Gough Whitlam is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 25, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept March 24, 2006 Featured article review Demoted January 23, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former featured article

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government	(Rated B-Class)	BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WPBiographybiography articles
Biography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

WikiProject Australia / Melbourne / Politics	(Rated B-Class, High-importance)	AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Australia portal v • d • e Gough Whitlam is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (marked as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Top-importance). This article was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (15-29 October 2006). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.

WikiProject Politics	(Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)	PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject PoliticsPolitics articles
Politics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a request, submitted by (unknown), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

Archives
Talk:Gough Whitlam/archive1 Talk:Gough Whitlam/archive2

Contents 1 B-class article 2 Removed assessment 3 Medibank / Medicare 3.1 agree about Medicare 4 Bob Ellis: Labour Historian?? 5 The dismissal section -Made changes with references 6 Date of Barwick's advice 7 photo 8 ... so fix it. 9 Good article nomination 10 1969 election 2pp 11 Claim to be the longest-lived former PM 12 Spoken Article 13 accuracy

[edit] B-class article

Perhaps Longhair and his fellow solons could tell us mere editors what they find about this article that makes it second-rate in their view. I am willing to put in more time on it (in honour of the Great Man's 90th birthday) if Longahair can advise of its deficiencies. Adam 08:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good question. This article is excellent. Perhaps Longhair is nitpicky about the fact that not many specific statements are sourced; while the reference section is comprehensive it's not clear what parts of the article come from where. --Robert Merkel 06:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If this article had previously met Good article standards (I note it's former FA status), I'd have surely assessed it as being of A-Class. I guess it's my way of saying Why hasn't this article been taken back to GA or FA already? It's a brilliant article Adam, and I trust your expertise on the subject in saying so. Let's bring another quality Australian article out of the shadows. Some more inline references here and there (they're a fussy mob over at FA and I strong suggest making use of WP:CITE) and I'm sure this would reach FA status without a hitch. -- Longhair 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

References section started. Add some more at your leisure. --Robert Merkel 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Even at his 90th birthday, it appears EGW does NOT wear glasses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.78.162 (talk • contribs)

OK I will dust off my references and see what can be done. We are still waiting a serious academic or official biography - I assume there is one in the pipe awaiting the GM's demise, but this event seems some way off yet. And indeed, I have never seen Gough in glasses, either in person or in a photo. Adam 08:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone realises that by lavishing more time and attention on the Great Gough, we are guilty of systemic bias, and we will now to redo all the PM articles to get them up to the same standard. They were passable two years when I wrote most of them, but they need upgrading now - especially Menzies and Fraser. Adam 08:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's been a greater push for referencing of late since the introduction of Category:Living people and the controversies that proceeded its' creation. I've spotted a few other Australian politician articles close to meeting the Good Article criteria, most with similar referencing issues only. It won't take long to get them all up to todays par. What was considered good around here yesterday seems old hat now. -- Longhair 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about referencing, I'm talking about depth of coverage. Fraser was PM for twice as long as Whitlam but his article is seriously inferior, and he has had a solid biography (Ayres) we could canibalise. The difference is systemic bias - everyone hates Fraser (even Liberals these days) so no-one bothers with his article. Adam 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way does anyone know what happened to Cathy Whitlam? The three sons are easily googleable but she has presumably married and disappeared from view. Adam 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PPS I hate the way this footnoting device we are now using disrupts the line spacings. It is very ugly and makes me reluctant to use it. Adam 08:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather ugly. However, given that we're being forced to reference things in a general-readership encyclopedia, footnoting is about the least ugly way of doing things, and the beauty of using the referencing code that if somebody fixes the code to make the references look prettier, we won't have to do any changes to the article itself; it'll just happen.

