But did Kerr "change, forever, the face of Australian democracy"? This has receded into history. Young people have no idea about the people, the actions, the ideas that were current at the time. Perhaps the key point is that Whitlam's dismissal was never legally or constitutionally challenged. The Queen was interested, but determined not to intervene. The rage subsided and evaporated like floodwater.
Great series - I've always loved it. Surprised that the didn't show what happened immediately after the dismissal as it is just as damning: * Fraser's motion of no confidence in Whitlam defeated by Labor majority. * Fraser's motion to adjourn the house defeated by Labor majority. * Labor's motion of no confidence in Fraser as new PM successful. Speaker of the house informed to advise the Governor General. * Governor General refuses to receive the Speaker.
Paulie Jay : Everything about the dismissal was planned, orchestrated & engineered by many differing factors. One was the fact the Whitlam government was not allowed to govern in its own right, after two consecutive election wins. The people only decided to elect Frasier & his Liberal/Country party because they just thought they would be the only one to govern & to finally just except that fact. The liberals were under no motive but to destroy Labor under any method or tactic that would present itself. The announcement to promote two non labor senators in the place of outgoing labor senators, gave Frasier government the unelectable majority in the senate to block the money supply. They used legalism & moralism to justify it, by saying it was conventional & acceptable. But that is saying let’s Legalise Theft or Murder, does that make it right or correct. The Whitlam Government may have been flawed but it had vision for this country. Which ended up being destroyed by big business & money.
Although there is precedent for Governments carrying on both in minority and ignoring those kind of motions. The most notable example is British to be honest, and much older, but Pitt the Younger carried on for almost a full year until he called for an election.
@@bashirhayek5255 it was also destroyed as much by Whitlam not trying to fix his Senate problem. I do not dispute the convention on the Senate allowing supply. He should have called for Half Senate elections as soon as the ruling came down about the two territories. Why would you accept a Labor Government not having a majority in both chambers? Especially as your government gets rocked by scandal.
Tergrulz you're forgetting that was a mere political matter that could and would have been settled by politicians. The GG made it into a constitutional matter. The fact was there were enough Liberal Senators prepared to end the standoff by passing the Budget. Also do note besides the points mentioned by Paulie Jay, the GG only has power to dismiss the PM, not the Leader of the Opp. Invariably this puts the PM, his principal adviser at a disadvantage when the cause for the delay was triggered by the Leader. The GG's duties are to be advised, to advise and to warn. He was given advise but did not carry out the other 2 crucial elements of any constitutional or vide-regal Head of State. He deserves every iota of castigation and shame that he had to endure because of his actions. A bumped up drunkard who had no spine and only delusions of grandeur. And no, I'm not a Labour supporter, I've always preferred the Liberals over them except for Whitlam and to a lesser extent, the first 6 Hawke years. Whitlam was a giant and a reformer. His error was to do too many things too soon. But in a way you can understand why. 23 years of Menzien torpor needed to give way to a modern method of bringing Australia into the 21st century.
* Four weeks later the Australian electorate passed the largest motion of no confidence in the Whitlam Government ever recorded in any Federal Election ever.
Well the make up team had to construct there appearance close to the real personage. But it does help when you select the right cast for those role. As in this case it worked perfectly
@@latenightlogic So, let me get this straight. 3 years after *I* first watched this video and posted a comment, you now want *me* to trawl through it again and find the exact time stamp I commented on? You utter lazy prick. Go fuck yourself.
Body language, voice inflection and tone, mannerisms. Obviously he did a great study of Fraser to be able to do this magnificent portrayal. Also loved him in Belamy.
@Andrew Meek Max Phipps was ripper as Whitlam, I think John Stanton was better as Fraser, his portrayal of Fraser was exceptional. But John Meillon upstaged them both as Sir John Kerr, just outstanding. He also played Walter Reilly, in the Crocodile Dundee moview
Ooh, I dunno. I found Stanton's voice too high pitched. Although maybe Malcomb's voice deepened since then. Malcomb was big, as was Gough. Tall men are usually deeper voiced than both these medium-build actors.
Barwick's advice was false, there was a similar crisis in Britain in 1910. Equally, Barwick failed to disclose to Kerr that he was advising the Opposition - a fact apparently known by Whitlam, hence Whitlam's instruction not to consult Barwick. The fact that Kerr did so suggests he was hoping Gough would put him out of his misery by doing 1 of two things, call and Election or sack Kerr. That Kerr acted on Remembrance Day is undoubtedly the biggest slap in the face to those soldiers who died for Australia.
