This is not an election of competing ideas for the Advancement of Australia, which was the theme of our National Anthem. It has become a competition between the false promises of several suitors for the hand of our Nation into a future environment from which divorce will be near impossible.
I cannot put it more simply than ‘we are on the cusp of entering a new Dark Ages.’
I wasn’t there for the last one (thank goodness) but I believe “Dark Ages” can be best described as “a state of the Nation (and/or World) where the Rule of Law prevents any ordinary person from improving the circumstances of their life or the lives of others.’ Using an American analogy, the Dark Ages descend when the State by new oppressive “Rules” deprives its citizens of the ability to enjoy Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I can only speak with proper authority about Australia during and after WWII and about the various facets of the Real Estate Market because they are my lived-experience. Most Australian Politicians and Australian Public Servants cannot because it is outside their lived-experience.
Australia slowly emerged from a darker age (than today) after WWII. It got better almost every year until Bob Menzies retired on Australia Day 26th January 1966, the retirement delayed 6 days because of the death of the Minister for Defence Shane Partridge.
Unfortunately for all the good Bob Menzies did he left Australia without a true leader. The Leader of the Country Party (now Nationals) was John McEwen. His Deputy Liberal Leader and nominal successor was Harold Holt, the Treasurer, who became Leader and Prime Minister on Australia Day 26 January 1966 and died in Office under strange circumstances on 19 December 1967. He had been in Office less than 2 years. By this stage Richard Casey had become Governor General, Percy Spender had retired and William Spooner, Alan Hulme, Hubert Opperman, Harrie Wade, Athol Townley, Garfield Barwick, Alexander Downer snr, David Fairburn had all left the Ministry and outer Ministry.
The death of Harold Holt left a Vacuum leaving Paul Hasluck and William McMahon as the leading senior members of Cabinet.
The Caretaker Prime Minister was John McEwen (the last of the pre-war Cabinet Ministers) who held that position for 43 days. It was in those turbulent days that the face of Australia changed. Caretaker PM John McEwen refused to serve if the Caucus elected Deputy Liberal Leader William McMahon. So in the subsequent election for leader were Paul Hasluck Minister for External Affairs, Leslie Bury Minister for Labour and Industry and from the outer cabinet Billy Sneddon Minister for Immigration. Also Senate Leader and Minister for Education and Science Senator John Gorton contested the Ballot and from what is viewed as a revolt of the back-bench John Gorton won by a slender margin. Being the first Senator to win the Prime Ministership Gorton was under the constitutional requirement that he be elected to the House of Representatives within 90 days. He duly contested election and became Member for Higgins on 24 February 1968.
Three other major events in the time of Harold Holt were the Introduction of Decimal Currency 14 February 1966. The elevation of Gough Whitlam after many years battling against Leader Arthur Caldwell, to Leader of the Opposition 9 February 1967 defeating Dr Jim Cairns. Then the Referendum to remove the word ‘Aboriginal’ from the Constitution on 27 May 1967 which was won by an overwhelming majority.
The Gorton years were full of leadership battles mainly instigated by William McMahon. The field of contestants was narrowed when PM Gorton nominated Paul Hasluck to succeed as Governor General and after the disastrous election of October 1960 he promoted many new faces to cabinet. Things came to a head on 10 March 1971 when McMahon moved a vote of No Confidence and it became tied at 33 votes all. Although by tradition Gorton could remain PM he resigned and William McMahon became Prime Minister.
I will not recanvass the Whitlam years at this point other than to make the observation that of all the socialist policies instituted by the Whitlam Government the most dangerous revolved around Higher Education. In an attempt to give most of Australian citizens the opportunity to get a Bachelor level degree he elevated the Teachers Colleges to be Colleges of Advanced Education. The effect of this was to take Nursing Education out of the Teaching Hospitals and onto College campuses and to create a dichotomy between Registered Nurses and Enrolled Nurses. I knew a number of Sister level nurses and they were of the opinion it lowered the standard of nursing and the ability to maintain discipline on the wards. The effect of this move was even greater in the education of School Teachers.