As far as the formatting goes, however, I wonder whether something that looks like what happens when inline URLs are used, like this: [1], might be better than superscripted footnotes. What do you think? --Robert Merkel 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't disrupt the line-spacing, but they often have this funny little gap that follows them, which I don't like either. I've always prefered Harvard footnoting myself, but it seems to have no following here. Adam 10:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What I'm proposing, however, is that Wikipedia's referencing system be modified to display referencing like the example I've given, but without the funny little gap and using the dark blue to indicate an internal link. That would require asking the powers that be to change the footnoting code. But the point is that if we use the built-in referencing system any future technical changes to improve the appearance will happen automatically. And inputting references is f(*&Jg tedious, so I dunno about you but I'd certainly prefer to only have to do it once. --Robert Merkel 10:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand that point (you have to explain technical matters s l o w l y to me). I will persevere. Adam 10:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here considering that I might read this article for Spoken Wikipedia; it's a very interesting article and I commend those who have worked so hard on it. However, as a new reader I found myself noticing many assertions that didn't appear to be substantiated. I'm sure they are well known facts to people more familiar with the subject, and perhaps that is sufficient in itself, but my sense is that Wikipedia likes to see such statements be supported. I added a couple of citation needed tags where I thought they were especially needed. Natebailey 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following unsourced statements in preparation for GA review:

• Although Whitlam knew this was partly a ploy by Hawke to get him out of the country, he hugely enjoyed the Paris posting and made a great impression on other UNESCO delegates. He has published several volumes of memoirs.
• The Labor historian Bob Ellis has described him as "the self-appointed deity of the Labor Party".
• Whitlam has also been offered both a Companion of Honour (CH) and a position as a Privy Councillor, but in keeping with his opposition to Imperial Honours, but he declined the offers.

haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was a former Featured Article. Seems a bit of a backward step to aim for GA... Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but the FA criteria seems to have tightened up a bit since then, especially WRT WP:BLP. I thought I'd aim low and avoid disappointment! haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed assessment

This is one possible interpretation of the Whitlam era's economic policies: however, it's not NPOV-compliant and unsourced.

The flow on effects of Whitlam reforms became evident in the following years. The tarriff cuts and abolition of the tarriff board allowed imports to be sold in the Australian market and effectively compete with locally-made goods. Whitlam implemented this measure in an attempt to break the connection between inflation and rising wages prices (caused by market forces and union pressure). He believe that if businesses were forced maintain their prices by having to compete with imports, they would be unable to pass on the cost of wage-rises on to the consumer. Accordingly, "a level playing field" would be created because businesses would be forced to forgo profits to finance wage increases if they wished to remain competitive in the market place. In addition to bridging the financial gap between the employer and the employee, Whitlam believed that this transition would have the side benefit on controlling inflation for the same reasons: businesses cannot easily increase the prices of their goods and remain competitive if the market place contains imports at approximately the same price.

Unfortunately, narrowing profits started become narrow losses, largely within the manufacturing and manual labor industries. This was compounded by ongoing high interest rates, some further tarriff cuts, inflation and increasing taxes required to fund an expanding welfare expense. Throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, scores of manufactures closed down, either due to bankruptcy or relocation to neighbouring countries where labor was cheaper, from which, they then exported their goods into Australia. The economic recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s reduced their numbers even further. Ironically, the tarriff reform policy that the Whitlam government designed with the intention of benefitting the working class was one of the largest contributing factors to the collapse of work-class industries, which accordingly resulted in mass unemployment across the manufacturing, trade and manual handling sectors. Textile and footwear manufacturing in particular has all but disappeared from the Australian business landscape.

Despite the economic boom since the millenium onwards, Australia has an enormous and concerning foreign trade deficit, fueled by increased consumer spending in a market where the vast majority of products are manufactured overseas and imported. In the absence of a strong manufacturing sector, Australian governments have been unable to reverse or even stall the growing foreign trade deficit and it continues to remain an issue of growing concern amongst all sectors of governments and economists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Merkel (talk • contribs)

[edit] Medibank / Medicare

Just a susggestion about a point which could be considered confusing for some. Medibank was later(1984) reintroduced as Medicare. This not being included could prove confusing for some as there is now a private health insurer called Medibank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.187.29 (talk • contribs)

[edit] agree about Medicare

I got in to make this point and find someone raised it a while ago but nothing has been changed. I think that people reading the article could easily think that Australia does not currently have a universal public health insurance scheme and so in addition to this statement in th article:

Institute a universal health insurance system to be known as Medibank (later under the Fraser government, Medibank was abandoned as a universal health insurance system).

