Damian Staveley The Times, They Are a-Changin’ Gough Whitlam Gough Whitlam was a turning point in the history of Australia, bringing an end to Labor’s twenty- three year oppositional role and going on to implement legislative, party and cultural change, a feat still remembered today. However, continuous Senate obstruction and mistakes on the Government’s part led to one of the most memorable and contested moments in Australian politics. Whitlam was an exponent of change, more often than not the changes proved to have a positive impact, however sometimes the benefits were not always explicit. The varying interpretations of the Government’s affect on Australia, as well as the inevitable political deadlock between Whitlam’s Government and the Opposition, eventually led then Governor General of Australia Sir John Kerr to do what had never been attempted in the nation’s history and, in November 1975, the Prime Minister of Australia was dismissed. The memory of the Whitlam Government is now celebrated among some; however, in the perspective of history the 11th of November 1975 gave Remembrance Day a new meaning to politics, but especially to the man that was hitherto commonly believed to be the most powerful man in Australia. Gough Whitlam proved to be a breath of fresh air to the Labor Party as it stood in 1945, the year Whitlam joined the party, providing a new discourse of diversity, equality and, primarily, change. Whitlam recognised the challenge when he joined the Australian Labor Party (ALP) as a well educated man, differing to most ALP members, who were mainly of working class descent; he saw the Party was unfit for rule and needed a new belief system. A biographical quote from Whitlam in Hocking supports this, with Whitlam stating, “the ALP was racist before it was radical” (Whitlam, G. in Hocking, J. (2008) pp. 205). When Whitlam was voted in as leader of the Opposition in 1967, succeeding Arthur Calwell, there is still evidence supporting the view that Labor, and indeed policy, needed to change. Corroborating the continuity of this belief are nationalism supporters Alomes, S. and Jones, C., which quote a 1972 political speech, wherein Whitlam said, “we cannot afford to limp along with men whose attitudes are rooted in the slogans of the 1950’s – the slogans of fear and hate” (Whitlam, G. in Alomes, S. and Jones, C. (1991) pp. 352). After the victory of the Labor Government in the 1972 election change occurred almost instantaneously, with the formation of a duumvirate between Whitlam and his Deputy Lance Barnard. During this time, approximately forty significant decisions were made, including the release of conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War from prison, the withdrawal of remaining forces from Vietnam and the recognition of a communist People’s Republic of China. Whitlam brought about swift change, providing a new sense of reform for Australia, and went on to produce some major legislative change, some of which with unprecedented historical value. Three of the major reforms of the Whitlam Government were the introduction of the ‘needs principle,’ the initiation of various policies regarding Indigenous Australians and the assumption of full Federal responsibility for tertiary education. The needs principle ended the sectarian debate on State and Federal funding of private schools. Until Gough Whitlam came into power, the Federal Government used a uniform system of per capita grants to private schools, a practice former Education Minister Malcolm Fraser championed. Whitlam abolished this policy, introducing a system that would give funding to both public and private schools based on need; in order to determine this need, the Australian School’s Commission was created. Whitlam foresaw these changes as far back as the 1st of October 1951, the date on which Gough Whitlam spoke in the House of Representatives Damian Staveley regarding education for the first time. During this speech he said that, “the Commonwealth will gradually be obliged to take over that function from the States” (Whitlam, G. in ED Hocking, J. and Lewis, C. (2003) pp. 244). This policy reduced the fiscal difficulties of the State’s education budget, which, during the 1970’s, absorbed 40% of State Government recurrent spending (Marginson, S. in ED Hocking, J. and Lewis, C. (2003) pp. 247). The second of Whitlam’s most definitive policies, Aboriginal welfare, was also promptly introduced. After one week of office Whitlam ordered Royal Commissioner Justice Woodward to report on arrangements for granting land to Indigenous groups and procedures for examining Aboriginal claims in the Northern Territory; by 19 December 1972 the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was established, in which all states except Queensland gave the Federal Government responsibility for Aboriginal welfare. This wasn’t the first step towards Federal responsibility of Indigenous people, however it was the most significant; the 1967 Referendum may have granted enfranchisement and the Government concurrent powers regarding Aboriginal