The Sacking - 1975, Whitlam, Fraser and Kerr

[HairyO]

You do understand the role of the GG and how he corrupted it, don't you? He possibly was the cause of a duly elected government being forced from office by blatantly politicising the role and doing it in a quite treacherous manner.

Whitlam trying to raise money from the Middle East illegally prior to the dismissal not a problem to you ?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

How do you feel about the removal of a leader by its party?

Yeah, frustrated. The games of knifey-spooney we had going were pretty much unprecedented in modern political history - apart from maybe post-war Italy where they had a new government every half year for a stretch or something.

I mean, I get it if a leader is DEEPLY unpopular with the electorate and becomes a liability to the party but the removals we had (Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison) were ALL due to factional infighting weren't they? "Faceless men' and kingmakers and all that s**t.

It was a low point in Australian politics.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Oh and I’ll add an honest Gough should have called a double dissolution election just as you highlight.

So why did he not?

That’s why the GG had to act, to stop a rogue doing great damage to the nation he served. Instead he thought is was a nation he ruled!

Yeah, I don't know. I've had to contribute tax dollars to put our forces overseas in wars I've BITTERLY opposed and I've had to lump it. Whatever or whoever is installed in the LOdge we're all along for the ride no matter if we voted for them or not.

'Great damage'? I truly don't know. I'd say Australia as a nation would have kept meandering on its way.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Whitlam trying to raise money from the Middle East illegally prior to the dismissal not a problem to you ?

This is how I understand the circumstances of The Dismissal and the 'loans affair';

1. Opposition-dominated Senate blocks Supply; money/appropriation bills and other legistlation aren't passed by the Senate and so are not acted on

2. The Whitlam Government is cash-starved. They have two options - go to outside sources for fundage or admit defeat and call a double-dissolution election. Option 2 would entail complete concession to the opposition having the moral authority to strangle a sitting democratically-elected government. In my opinion an untenable concession indeed.

What reasons were given for blocking Supply in the first place?

 

[GreyCrow]

This is how I understand the circumstances of The Dismissal and the 'loans affair';

1. Opposition-dominated Senate blocks Supply; money/appropriation bills and other legistlation aren't passed by the Senate and so are not acted on

2. The Whitlam Government is cash-starved. They have two options - go to outside sources for fundage or admit defeat and call a double-dissolution election. Option 2 would entail complete concession to the opposition having the moral authority to strangle a sitting democratically-elected government. In my opinion an untenable concession indeed.

What reasons were given for blocking Supply in the first place?

The Loans Affair beginnings came long before Supply was blocked but it did directly affect how the LNP targetted the Government

So instead of Blocked Supply then Loan it was Loan - Block-Loan

Loans affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The Loans Affair beginnings came long before Supply was blocked but it did directly affect how the LNP targetted the Government

So instead of Blocked Supply then Loan it was Loan - Block-Loan

Loans affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, bypassing the Loan Council would have been un-Constitutional from the look of it. But Rex Connor was only scoping out a source wasn't he? He never actually SECURED the 4 billion dollar loan?

 

[GreyCrow]

Yeah, bypassing the Loan Council would have been un-Constitutional from the look of it. But Rex Connor was only scoping out a source wasn't he? He never actually SECURED the 4 billion dollar loan?

Not for lack of trying

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Im not talking just about this. Elections are every 3 years. Youre okay with a Government going nowhere for 3 years?

Well, shouldn't Abbott have been removed by the governor general then?

 

[Power Raid]

Yeah, I don't know. I've had to contribute tax dollars to put our forces overseas in wars I've BITTERLY opposed and I've had to lump it. Whatever or whoever is installed in the LOdge we're all along for the ride no matter if we voted for them or not.

'Great damage'? I truly don't know. I'd say Australia as a nation would have kept meandering on its way.

It's always hard to say "what if" with any definitive position but we do know countries that had coups, moved towards dictatorships, ignoring constitutional limitations, "buy back the farms" and nationilsation of mining haven't fared well.

I would say our trajectory (without foreign interference) would have been more like Zimbabwe, South Africa, Argentina and Iran.

With foreign interference, which would have come given it was a cold war era, we would have seen the mass slaughter, civil war or a violent coup as we saw in Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia and every other nation that was strategic.

First to do what Gough wanted he would have had to dissolve parliament in its current form and control the government (note he had already relegated his own party, so ignoring parliement and the courts only required force/ military backing). This would mean controlling the courts and military to ensure they didn't mobilise against him and more importantly supported him. This would have triggered international condemnation and demands to return to a constitutional monarchy. These demands would have been lead by the UK and the US.

Whitlam and being a man that he was and saw himself above god, would have rejected those demands and invited Russian and Chinese support. The template to know what would have happened is Indonesia and the bloody coup lead by Suharto.


I guess this incident highlights the importance of a GG doing his job and letting the people decide, through democracy, the nations course and ensuring a smooth transition of power.

 

[Power Raid]

Yeah, bypassing the Loan Council would have been un-Constitutional from the look of it. But Rex Connor was only scoping out a source wasn't he? He never actually SECURED the 4 billion dollar loan?

Rex Conner was the individual seeking funding but the sourcing of funds was a pakistani trader with relationships in the middle east.

Imagine sourcing funds from a corrupt brutal feudal family, that ruled its own people with an iron fist.