maybe something like (A universal health insurance scheme was later re-introduced in 1984 by...) etc. The current scheme is still part of the legacy of the Whitlam Government, despite having had to be reintroduced. Lucy1958 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the detail is necessary. The Medicare Benefits Schedule derives its authority from "The Health Insurance Act 1973 as amended", so clearly Whitlam's legislation has survived in some form. In this diff I have removed the mentions of Fraser government reversal of the scheme, and mentioned its name change in the "Legacy" section. I also removed "universal" from its description in deference to the amendments since Whitlam's time. --Surturz (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Ellis: Labour Historian??

Is it correct to call Bob Ellis a labour historian. He has a strong interest in labour history, but he is also, a well known writer of opinion pieces. Perhaps this makes him somewhat too biased to be a Historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.204.141 (talk • contribs)

[edit] The dismissal section -Made changes with references

Taken the liberty to make several changes, cited with references. The sub-article is about the dismissal of Whitlam; that being so then the leads-up around replacement senators into the Senate (debates around Section 15 of the Constitution) are scene setters and warm-up to the main event. The main event, the actual dismissal was precipitated by the issue of a government failing to get supply (in accordance with Section 53) and the actions taken by Kerr (Section 64 of the Constitution)to avert that money crisis.

The role of any parliamentary government and its only legimiate reason for its existance and continuance is to raise tax(supply) monies for the running and payment of government services/business. This matter has been almost by-passed in the article, thus missing the essence of the dismissal and so I made several changes - hopefully in a neutral opionion - to reflect the matter of money bills. Whilst there is still angst around what occurred on 11 November 1975, the 'constitutional crisis' was over the looming issue of Supply and this sub-article, if it is to evolve into an accurate piece of writing ought focus on the question of money bills, to conduct and provide the services of government.Tonyob 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Barwick's advice

The date of Barwick's advice to Kerr is mentioned, twice, as 10 December 1975. This can't be right, as the whole furore was about Kerr daring to approach Barwick for advice before he decided to sack Whitlam. It must have been before 11 November. JackofOz 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

10 November 1975, the Monday morning. See Kelly, "November 1975", p223. Incidentally, the "furore" is misplaced. Barwick's advice was not in the nature of the advice Kerr would receive from a minister, but more in the line of a legal opinion. --Pete 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But surely it's inappropriate for the Chief Justice to be giving advisory opinions in such circumstances, an action quite clearly ultra vires? The GG had been explicitly advised by the PM not to seek any advice from Barwick. Slac speak up! 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The first point is not sound. Barwick did not claim to be giving an "advisory opinion", something neither the High Court nor the Chief Justice has the power to do. He was giving Kerr his personal opinion, which he had a perfect right to do. And it was not a "legal opinion" anyway, it was Barwick's opinion about Kerr's constitutional powers - essentially it was political advice. The second point, however, is sound. Whitlam had advised (ie, instructed) Kerr not to seek advice from Barwick (whom he quite rightly did not trust), and Kerr was wrong to then do so without advising Whitlam. Adam 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the salient point; not that Barwick's advice was good or otherwise in itself, or even whether he was speaking as a private citizen or as a learned judge, but that Kerr had no right to discuss the matter with Barwick at all because he was in so doing acting contrary to the advice of his Prime Minister. This aspect was very much a furore at the time as I recall, apart from the dismissal itself. I've amended the dates, thanks all. JackofOz 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photo

People people people, can we please change the picture that appears at the beginning of this article. I think a photograph depicting the man at the height of his leadership is probably more appropriate than a recent photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.93.97 (talk • contribs)

If you have such a photo that is copyright free or that you hold the copyright for, please feel free to upload it. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 03:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. It is allowed as per hesperians comments about politician photos, and im told it is still ok like i've changed it to, as there is no fair free use alternative for him 'at that age'. Timeshift 03:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, I was just about to post here saying that since he is still alive, shouldn't we have a current photo of him? Oh well, if ppl think a photo of him while he was PM is better, so be it. --Surturz (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...I think you'd be the only wikipedian to advocate that a modern-day image is better as the main photo than a photo of them during their time as PM... Timeshift (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a picture of him in his prime, PERIOD. It is all 1950,s then 2004 etc. What about some that represent him in the era of PM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.79.167 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, if you have a free one, reveal it to us!! Timeshift (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ... so fix it.

