to buy back the farm (or , in this case, the mine) by buying back or nationalising certain key mining industries in Australia. Thank god he failed to raise the money!

Shortly before he was justifiably sacked, Connor imposed price controls for many of Australia's mineral exports. This was another experiment by a socialist government to control Australia's leading export industry by stealth and fortunately it too failed. But enormous damage was done before the controls were removed. For example, Connor's price controls in rutile and zircon required sales of these minerals at prices well above ruling world prices. Sales by Australian companies slumped, allowing South Africa to develop new mines and supply over 60% of the world market in these two commodities. Australian companies took over a decade to recover from this loss of income and, in one case, an Australian mineral sand company was partially taken over by British interests to help it survive Connor's enforced market slump, exactly the reverse of the nationalisation that the Whitlam government had been hoping for.

Connor is dead; please let's leave him buried where he belongs.

Sir David Smith is rehabilitating the reputation of RFX Connor with this re-examination of the Loans Affair. If such a visionary was deliberately sacrificed, Australians have a right to ask why.

Note that, after the first authorisation of Connor to seek funds (at the meeting from which the Governor-General had been deliberately excluded) Connor's authority was completely revoked at a meeting at which the Governor-General was present. Authority was subsequently renewed for a reduced borrowing at a meeting attended by the Governor-General, but again completely revoked; only this time at a meeting held when the Governor-General was absent overseas.

Stewart's papers confirm that Connor had reason to believe immediately after the 20 May 1975 Executive Council meeting that formally revoked his authority he was nevertheless authorised by Whitlam to "keep contact" with respect to the loan negotiations. Whitlam chose to inform the Parliament that Connor's negotiations had terminated at a time when he (Whitlam) well knew they may have been continuing. If Whitlam wanted to maintain that everything was above board, all he had to do was be open about Connor's "keep contact" brief. He chose not to. By demanding Connor's resignation when it all became public, Whitlam only reinforced suspicions, suspicions he deliberately created in the first place, that there was something improper intended in the seeking of these loans.

Was Whitlam convinced, as early as the first week of December 1974, that the fate of his government was electorally irrecoverable? Did he set up the Loans Affair himself in order to provide for a grand exit? He was practically asking for dismissal!

It seems 'Rex' Connor was first deceived, then used, before being ultimately sacrificed in the interests of preserving his leader's place in history as some sort of heroic victim. Australia is well served by such meticulously researched and authoritative commentary. This is no dead letter from the past; Sir David's research is red hot stuff! Keep telling it like it was, Sir David.

PS Wonder why that Bulletin article was post-dated?

Whatever details are yet to be wrung out of The Loans Affair, they are less significant than the part the media played in providing information to the public regarding it.
It doesn't always happen that voters have access to even-handed reporting on matters that will influence voting choice. And The Loans Affair was a striking example.
The media made an issue of the size of the loan. Four billion, rather than its purpose, seemed to indicate fiscal incompetence. It raised enduring headlines and associated articles.
Strangely, size seemed not an issue later on: The Fraser Government, after a lull of a year or two, raised a loan of two billion, and in quick time after that, another of similar magnitude. Short paragraphs were devoted to these, mid-newspaper.
That the Whitlam loan attempt was not government to government, but brokered, seemed to be important to media. They gave prominience to, and alarm at, the broker - although he had no malfeasance reported against him. He was described as a peanut eating Arab - although we were not advised as to which of these characteristics was the most alarming.
In contrast, a few more years down the Fraser Governments' track, a short paragraph appeared - again snuggled mid-newspaper - in relation to Federal Government loans raising: British courts jailed some gentleman for gross fiscal malfeasance. Its relevance to Australian society was that he was said to have been the long-standing broker for Australian Government loan raising. I have seen no reference to Kemlani having had to have porridge with his peanuts.
Yes, Sir David, true records of events should be published. It should apply across political divides. And will Sir David concur with me that unbalanced reporting which influences voting patterns, as with The Loans Affair, is improper?

Colinsett,

I don't fully agree with your opening assertion, but I'll run with it. Sir David remarked on 7 November 2004 that "the late Philip Graham, former publisher of Newsweek and the Washington Post, said that good journalism should aim to be the first rough draft of history. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson, a former US President, once said that " A man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." When one looks at much of the reporting of the dismissal and the events surrounding it, one would have to conclude that Jefferson was closer to the mark than Graham."

