hitlam's Australia
Sir: I refer to a comment quoted from The Spectator, appearing in The Australian of May 25. The dispatch is from London and is dated May 22.
For the benefit of your readers, and possibly of your editorial staff, who may receive an uninformed impression from this comment (headed 'Whitlam the wild destroyer') I feel the following points should be made:
1. Labour was elected to the Australian House of Representatives in November 1972 with a majority of nine and a programme containing a number of specific policies. Prominent among these were a National Health Scheme and a proposal to establish an Australian Industrial Development Corporation designed primarily, to encourage indigenous investment in, and control of, Australian oil and mineral resources. A significant sector of Australian society views with concern the encroachment of multi-national investment in this country. Similarly there is dissatisfaction with the current health insurance system whose anomalies prevent the comprehensive coverage enjoyed in Britain and elsewhere. Neither of these measures, nor indeed any of the major Government policies, can be regarded as ideologic Socialism. The health scheme is something of an AngloCanadian hybrid and the AIDC has a quite innocuous fund resource.
2. Because of the somewhat labyrinthine processes of the Australian Constitution, Labour inherited a hostile Senate. A consequence of this situation was that, for the sixteen months Labour held office (electorial
Spectator June 8, 19.14 terms here are of three years) the Government's major legislation Was blocked and frustrated. Finally, hf, denying the passage of the annua' Supply Bill, the Senate forced MT Whitlam to a double dissolution. There can be no question that ivlt Whitlam was compelled to seek 9 renewal of his mandate by a highlY questionable tactic and one which has created a very dangerous precedent ifl this country. Unless the lower chamber can have a reasonable guarantee 01 executive powers to sustain its elec. tonally agreed policies, it is difficult to see how responsible government can be sustained. No country can afford the political debility of repeated dis• solutions and indecisive elections. I arll sure that Mr Heath and Mr WI's° would agree with me. I view with regret your en. couragement, however oblique, of the disruptive processes within Government experienced by this country dor' ing the past sixteen months. Whatever the political hue of this or any other government, we desperately need a consensus of goodwill and the cooperation of all sections of society t° sustain us in the difficult times ahead. It is a need whose provision will be devoutly wished by all our friends throughout the world.
N 18 Guildford Street, Clear. ici
Previous page