I agree that he shouldn’t have done it on Remembrance Day, that was mad. But Kerr believed that Whitlam was acting recklessly and that he needed to be put in his place. Whitlam should have known that a piss head like Kerr was always going act the way he did. Plus he did patronise Kerr so it’s no surprise that in the end he did what he did.
The division of powers were repudiated through Barwick's advice to Kerr. You never allow one branch of government to advise the responsibilities of another (in this case, the judiciary advising the executive). However, I never liked the way that Whitlam was very adverse to criticism from other people who held valid reservations about his government. Not being in power for 23 years and then suddenly being in government where the majority of ministers have never held a portfolio before will contain a litany of problems that can easily be avoided if the head of that government tells them not to be "carried away' with their new responsibilities. Unfortunately, Whitlam didn't do this and it led to the Cairns and Connor calamities. In contrast, you look at the Hawke-Wran-Cain Jr. generation and their governments lasted longer because they knew that their policies could only be implemented through a consultative manner which didn't spook the electorate. What I mean by spook is "wait, the government just did what? I hadn't heard about this till now." That was very much case with Rudd and the proposed Mining Tax, the announcement just came out of the blue without prior discussion with colleagues or influential individuals within the mining industry.
Although in comparison, the 1910 crisis involved an unelected chamber of Parliament. Had the Lords been elected, I think it could be argued that bicameralism was working just fine to reject the Peoples Budget. On the other hand an elected Lords in 1910 might have had a Liberal majority where it had a Tory majority on ennoblement principles only. In 1975, the Liberals were a majority in the Senate. Bicameralism cannot be undone without either abolishing the chamber or revising the entire constitution, thereby making a Senate in Australia virtually useless, when it was devised specifically to act as a check on the House in several respects. Whitlam never advanced a bill during this crisis to do either thing, because frankly, neither would have passed and no one would have believed it. The Australian Constitution was written correctly, if Sir John Kerr wanted to dismiss Whitlam, he could. Monarchs had refused Government advice, as late as Victoria and supposedly as late as Blair by Elizabeth over Diana's death. I do not dispute Whitlam's legitimacy, except that the electorate smashed him at the election, he helped to smash his own government by appointing Ministers to government who did not do that great of a job, and as shown here, actually led Whitlam to mislead the Parliament (LIE.) They misled the Parliament themselves as well. Political tactics to bring that government down were not illegal and this crisis was a political tactic, Kerr was almost forced into it, and did not immediately dismiss him, he even proposed a potential compromise that was rejected by both sides. The fact that history bears out the fact that democracy was not undone, and that Bob Hawke had a tremendous victory himself in 1983, only 8 years later. The fact is, Whitlam could have won the 1975 election as well, and then dismissed Kerr, he just kept hammering Kerr and did not focus on the fact that he could have used that energy to attack on issues.
Barwick and later exposed - Mason, should have never advised the GG. The simple fact being if there was a constitutional matter that needed to be settled by Court, they would have to sit in judgment. That's why there is an SG to advise the Government (which technically is the GG's Govt). When Michelle Jean of Canada was put in a rather similar situation - a minority Govt seeking a prorogation - she did not seek advise from any High Court Judge and used the SG and other eminent legal authorities but at the same time, informing all parties whose advise she was taking in. Barwick should have been the last person Kerr should have sought advise from. Twice before in matters concerning the Constitution and conduct of Govt, he was in minority when the Court heard those matters and ruled in favour of the Whitlam Govt. A CJ while enjoying certain privileges of that office has no greater power than any of his fellow Judges sitting as a body to determine cases. Kerr being a former CJ of NSW of all people should have known this. But perhaps he did, but being the sneaky pompous twit he was, was determined to impregnate himself into the equation with delusions of grandeur that he wielded the greatest power of them all.
A 1983 program portraying and including video/film archives of 1975. So lovely to see fewer obese Australians and young people not full of tatoos and piercings.