The 'journalism' surrounding the Connor dismissal is in the same class. Reid did not claim in his interview that "It is understood that the Governor-General did take some action but at this stage it is not known what action he took.” Reid quoted his sources throughout in the TV interview, but this claim in the Bulletin article, upon which not even the date was right, is inconsistently unattributed, and smacks of editorial doctoring. You will note that it is in relation to this claim that Sir David makes his only unattributed assertion, that is, that as to that part of the content of the conversation contributed by the Governor-General. Sir David must, therefore, have been there to hear it. Stewart corroborates its likely content with his correcting annotation of two crosses and 'short' on the copy of Reid's Bulletin article. "The Australian" hid behind the anonimity of "[their] political staff" in claiming Whitlam had refused to comment. Why?

It was Whitlam who first flagged to the G-G possible intended constitutional impropriety by twice branding the proposed borrowings as being for 'temporary' purposes. Whitlam ensured suspicion would be created at the outset by deliberately withholding knowledge of an Executive Council meeting from the G-G. The media were guilty of either complicity or cupidity, rather than imbalance.

Colinsett,

Many thanks, mate. Sleeping on things sometimes does wonders. That opening statement of yours served to really focus my thinking about media reporting subsequent to Alan Reid's TV interview with Michael Schildberger on "A Current Affair" on Tuesday 2 December 1975. Particularly about that post-dating of the Bulletin article that was dated 6 December 1975, but actually published on Wednesday 3 December 1975.

What really needs to be explained is how The Australian was able to have gone to print for Wednesday 3 December with a story about a claimed response of "no comment" from Whitlam to an enquiry about an allegation attributed to Alan Reid that itself was first published only on Wednesday 3 December, the same day that "[the] political staff" at The Australian were credited with having already sought Whitlam's response to the (perhaps editorially doctored) allegation attributed to Reid in the Bulletin article.

I don't know at what time the presses rolled for the Wednesday 3 December edition of The Australian, but I think the story claiming a (non)response from Whitlam had to have been written before rolling! How could a story have been written about a response previously obtained to an allegation contained in a story as yet unpublished?

Maintaining the Rage: Symbolic Numbers, Dates and Anniversaries of the Whitlam Years

Saturday 2 December 1972 Whitlam government elected.

13 December 1974 Executive Council meeting at the Lodge. Governor-General not advised of meeting until following morning. (When it was rubbed in his face?)

Tuesday 11 November 1975 Remembrance Day. Date (and time of day) chosen by Whitlam to offer the faulty advice to the Governor-General that led to his dismissal. (See public lecture by Sir David Smith "The 1975 Dismissal: Setting the Record Straight")

Tuesday 2 December 1975 Reid-Schildberger TV interview containing the Connor dismissal allegations, exactly 21 days (three weeks) after the Dismissal. Third anniversary of the election of the Whitlam government in 1972.

Saturday 13 December 1975 Federal elections following the Dismissal, 33 days, and as early as possible under the law, after the Dismissal. First anniversary of THAT Executive Council meeting at the Lodge.

Thursday 14 July 1983 Bastille Day-commemorating the start of the French Revolution. Appointment by the Governor-General of the Vice-President of the Executive Council as a Deputy Governor-General to preside over meetings of the Council at which, for any reason, the Governor-General is unable to attend. (Usually, very important appointments of this nature are gazetted the self same day. This one wasn't.)

Monday 18 July 1983 Gazettal, in Special Gazette No. 153, of the Thursday 14 July appointment of the Vice-President of the Executive Council as a Deputy Governor-General. The number 153 is biblically numerically symbolic of "the elect" (whoever they may be), and Bob, being the son of a Preacher-man and all (as well as a Rhodes scholar) would of knowed that. Had to wait four days for the Gazette numbers to be right, didn't they!

Thursday 13 December 1984 Tenth anniversary of THAT Executive Council meeting at the Lodge. Appointment, and gazettal in S 525, of un-named ministers of State for the time being as Deputy Governors-General for purposes of presiding over Executive Council meetings.

All co-incidence, of course. None of it planned. Lest we forget.

This posting may be a little off-topic, but in the interest of adherence to the forum rules I feel I should ask more experienced posters for advice, and where better than in a (deathly) quiet thread.

When I have clicked on the "new post" button during previous days the first thing I have seen is the little forum rules box stating the word limit, and the postings limit (a limit both for the total number of posts to the forum during any given 24 hour period, and the limit of postings per topic in the same time frame). What perplexes me and creates uncertainty is that on several occasions during the one day the postings limits have varied, both within the one topic, and as between different topics. How can I be sure I am going to stay within the rules, as I do not get to see the postings limits until I click to post?