This would be the reply to the post I was going to make on this article - that it is long, repeats itself in parts, has prose that is at times disjointed and listish. I think we should make this article a target for improvement in the near future, with an emphasis at first on consolidating and clearing the cobwebs, and then on putting in any missing info, sources etc needed to complete the article, before finally trying to earn this article's prior FA status back. Orderinchaos 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ACOTF? It'd be nice to have a collaboration article people actually collaborate on.--cj | talk 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start. This article was one where Adam Carr and I were able to collaborate effectively. I note that over the intervening time it's become harder to find any criticism of Whitlam, whose downfall seems to have been a plot by his enemies, rather than the natural result of a massive loss of public confidence in two years.

I've corrected a few details and removed a paragraph of speculation about Albert Field. --Pete 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The piece could use more references - the references given are in a variety of styles. The dismissal has a long, almost minute by minute, description which duplicates (and probably contradicts) what is contained in the main article on that event. We could usefully reduce this to a paragraph or two.

Interesting to see that the loans affair barely rates a mention. IMHO, that was the scandal that ended any chance Whitlam had of survival, and set the Opposition to work at getting rid of him before the next election was due. --Pete 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to place on the record that the Loans Affair is wikilinked at Australian federal election, 1975. Timeshift 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The question of balance is raised. Important negative events such as TLA get barely a mention, but the dismissal sprawls over several screens, heavily whitewashed. Whitlam really stuffed up that one. On a positive note, I'd like to see some more discussion about what Whitlam meant to Australian society. Some of the things he did were truly revolutionary, and he was a living embodiment of WP:IAR long before Jimbo thought of the concept. --Pete 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

I found this article engaging to read, but unfortunately there are just not enough citations to support what is being said. Please see WP:When to cite, and the Mary Wollstonecraft (FA) article as an example of a well-referenced article, and add more citations.

I'm putting this article on hold as the article is close to meeting the GA criteria, however the issue noted above should be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, without even reading the article, I noticed that the third paragraph of "Prime Minister 1972-75" is not a work of prose, but a list smashed together and separated by semicolons — this will need to be fixed as well. Cheers, CP 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of it is defensible and based on the books listed in further reading, but to get to FA it will need sources for each para (perhaps less for GA) and that the books will have to be looked at and page references inserted.--Grahame (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's bad form to make suggestions and not do something about them. If i can, I'll come back to the page, but for what it is worth I have three suggestions:

• provide more references for the government's acheivements, both in the 1972-75 section and the 'Legacy' section.
• try and find a little more information on his early life / family background
• most pressing issue: the organisation, prioritisation, writing quality and sequencing of material from "Legacy", through "East Timor" to "Out of office" can get much better.

Having said all that, I think this looks very good and surely cannot be a long way from FA quality, not just GA. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate what I stated above and totally agree with Grahame. More references are needed to support what is being said. The article needs sources for most paragraphs and needs page numbers for book sources where possible. The article is still not worthy of GA status at this time. Please consider re-submitting the article after improvements are made. -- Johnfos (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1969 election 2pp

He actually won a bare majority of the two-party preferred vote, but the Democratic Labor Party's longstanding practice of preferencing against Labor left him four seats short of bringing the Coalition down. - what does one have to do with the other? If one votes DLP then Liberal then Labor, that goes to the Liberal 2pp. If one votes DLP then Labor then Liberal, that goes to the Labor 2pp. Timeshift (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claim to be the longest-lived former PM

It was reported that at his 92nd birthday celebration Gough "... cheerfully claimed the title of the longest-living former prime minister - after overtaking Billy Hughes, John Gorton and Winston Churchill".

This isn't quite right, because Frank Forde lived for 92 years and 194 days. Gough will overtake him on 22 January 2009. Some people don't count Forde because he was a very short-term PM, but he wasn't just an acting PM so he should definitely be taken into account. I'm sure Gough knows this, and I'm surprised at this claim (I'm assuming the journo accurately recorded his words).