I thought this series played sir John Kerr quite sympathetically. Almost from his point of view, a man crushed between the two giant egos of whitlam and Fraser.
brentoneccles because it did everything too quickly and was becoming more and more reckless. Power I think went to Whitman’s head and Fraser being the cynic he was took full advantage of it. Now it was an elected government and Whitlam shouldn’t have been sacked in that way. But governor generals/kings/queens/ceremonial presidents do exist for a reason and that is is to stop PMs being too big for their boots.
Because contrary to the romantic notions but put forward these days - Labor’s own ministers from that time acknowledge they drove the Government “off a cliff”. Great social reforms yes but economically a disaster. Heydon’s budget came too late regrettably. What is commonly forgotten is the Landslide victory (largest ever majority) and subsequent re election results of the Liberals, you cannot deny the Australian public’s view of the day. Illegally is one for debate and there are good arguments both ways. Kerr has been maligned but you don’t become a Chief Justice because you are a dill and don’t know how to interpret the law, this is commonly omitted from him or any complex legal challenges he had faced in his career prior to becoming GG. It’s a fascinating time in our history. Great social reforms.
@@sharonlarkin6962 I simply cannot agree that they spectacularly botched the budget and there really is no evidence to substantiate this, although certainly the public perception was there rightly or wrongly. The reality is that the global economy went through a period of restructure through the 70s-90s and on, where the Whitlam and subsequent Fraser govts really fell over was in their response to that. The economic turmoil of that time is a great example of the fact that overall the left is held to a higher standard than the right - Gough's govt did way better at responding than Fraser but you would assume the other way around if you didn't know better. Gough's government ultimately was going to give more wealth and power to working people and of course the other side regards this with disdain.
brentoneccles I guess Bill Hayden’s comments on that subject and time are wrong then - Hawke also wrong on that to on that period. Fraser Govt is it’s own kettle of fish certainly. The global economy was absolutely a factor but to suggest there is no evidence of economic mismanagement is just ignoring comments and reflections from inside the government in recent times. Keating himself has stated, “I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 13 or 14 per cent by 1974, (inflation) because wages had been exploding, there was no wages policy, we had central wage fixing, the unions were strong, he didn't know what to do about any of that. He had no real help from the Treasury, treasurers until Bill Hayden arrived.” Yeah no evidence....
I believe he was the youngest ever MP elected - 1969 and possibly the youngest ever Minister too - 1975. In a way it's also a testimony to Whitlam, bringing in younger people into politics and government. Young people represent the future, they deserve to have a seat and voice at the table.
But did Kerr "change, forever, the face of Australian democracy"? This has receded into history. Young people have no idea about the people, the actions, the ideas that were current at the time.
Perhaps the key point is that Whitlam's dismissal was never legally or constitutionally challenged. The Queen was interested, but determined not to intervene. The rage subsided and evaporated like floodwater.
Best Mini-Series ever.
Great series - I've always loved it. Surprised that the didn't show what happened immediately after the dismissal as it is just as damning:
* Fraser's motion of no confidence in Whitlam defeated by Labor majority.
* Fraser's motion to adjourn the house defeated by Labor majority.
* Labor's motion of no confidence in Fraser as new PM successful. Speaker of the house informed to advise the Governor General.
* Governor General refuses to receive the Speaker.
Paulie Jay : Everything about the dismissal was planned, orchestrated & engineered by many differing factors. One was the fact the Whitlam government was not allowed to govern in its own right, after two consecutive election wins. The people only decided to elect Frasier & his Liberal/Country party because they just thought they would be the only one to govern & to finally just except that fact. The liberals were under no motive but to destroy Labor under any method or tactic that would present itself. The announcement to promote two non labor senators in the place of outgoing labor senators, gave Frasier government the unelectable majority in the senate to block the money supply. They used legalism & moralism to justify it, by saying it was conventional & acceptable. But that is saying let’s Legalise Theft or Murder, does that make it right or correct. The Whitlam Government may have been flawed but it had vision for this country. Which ended up being destroyed by big business & money.
Although there is precedent for Governments carrying on both in minority and ignoring those kind of motions. The most notable example is British to be honest, and much older, but Pitt the Younger carried on for almost a full year until he called for an election.
@@bashirhayek5255 it was also destroyed as much by Whitlam not trying to fix his Senate problem. I do not dispute the convention on the Senate allowing supply. He should have called for Half Senate elections as soon as the ruling came down about the two territories. Why would you accept a Labor Government not having a majority in both chambers? Especially as your government gets rocked by scandal.