For example, when I posted on 18 October to the topic "Water: place the blame where it belongs", the posting limits were 4 to the topic, and a total of 10 to the forum, in any 24 hours. On the same day, I posted to "Rex Connor: the other Dismissal", and the postings limits were 2 and 5 respectively within 24 hours. Is anyone else experiencing these limit variations? Are they applied to the topic, or to the particular registered user? Are they applied as a form of secret censorship or suppression of particular views or topics?

I have not been able to find out anything on the site about the postings limits as a visitor as opposed to a poster. Maybe I am missing something here. Any feedback anyone?

PS As I post the limit here is 2 and 5

I wonder whether readers on this forum quite comprehend how the significant events, or perhaps more precisely deceptions, of 1975 may directly affect the politico-economic conditions of the present day. If it all perplexes you, perhaps acquiring an understanding of past deceptions may help in drawing a roadmap with which to find the way out.

Alternatively, could it be readers think Sir David's observations are confined and relevant only to the past? If that is so, I can only suggest they read his submission made in 2005 to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters titled "How do I say 'Yes' or 'No'?; Let me count the ways". With it Sir David draws attention to recent serious departure from the relevant electoral law by the very body responsible for administering that law, the Australian Electoral Commission. The submission can be viewed and downloaded from www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm . It is submission No.159. The departures from the law commented upon amount to bias in classification of votes as informal at referenda as recently as 1999.

Sir David's article establishing this topic points to evidence indicative of the deception of Parliament in 1975. It is possible to infer from that evidence that such possible deception may have been connected with the orchestration of a dismissal, and the use of such to to influence a subsequent electoral outcome. Could Sir David be telling us, as plainly as he properly can, to look beyond the media legend to the possibility that not only may it have been the victim who sought dismissal, but that maybe the timing of it was even connected to electoral improprieties?

Thanks, Forrest Gumpp for having told me of this article on the other forum concerning immigration at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=339#5868

The article and the forum discussion seems to confirm my own gut feeling that something didn't completely add up during the frenzied and virulent media campaign to bring down the Whitlam Government in 1974 and 1975.

As an early teen, who held out hopes that the Whitlam Government would create a truly great society, I felt hurt and angry at the insane vilification directed against the Whitlam government. (Have to admit, even I got sucked in, for a while, believing Uncle Rupert, when, through his glove puppet editors, he swore to us that, as much as he had wished Gough's Government well to begin with, their indisputably monumental incompetence had led them to reluctantly, with a heavy heart, turn against them. So I was resigned to having Whitlam booted out of office in the best interests of the nation, that is, until the constitutional crisis of 1975 caused me to rethink all of this.)

I was struck at how throughout these months Gough seemed oblivious to this ferocious campaign against him personally and his Government. Why didn't he turn around and take on the media hyenas? Why didn't he defend himself against all the stupid beat-ups (e.g. having a "tourist for a Prime Minister" etc.) that were preventing him and his Government from properly getting on with the job?

After he was sacked on 11 November, precious hours were lost as he had lunch, instead of racing straight back in order to have used the Labor majority in the House of Representatives to stop the supply bill and thereby scuttle Fraser's attempt to form a caretaker Government. I know that pro-Labor public servants were prepared to keep the Government running by working without pay whilst supply was denied to it.

(ToBeContinued)

(ContinuedFromAbove)

It seems to me, on reflection, that Whitlam's heart was not in standing up to the vested interests that felt threatened by his Government and that is why he did not fight as hard as I believe he could have and should have. He effectively not only allowed his government to lose office, but by subsequent omission, allowed the name of his Government to have been unfairly dragged through the mud, so much so, that, today, even supposed 'dissidents' such as Phillip Adams will spurn its legacy.

Perhaps if Connor or Cairns had been PM instead, it would have been an entirely different story.

This article seems to begin to answer some of the questions that have been buried somewhere at the back of my mind since then.

---

Can I take this opportunity to once again commend the Masters Thesis of 2002 by Sheila Newman, "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France". Chapter 7 deals with the ill-fated attempts by the Whitlam Government, and Rex Connor in particular, to deal with the 1973 Oil shocks by establishing national energy independence and to discourage further population growth?

We will soon pay the terrible price for them having been prevented from doing so, when an already overpopulated Australia's petroleum reserves are completely exhausted in 6 years time.

Sheila Newman's thesis can be found at: http://www.candobetter.org/sheila