 

[Power Raid]

Post whitlam, Australia wouldn't have missed out on much if Fraser didn't eventuate but imagine if Australia didn't get the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments? We would be a much poorer nation without their leadership

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Rex Conner was the individual seeking funding but the sourcing of funds was a pakistani trader with relationships in the middle east.

Imagine sourcing funds from a corrupt brutal feudal family, that ruled its own people with an iron fist.

Heh. I wonder how much funding (and therefore influence) the House of Saud has spread around over the years?

 

[Rob R]

Rex Conner was the individual seeking funding but the sourcing of funds was a pakistani trader with relationships in the middle east.

Imagine sourcing funds from a corrupt brutal feudal family, that ruled its own people with an iron fist.

We could try imagine it or just ask Dan Andrews what it is like to borrow from a brutal murderer?

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kwality]

Yeah, bypassing the Loan Council would have been un-Constitutional from the look of it. But Rex Connor was only scoping out a source wasn't he? He never actually SECURED the 4 billion dollar loan?

The reality is Gough faced the people & didnt have the support. 'Maintain the rage' proved to be a dud, loved by the rusted on, rejected by the majority.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The reality is Gough faced the people & didnt have the support. 'Maintain the rage' proved to be a dud, loved by the rusted on, rejected by the majority.

Yep. If he didn't have the support when facing the people he should have gone. We don't need Crown intervention to decide Australian affairs though. I do think there should be a wholly Australian mechanism that can act if things get too un-Constitutional as per the loans affair.

Outside funding - if they fund you they influence you. It can lead to worrisome places.

 

[Kwality]

Yep. If he didn't have the support when facing the people he should have gone. We don't need Crown intervention to decide Australian affairs though. I do think there should be a wholly Australian mechanism that can act if things get too un-Constitutional as per the loans affair.

Outside funding - if they fund you they influence you. It can lead to worrisome places.

We will see the role of our Monarch, involved etc ..... hopefully it will be clear.

 

[AM]

Whitlam trying to raise money from the Middle East illegally prior to the dismissal not a problem to you ?

The issue is the GG's role is to be neutral. To make it clearer to not be an active player in the party politics. To make it even clearer, he's the representative of Her Maj. Do you think Her Maj would give a second thought to doing what the piss head in Britain. I'll answer for you. NO!

 

[HairyO]

The issue is the GG's role is to be neutral. To make it clearer to not be an active player in the party politics. To make it even clearer, he's the representative of Her Maj. Do you think Her Maj would give a second thought to doing what the piss head did in Britain. I'll answer for you. NO!

And one of the roles of the GG is to dissolve Parliament when supply cant be passed.

 

[AM]

And one of the roles of the GG is to dissolve Parliament when supply cant be passed.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The role is not to be a political player ie to willfully act against a duly elected government as we are seeing and will be confirmed if all the dirty dealings are open to public view.

If you believe Her Maj would have acted in this way had these events occurred in the UK then you're living in a parallel universe.

 

[HairyO]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The role is not to be a political player ie to willfully act against a duly elected government as we are seeing and will be confirmed if all the dirty dealings are open to public view.

If you believe Her Maj would have acted in this way had these events occurred in the UK then you're living in a parallel universe.

These events cant happen in the UK because the Queen doesnt have the power to dissolve the British Parliament by her own choice.

 

[AM]

These events cant happen in the UK because the Queen doesnt have the power to dissolve the British Parliament by her own choice.

Fixed term parliaments certainly made that more difficult. However:

This position is now more complicated because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which removed the Queen’s power to dissolve parliament. This provides for an elaborate two-stage test with confidence votes. If a government loses a no-confidence vote, the act sets out a 14-day waiting period followed by a second vote. If that also ends in a vote of no confidence, then the act provides for a general election.

But what if the prime minister refuses to resign after the first vote to allow efforts to form a new government? On the face of the legislation, there is no obligation on the prime minister to resign. He or she could remain in place for the second vote to see what happens. There is nothing in the act to say otherwise. This silence is, however, not conclusive.

The statute regulates parliaments rather than government, and so the legislative silence can work differently. There is also nothing to prevent the crown from inviting someone else to try to form a government.

The question remains, would Her Maj ever become an active player in party politics? The answer is an emphatic no.

 

[HairyO]

Fixed term parliaments certainly made that more difficult. However:



The question remains, would Her Maj ever become an active player in party politics? The answer is an emphatic no.

So we take away the option of the GG to dissolve Parliament and make it automatic if Supply Bills fail a set number of times.

Youre okay with that?

Given this happened in 1975, what is the fuss?

Labor lost the next 3 elections. The voters knew that his government stank.

 

[Kwality]

So we take away the option of the GG to dissolve Parliament and make it automatic if Supply Bills fail a set number of times.

Youre okay with that?

Given this happened in 1975, what is the fuss?

Labor lost the next 3 elections. The voters knew that his government stank.

The idea that a Fed Govt faces the voter is THE problem.

 

[HairyO]

The idea that a Fed Govt faces the voter is THE problem.

The idea that a Govt passes Legislation or goes to an election seems to also be a problem.

 

[AM]

So we take away the option of the GG to dissolve Parliament and make it automatic if Supply Bills fail a set number of times.

Youre okay with that?

Given this happened in 1975, what is the fuss?

Labor lost the next 3 elections. The voters knew that his government stank.

It's not taking that option away. The matter is about a GG who threw out the key neutrality role and became an active player in the political process. Something you continually fail to comprehend cos it doesn't suit your narrative.