Senator Andrew Bartlett
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
 
11th November also marks the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975.
It is ironic that 29 years later, the Liberals have once again been given control of the Senate. There's a fair argument to say that the Liberal's control of the Senate in 1975 was less legitimate, as it was only gained by virtue of State Governments showing contempt for convention and democratic representation by appointing people to fill Senate vacancies who were not from the same party as the person they were replacing. This time around, there can be no argument against the legitimacy of the Liberal Party's majority. (Of course they aren't likely to block supply to themselves either).

Gough Whitlam is a figure who elicits views almost as disparate as Ned Kelly. Many people view him as a Labor Party hero and a visionary. Others deride his Government as a debacle. My own view is that in many ways he is lucky he was dismissed from Government in such a disgraceful, anti-democratic way as it has made him a martyr and a victim of such injustice that it obscures his many failings. If he had simply gone to an election 18 months later, he would probably have been tossed out of office by the voters by a huge margin.

Gough was definitely a visionary and we need more of those in politics, but his implementation of those visions was dreadfully flawed. I was only 8 years old when Whitlam was elected to power and his time coincides with my earliest memories of politics. I still remember as an 11 year old being told by my sister that he'd been sacked. In my mind, I can see her, her hand holding on to the door as she is coming out of our back bathroom. She was 13 and was smiling – I don’t know whether out of joy or just because it was an exciting event.

Perhaps it wasn't the dinner table conversation of the average 11 year old, but I recall regular discussions between my parents about what they saw as the appalling nature of that Government. Whilst they probably would have normally admired Gough's intellectual nature and his knowledge of ancient history and culture, I think that was overshadowed by their intense dislike of his arrogance and their perception that much of his Ministry was a shambles.

There's an old book worth reading called "The Whitlam Venture" written by Alan Reid, a journalist of the time, which whilst probably biased against Whitlam, certainly shows how undeniably shoddy a lot of things were at that time. I think I must have inherited a sensitivity to displays of arrogance, as it is certainly something that very easily rubs me up the wrong way.

I believe some of the Whitlam Government ideals, particularly regarding education, are ones we should still admire, and the achievement of initiating Medibank/Medicare in particular is enough reason to be thankful that he did get a chance to serve in office. However, despite being unlucky in being hit with both the oil price shock and state Premiers with no respect for democracy distorting the make up of the Senate, my view is that the grotesque injustice of his dismissal obscures his Government's failings and major incompetence.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Permalink
|


<< Home