Tergrulz you're forgetting that was a mere political matter that could and would have been settled by politicians. The GG made it into a constitutional matter. The fact was there were enough Liberal Senators prepared to end the standoff by passing the Budget. Also do note besides the points mentioned by Paulie Jay, the GG only has power to dismiss the PM, not the Leader of the Opp. Invariably this puts the PM, his principal adviser at a disadvantage when the cause for the delay was triggered by the Leader. The GG's duties are to be advised, to advise and to warn. He was given advise but did not carry out the other 2 crucial elements of any constitutional or vide-regal Head of State. He deserves every iota of castigation and shame that he had to endure because of his actions. A bumped up drunkard who had no spine and only delusions of grandeur. And no, I'm not a Labour supporter, I've always preferred the Liberals over them except for Whitlam and to a lesser extent, the first 6 Hawke years. Whitlam was a giant and a reformer. His error was to do too many things too soon. But in a way you can understand why. 23 years of Menzien torpor needed to give way to a modern method of bringing Australia into the 21st century.
* Four weeks later the Australian electorate passed the largest motion of no confidence in the Whitlam Government ever recorded in any Federal Election ever.
Thank you so much for posting - it's an education about Aussie & British Commonwealth politics desperately needed
The actor for the Fraser role is absolutely compelling.
John Stanton was quite adept at playing Machiavellian Establishment characters.
@@symontemplar1418 Fraser was a great politician
@Sean-me4fv Can't hate the fact that he was a great politician. He is the real Australian "Francis Underwood".
It was a political crisis on the verge of resolution, Kerr's intervention was highly improper to put it mildly.
My god Ruth Cracknell WAS TRULY THE SPITTING IMAGE of Margaret Whitlam. Perfect casting!
Well the make up team had to construct there appearance close to the real personage. But it does help when you select the right cast for those role. As in this case it worked perfectly
I can’t watch this whole thing, at what part in the video is she in?
@@latenightlogic
So, let me get this straight.
3 years after *I* first watched this video and posted a comment, you now want *me* to trawl through it again and find the exact time stamp I commented on?
You utter lazy prick. Go fuck yourself.
@@latenightlogic1:18:18 mark
My Uncle John Stanton.... great portrayal👍
peter stanton He does Fraser’s voice really well .
Body language, voice inflection and tone, mannerisms. Obviously he did a great study of Fraser to be able to do this magnificent portrayal. Also loved him in Belamy.
@Andrew Meek Max Phipps was ripper as Whitlam, I think John Stanton was better as Fraser, his portrayal of Fraser was exceptional. But John Meillon upstaged them both as Sir John Kerr, just outstanding. He also played Walter Reilly, in the Crocodile Dundee moview
Point of interest,
John actually despised Malcolm Fraser and channeled that dislike into his role play
Ooh, I dunno. I found Stanton's voice too high pitched. Although maybe Malcomb's voice deepened since then. Malcomb was big, as was Gough. Tall men are usually deeper voiced than both these medium-build actors.
Power does things to people. And then the CIA does the rest.
Thanks for sharing these episodes.
25:07 - Is that Ben Mendleson?
Great series thank you im surprised john mellion could play a straight roll without a beer in his hand ?? Lol
1:22:00 - 1:25:00
"The Unrepresentative Swill" in action.
Forty-six years ago today. Lest we forget...
47:14.......early 80s sound system in the background, not 1975......
Barwick's advice was false, there was a similar crisis in Britain in 1910. Equally, Barwick failed to disclose to Kerr that he was advising the Opposition - a fact apparently known by Whitlam, hence Whitlam's instruction not to consult Barwick. The fact that Kerr did so suggests he was hoping Gough would put him out of his misery by doing 1 of two things, call and Election or sack Kerr. That Kerr acted on Remembrance Day is undoubtedly the biggest slap in the face to those soldiers who died for Australia.
I agree that he shouldn’t have done it on Remembrance Day, that was mad. But Kerr believed that Whitlam was acting recklessly and that he needed to be put in his place.
Whitlam should have known that a piss head like Kerr was always going act the way he did. Plus he did patronise Kerr so it’s no surprise that in the end he did what he did.