Before the changes a student would attend school and sit a Matriculation Examination. If they wanted to gain a tertiary qualification they needed to gain a sufficient academic standard to qualify for a Scholarship or Bursary to a University or pay fees. The fees were unfortunately beyond the financial ability of many families. These students had alternative ways to enter a profession, one was nursing (as I suggested earlier in this paper) and another was to become a School Teacher. The entry to teaching was through a Teachers College which obviously had a lower entry standard than a University Scholarship but never-the-less took many of the brightest students and some that were not as academically gifted.
However, the more practical approach to education and training of student teachers produced, in my opinion, a better standard of teaching in the classrooms of Australia. Universities allowed many social concepts over the ensuing years to lessen the status and effectiveness of Teachers in our classrooms, leading to the current controversy over the National Curriculum and the shortage of subject specialist teachers. In the 3 to 4 generations of Teachers since the Whitlam era there has been a decline in the educational performance of our school-children by most standards of measurement.
Returning now to the theme of the danger of us entering another “Dark Age”. We are only three days away from that possibility. The risk is much greater via a Labor-led Government than with the Coalition retaining the Government benches.
I don’t make these comments lightly.
Anthony Albanese gives the Multi-cultural aspect of our population ‘rave notices’ and this aspect has grown since the days of Al Grasby’s Ministry in the Whitlam Government. However, Albanese’s over-enthusiastic support for the “Uluru Statement from the Heart” and the separate racially based “Voice to Parliament” makes a mockery of both the concept of Multi-culturalism and of the principles and values of Citizenship.
In 1967 the population of Australia overwhelmingly supported the amendment to Sec 51 (xxvi) taking all references to Aborigines and Aboriginal from the Constitution. The only reason they were included in the Constitution was that the existing Colonies, which ceded certain powers to the future Australia via the Constitution, were not prepared to surrender their control of the Aboriginal people from the future States to the future Commonwealth. After 67 years and a growing understanding of human rights the population of the States no longer wanted their State Laws to place Aboriginal People in any lesser standard of citizenship than any other Australian.
The retention of the amended Sec.51(xxvi) was to retain to the Commonwealth the ONLY power to make racially based legislation and the fact they have not done so is of great importance. To my knowledge the only race based legislations by the Commonwealth were under the description:
“The White Australia” policy which was introduced by the Labor Party early in Federation to control the undermining of workers conditions and incomes by the use of indentured labour of the non-European population (mainly Chinese and Pacific Islanders). The possession of the power and its non-exercise has been the backbone of our immigration policies and the Multi-cultural Australia it has produced. Imagine the unevenness of Citizenship if the policy enunciated by Senator Wong to appoint an Ambassador for the “First Nations” to the rest of the World would create.
The “Dark Ages” would be close behind.
Labor also has a Shadow Minister for the Republic and intends to introduce legislation quickly if they are elected.
In 1931 the Palace agreed to the appointment of an Australian Sir Isaac Isaacs to the Governor Generalship and since the appointment of Lord Richard Casey on 7 May 1965 every single appointment of Governor General has been to an Australian. I have yet to hear a reason why we should have a Republic other than the Governor General should not be allowed to sack a duly elected Prime Minister. I can only respond that the people showed they were firmly behind Governor General Sir John Kerr when he ‘sacked’ Prime Minister Gough Whitlam when they were given a chance to vote at the election only 32 days later.
The only other instance of a Governor sacking a Premier occurred in New South Wales during the Depression when Premier Jack Lang, not wanting the State to meet its Financial obligations, withdrew the State’s funds from the bank and, I believe, took the money in a strong box with him to the Trades Hall, The Governor Sir Phillip Game, unable to get the Premier to comply sacked him on 13 May 1932. Again the people supported the move in the elections held 28 days later.
I cannot conceive a stable nation in which the Governor general or President can be sacked by the Prime Minister. I believe there are many important safeguards in having a final arbiter in the hands of someone trained from birth to be able to impartially carry out the duties rather than someone appointed by a Government or even by popular vote.