affairs, nevertheless, it did not stop backward policy making from a conservative Menzies. Law lecturer Tony Buti wrote in 1999 that, “it was [in 1967] that the official policy shifted from assimilation to integration…however, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what the difference is and what ‘integration’ was intended to mean” (Buti, T. (2005) online). After Whitlam’s centralisation of Aboriginal welfare, however, policy became that of self-determination, marking a change in Australia’s history – the idea of an Aboriginal self-identity became a reality. Whitlam treasured this as his most prominent achievement; in one of his autobiographical memoirs he expresses his satisfaction, saying, “…if there is one cause for which future historians will salute us, it is this: that the Government I lead removed a stain from our national honour and brought back justice and equality to the Aboriginal people” (Whitlam, G. (1985) pp. 468). The third decision in Whitlam’s Prime Ministerial career that is deemed memorable is the full Federal funding of tertiary education. This program, the precursor to HECS, enabled lower-income families the same opportunities as those with higher-incomes, equalising the education system so that it would focus on academic merits rather than on financial status. These changes brought new life to the Australian Labor Party, with the reform implemented during the Whitlam era making its mark on history by institutionalising equality and diversity in Australian society; an achievement worth celebrating. Methods used by Whitlam in order to successfully implement change, however, have been criticised by some; this criticism, though, has remained marginal. The main ideology behind Whitlam’s time in Government was ‘crash through or crash;’ Whitlam defends this abrupt style in his autobiography, published on the tenth anniversary of the dismissal, writing, “…in politics nothing is inevitable, least of all change” (Whitlam, G. (1985) pp. 1). Also supporting Whitlam is Kelly, who holds the opinion that Whitlam had to push as much legislation through while the public still undoubtedly supported him. In Kelly’s 1995 book he quotes his 1976 work, in which he wrote, “once a compromise was made, once the spirit and pace of reform slackened, it was quite likely lost forever” (Kelly, P. 1976 in Kelly, P. (1995) pp. 7). Whitlam’s philosophy on reform originated from his government’s plan for Australia, dubbed the ‘Program,’ which laid out everything the Government hoped to accomplish. This could be viewed as determination on behalf of Whitlam; however, Whitlam’s refusal to stray from the Program also resulted in the view that it was narrow-mindedness. In support of this view is former Prime Minister of the Coalition Government, Robert Menzies, who said on that Whitlam believed, “in which to be logical is to be right and to be right is its own justification” (Menzies, R. in Kelly, P. (1995) pp. 7). This negativity casts doubt onto whether or not Whitlam’s policies were very well thought out. This viewpoint, however, is largely ignored by orthodox sources, as evidenced in Damian Staveley the National Museum of Australia website, which says that, “the legislative program of the Whitlam Government was groundbreaking and frenetic. A whole raft of legislation covering existing and new areas of government activity was passed” (National Museum of Australia (2007) online). Being an orthodox source, this demonstrates that there is more praise than there is criticism of the Government’s ‘Program’ and the way in which Whitlam went about implementing it. The crash through or crash method adopted by the Government was successful, albeit uncouth according to critics; nonetheless any criticism has remained marginalised in the dominant discourse, indicating that the history and memories of Whitlam have celebrated change rather than rejected it. The negative interpretations of Whitlam’s actions in Government, however marginalised, as well as the inevitable political deadlock between the Government and the Opposition, were the main factors in Whitlam’s demise as leader. Whitlam believed that nothing like the events of the dismissal could ever occur; he believed, up until 1975, that the Governor General would never act in an autonomous manner. This belief is substantiated in Whitlam’s autobiographical memoir published shortly after the dismissal in 1979, wherein he wrote, “…the governor-general will act on the advice of his Australian ministers…as the Queen does on the advice of hers” (Whitlam, G. (1979) pp. 29). Even though avidly republican after the dismissal, while in office Whitlam sought to please the country’s voters by displaying acceptance of the Queen’s technical rule by maintaining ties with the Monarchy, contradicting his eventual rejection; during the Queen’s visit in 1974 the Sydney Morning Herald editorialised that, “it was most appropriate…that Mr. Whitlam was able to consult the Queen personally about her new representative while she is in Canberra” (Sydney Morning Herald, 1974 in Whitlam, G.