The division of powers were repudiated through Barwick's advice to Kerr. You never allow one branch of government to advise the responsibilities of another (in this case, the judiciary advising the executive). However, I never liked the way that Whitlam was very adverse to criticism from other people who held valid reservations about his government. Not being in power for 23 years and then suddenly being in government where the majority of ministers have never held a portfolio before will contain a litany of problems that can easily be avoided if the head of that government tells them not to be "carried away' with their new responsibilities. Unfortunately, Whitlam didn't do this and it led to the Cairns and Connor calamities. In contrast, you look at the Hawke-Wran-Cain Jr. generation and their governments lasted longer because they knew that their policies could only be implemented through a consultative manner which didn't spook the electorate. What I mean by spook is "wait, the government just did what? I hadn't heard about this till now." That was very much case with Rudd and the proposed Mining Tax, the announcement just came out of the blue without prior discussion with colleagues or influential individuals within the mining industry.
Although in comparison, the 1910 crisis involved an unelected chamber of Parliament. Had the Lords been elected, I think it could be argued that bicameralism was working just fine to reject the Peoples Budget. On the other hand an elected Lords in 1910 might have had a Liberal majority where it had a Tory majority on ennoblement principles only. In 1975, the Liberals were a majority in the Senate.
Bicameralism cannot be undone without either abolishing the chamber or revising the entire constitution, thereby making a Senate in Australia virtually useless, when it was devised specifically to act as a check on the House in several respects. Whitlam never advanced a bill during this crisis to do either thing, because frankly, neither would have passed and no one would have believed it.
The Australian Constitution was written correctly, if Sir John Kerr wanted to dismiss Whitlam, he could. Monarchs had refused Government advice, as late as Victoria and supposedly as late as Blair by Elizabeth over Diana's death. I do not dispute Whitlam's legitimacy, except that the electorate smashed him at the election, he helped to smash his own government by appointing Ministers to government who did not do that great of a job, and as shown here, actually led Whitlam to mislead the Parliament (LIE.) They misled the Parliament themselves as well.
Political tactics to bring that government down were not illegal and this crisis was a political tactic, Kerr was almost forced into it, and did not immediately dismiss him, he even proposed a potential compromise that was rejected by both sides. The fact that history bears out the fact that democracy was not undone, and that Bob Hawke had a tremendous victory himself in 1983, only 8 years later. The fact is, Whitlam could have won the 1975 election as well, and then dismissed Kerr, he just kept hammering Kerr and did not focus on the fact that he could have used that energy to attack on issues.
Barwick and later exposed - Mason, should have never advised the GG. The simple fact being if there was a constitutional matter that needed to be settled by Court, they would have to sit in judgment. That's why there is an SG to advise the Government (which technically is the GG's Govt). When Michelle Jean of Canada was put in a rather similar situation - a minority Govt seeking a prorogation - she did not seek advise from any High Court Judge and used the SG and other eminent legal authorities but at the same time, informing all parties whose advise she was taking in. Barwick should have been the last person Kerr should have sought advise from. Twice before in matters concerning the Constitution and conduct of Govt, he was in minority when the Court heard those matters and ruled in favour of the Whitlam Govt. A CJ while enjoying certain privileges of that office has no greater power than any of his fellow Judges sitting as a body to determine cases. Kerr being a former CJ of NSW of all people should have known this. But perhaps he did, but being the sneaky pompous twit he was, was determined to impregnate himself into the equation with delusions of grandeur that he wielded the greatest power of them all.
I think you will find he sought 4 opinions not just Barwick
There was never anything personal between Whitlam and Fraser. If anything they were fond of one another in private.
Brilliant 👏
Interviews in the streets about government directions to take...kindof like asking a plumber what actions a surgeon should take..has no sense..
So much smoking in 1983/1975.
Can someone please tell me what the name of the classical music at the start is?
it took 6 years but here we are - same soundtrack for Gallipoli ua-cam.com/video/e_UPZR6z-aU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/e_UPZR6z-aU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/XMbvcp480Y4/v-deo.html
5:29 My name is Shirley
That looks like Frank Lowy playing Sir John Kerr.
It's John Meillon wearing a wig to hide the fact he is 20 years younger than the man he is playing
Just as good as Oliver Stones's JFK
He does Jillian :), though that is pretty much his regular voice:)
A 1983 program portraying and including video/film archives of 1975. So lovely to see fewer obese Australians and young people not full of tatoos and piercings.
And prayer 🙏🏻 was before every siting
@@billbrooker8287 still is
@@aydancasey1953 since 1901
Yay. At 20:52 A PJK character makes an appearance. Sad it wasn't the real thing.