But leaving Forde aside, Gough has certainly lived longer than Churchill, Hughes and Gorton (see below). So he's clearly comparing himself to other Commonwealth PMs, not just Australian PMs. I wonder about the basis of his claim. Is there some published analysis of the lifespans of all Commonwealth PMs so that we can assess this claim? If it's true that come January 2009 he'll be the longest-lived Commonwealth Prime Minister, I guess this deserves a mention. In the meantime, perhaps the honour should go to Frank Forde - which would be quite a pair: shortest-served and (for now) longest-lived Australian PM (and, possibly, longest-lived Commonwealth PM).

• 50 Rudd (living)
• 59.134 Holt
• 59.204 Lyons
• 60.178 Curtin
• 63.065 Deakin
• 64 Keating (living)
• 65.264 Chifley
• 66.064 Fisher
• 69 Howard (living)
• 70.354 Barton
• 73.199 Reid
• 74.223 Watson
• 76.132 Scullin
• 78.008 Fadden
• 78 Hawke (living)
• 78 Fraser (living)
• 80.037 McMahon
• 80.237 McEwen
• 81.134 Page
• 83.146 Menzies
• 84.132 Bruce
• 86.235 Cook
• 90.034 Hughes
• 90.055 (UK) Churchill
• 90.253 Gorton
• 92 Whitlam (living)
• 92.194 Forde

-- JackofOz (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As an acting Prime Minister, did Forde get to do things like be sworn in and form a ministry? Perhaps there is some technicality there? Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just the point. He didn't just act as PM while the ALP chose a leader to succeed Curtin. He was Curtin's deputy, and he was sworn in as the fully official Prime Minister. The Forde Ministry is just as recognized as any of Menzies', Hawke's or Howard's ministries. True, he didn't last enough time to do anything worth remembering, so he's often overlooked, or even erroneously characterised as an "acting PM" or "caretaker PM". In political terms, I suppose one could say he was merely "acting", or a "caretaker" (because he was never seen as Curtin's natural successor, and Chifley was the man of the hour) - but in constitutional terms he was definitely not acting for those 8 days. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Forde Ministry - thanks. I'm not sure then. Timeshift (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Commonwealth comparisons the longest lived UK Prime Minister was James Callaghan who died one day short of his 93rd birthday. Harold Macmillan lived to 92 years and 320 days - see List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity. There don't appear to be lists on other PMs across the Commonwealth, though I guess Éamon de Valera would also count as he held office when Ireland was in the Commonwealth and he lived to 92 years and 319 days. Whitlam isn't yet in the top three for this. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that Hastings Banda, Prime Minister of Malawi, may have been 101 when he died. But no-one knows for sure. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken Article

Stone4545 (talk) is currently recording or editing an audio version of this article. See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information. This notice is dated 05:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC) . If a significant amount of time has passed, please check with Stone4545 (talk) to see if he or she is still working before removing this message.

"The crisis of 1975 was precipitated by the Senate's refusal to pass the Whitlam government's money (Supply) bill. In October 1975, the Opposition moved to delay consideration of the budget in the Senate. This delay would have resulted in essential public services ceasing to function due to lack of money; that is to say the opposition essentially stopped societys vital function to get rid of Whitlam."

I vote for this descrtiption of events. It's obvious that there was a concerted effort to remove Whitlam. Blaming Whitlams demise on himself is a form of newspeak that borders on the absurd. Quoting conservative historians and writers notwithstanding. Be real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.44.195 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] accuracy

"The crisis of 1975 was precipitated by the Senate's refusal to pass the Whitlam government's money (Supply) bill. In October 1975, the Opposition moved to delay consideration of the budget in the Senate. This delay would have resulted in essential public services ceasing to function due to lack of money; that is to say the opposition essentially stopped societys vital function to get rid of Whitlam."

I vote for this descrtiption of events. It's obvious that there was a concerted effort to remove Whitlam. Blaming Whitlams demise on himself is a form of newspeak that borders on the absurd. Quoting conservative historians and writers notwithstanding. Let's not turn dishonest in our description of events for the sake of winning arguments or pushing political views.