1:12:04 That crucial moment
I wonder if the people of Malaysia ever figured out that their Prime Minister was actually Pop from Home and Away in blackface
Love Goughs response a decade later to Sir John Kerr at the National Press Club in 1985...'He hiccupped'?
Sir John Kerr was a man of integrity and deserved better than the vilification he received from this film's depiction.
I thought this series played sir John Kerr quite sympathetically. Almost from his point of view, a man crushed between the two giant egos of whitlam and Fraser.
This was the Australian House of Cards. Only it is not fiction.
If they were elected in December 72 then 3 years is December 75. So close then why didn’t he call an election
Labour never seems to finish a term
Because he went to an Election in May 1974 after the Libs blocked his budget - on that timeframe, the next Election was not due before May 1977.
I was born in 1990 and these events still break me. How was the most substantive government we ever had so illegally tossed out? :(
brentoneccles because it did everything too quickly and was becoming more and more reckless. Power I think went to Whitman’s head and Fraser being the cynic he was took full advantage of it.
Now it was an elected government and Whitlam shouldn’t have been sacked in that way. But governor generals/kings/queens/ceremonial presidents do exist for a reason and that is is to stop PMs being too big for their boots.
Except it wasnt illegal. Contrary to tradition but not illegal
Because contrary to the romantic notions but put forward these days - Labor’s own ministers from that time acknowledge they drove the Government “off a cliff”. Great social reforms yes but economically a disaster. Heydon’s budget came too late regrettably. What is commonly forgotten is the Landslide victory (largest ever majority) and subsequent re election results of the Liberals, you cannot deny the Australian public’s view of the day. Illegally is one for debate and there are good arguments both ways. Kerr has been maligned but you don’t become a Chief Justice because you are a dill and don’t know how to interpret the law, this is commonly omitted from him or any complex legal challenges he had faced in his career prior to becoming GG. It’s a fascinating time in our history. Great social reforms.
@@sharonlarkin6962 I simply cannot agree that they spectacularly botched the budget and there really is no evidence to substantiate this, although certainly the public perception was there rightly or wrongly. The reality is that the global economy went through a period of restructure through the 70s-90s and on, where the Whitlam and subsequent Fraser govts really fell over was in their response to that. The economic turmoil of that time is a great example of the fact that overall the left is held to a higher standard than the right - Gough's govt did way better at responding than Fraser but you would assume the other way around if you didn't know better.
Gough's government ultimately was going to give more wealth and power to working people and of course the other side regards this with disdain.
brentoneccles I guess Bill Hayden’s comments on that subject and time are wrong then - Hawke also wrong on that to on that period. Fraser Govt is it’s own kettle of fish certainly. The global economy was absolutely a factor but to suggest there is no evidence of economic mismanagement is just ignoring comments and reflections from inside the government in recent times. Keating himself has stated, “I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 13 or 14 per cent by 1974, (inflation) because wages had been exploding, there was no wages policy, we had central wage fixing, the unions were strong, he didn't know what to do about any of that. He had no real help from the Treasury, treasurers until Bill Hayden arrived.” Yeah no evidence....
God save the Queen! Thank you Mr Fraser Australia is in your debt.
Great days.
Young Hon Paul Keating Was There
He's holding the mega phone. No doubt he was warming the crowd up.
I believe he was the youngest ever MP elected - 1969 and possibly the youngest ever Minister too - 1975. In a way it's also a testimony to Whitlam, bringing in younger people into politics and government. Young people represent the future, they deserve to have a seat and voice at the table.
20:50. Paul Keating getting sworn in, all the losers in one room, missing were hawk, Rudd , Gillard and Albanese
There were three totally responsible for the dismissal. 1 Mrs Betty von Saxe-Coburg 2 Mr John Kerr 3 Malcolm Fraser.
F*ck all to do with the Queen. The GG made the call and did not consult with the Palace before dismissing Whitlam.
Whitlams arrogance had something to do with it. A terrible manager of men as Graham Richardson put it.
the truth is that the order to dismiss Whitlam came from the JESUIT VATICAN the same people that killed JFK KERR WAS A NIGHT OF MALTA , CRIMINALS
Get help
Yes sweetheart, I'm sure.
Don’t forget Elvis’ involvement.