Contrasts and Comparisons between the dismissals of Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam
by: Sean D

Similarities and Differences between the Dismissals of Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam

Introduction

The British Parliamentary system that Australia has adopted has largely shaped the society that we, as Australians, live in. Through this system the Australian people can be protected and prosecuted for things that they have done. However, Politicians who study and enforce this system of law are not exempt from it. Examples of Politicians being prosecuted and affected by these laws can be seen in the dismissals of Jack Lang in 1932 by Sir Phillip Game, governor of N.S.W and Edward Gough Whitlam who was dismissed by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr.

Even though the dismissals occured 43 years apart there are many similarities and differences between the two. Similarities of the dismissals of Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam include: the political party that they belonged to, the Economic Climate of Australia, the positions held by the people who dismissed them, the result of the elections after the dismissals, the reactions of the voting public and the Aftermaths of the dismissals.

There are also differences between some aspects of the dismissals such as their State and Federal positions, the events leading up to the dismissals and the regard in which the personalities are still held. These points can show the importance of the constitution towards Australia and its effects open society, no matter the time period.

Similarities

Even though the dismissals took place 43 years apart there are many similarities that can be observed between the two.

Even though Gough Whitlam and Jack Lang served in different tiers of the government at different times there is one thing that they have most in common, their devotion and membership towards the Political Labor Party which eventually became the Australian Labor Party.

The two politicians also shared the same basic Economical Climate during their terms as Premier of N.S.W and Prime Minister of Australia, the Economical Climate of Depression. Jack Lang served one of his terms during the 3 years of the Depression (1929-1932), whilst Gough Whitlam's rule as Prime Minister placed immense pressure on the Economy of Australia, using the Government's budget to introduce the Whitlam reforms which created the Aboriginal Referendum, equal pay for women, the destruction of conscription, the end of the White Australia policy, the establishment of a health system known as Medibank and many more.

The Queen and her representatives have always had a strong influence in the way that Australia has been operating. Both Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam were dismissed by representatives of the Queen because of certain incidents that may have occurred. Jack Lang was formally dismissed by the Governor of N.S.W, Sir Phillip Game in 1932 whilst Gough Whitlam was also dismissed by a Queen's representative, Sir John Kerr Governor- General of Australia in 1975. Both Lang and Whitlam suffered hardships throughout their dismissal, questioned and badgered by the media implying accusations onto the governments that they did not fully understand. Even though this is the case Whitlam showed his disapproval of the Governor-General's almost illegal actions when he spoke the historic words, "Well may we say may God save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor-General."

The reactions towards the dismissals of each Member of Parliament can be seen as extremely similar. Jack Lang's dismissal created a public cry of anger towards the premier, fueled by the New Guards opinions of Lang's supposed "Communist and Bolshevistic government". The community was later more accepting of Jack Lang's ideas and during the two elections that followed many were supporting his right to premiership, chanting "Jack is right!". Whitlam also enjoyed the same split nation that Lang had achieved 43 years beforehand when half of the Nation chanted "We want Gough" while the other half chanted "We want Fraser".


The dismissals of each personality left a hole in the governmental position that they were appointed to. This created opportunities for the Opposition and the results of the elections afterward were similar. After the dismissal of Jack Lang from the premiership of N.S.W Governor Sir Phillip Games appointed the Opposition Leader, Bertram Stevens as the new premier for N.S.W. An election was called soon afterwards which the opposition leader of the United Australia Party (Bertram Stevens) won. Once Whitlam had been dismissed the Governor-General of Australia had appointed the opposition leader and his party as a Caretaker Government. Shortly afterwards an election was held and Malcolm Fraser led the Australian government as Prime minister between the 11th of November 1975 until the 11th of March 1983.

Differences

While there are many similarities in the two cases, there were also a number of differences such as their Federal and State position, the events leading up to the dismissal and the regard in which the two personalities are still held.

In the different levels of Government Lang and Whitlam had completely different rankings. Lang was the premier of N.S.W, one of the seven territories and states of the Nation of Australia whilst Whitlam controlled the entire nation's running through his position of Prime Minister. To this effect, Whitlam's dismissal, as a higher level of ministry in the government led to larger coverage, debate and interest towards his dismissal.

The events that led to each dismissal of the parliamentary members were largely different. Jack Lang was dismissed because of his radical new laws to indefinitely halt the repayments of debts own to Australia's former Mother Country Britain during the 1930's Depression. Whitlam's dismissal was largely affected by the events that occurred during the months of January and June 1975, the promotion of Lionel Murphy to the High court and the death of Bert Milliner, respectively. This caused 2 vacancies which were later filled by 2 Liberal voting members, creating a vote of favorability towards the Liberal party in the Senate. This allowed the Opposition to block the money bill and cut off all of the funding needed to run the country. Fraser's demands were simple, hold an election or dismiss Gough Whitlam.

Many Australians have different views and respect towards Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam. The majority of Australians that lived during the period, or have studied the period that he served his term as Prime Minister see Whitlam as the person who reinvented Australia, furthering Multiculturalism, Welfare and Education, as perceived in the Big Idea National Radio forums. Jack Lang is seen as the voice of strength during the Depression, with his memory still being held in high regard because of his introduction of the widow's pension, child endowment and worker's compensation. Even though both politicians contributed greatly to the advanced society that we live in today, the true question is, was there any good reason for dismissing either personalities?


Comparison

So while it may be said that both events may have been justified the argument continues, asking questions like was it morally and constitutionally right? Did it involve the best interests of the Nation both in State and Federal instances? Lastly was their more of a difference between their dismissals than was similarities?

It can be said that it was not morally right to dismiss either of the identities discussed in this essay. They both contributed an enormous amount to our country, without ever asking anything in return other than the loyalty of their supporters. This of course was not taken into consideration when the General and Governor-General dismissed both personalities based on the ideas of a particular group, such as the New Guard in the Lang dismissal and the Liberal Party in the Whitlam Dismissal.

The dismissal of Whitlam was not constitutionally legal. During John Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam, Kerr did not follow the Constitutional guidelines, failing to discuss the problem, or even address Whitlam before his Dismissal on the 11th of November 1975. The Whitlam Dismissal was also constitutionally incorrect because of the advice that was given to John Kerr by a member of the High Court, not the Constitutional prerequisite of a Ministers advice. Although the dismissal of Whitlam was not constitutionally legal, the dismissal of Jack Lang was. Jack Lang had been advised by Sir Phillip Games that if he continued his rebellion against the repayment of debts owed internationally, he would be fired. Lang refused Game's warning and was dismissed constitutionally.

It is widely believed that the dismissal of Jack Lang, even with his enormous amount of contributions to Australia society was threatening the global connections that it had with, Britain and in turn it's allies which may have created an outcast Australian society, shunned by the larger nations. The dismissal of Whitlam was in the best interests of the Nation because of the stress that the blockage of the money bills was causing Australia's economy.


The two dismissals have more in common than they do in differences. Each man suffered the hate of political parties towards their dreams and the criticisms. They also shared the same passion for the rights of everyone, as is the overall view of the Labor Party. If it was not for the character assassinations that were largely employed during these dismissals Australia may have been led by either of these personalities towards a greater standard of life.

Both Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam were determined, charismatic, entrepreneurs who believed greatly in the improvement of the Australian people's lives. Through Multiculturalism, Welfare, Individual right and greater Education schemes they had changed Australia's future for the better.

Jack Lang's downfall was the loans affair, Lang believed that as an Australian politician he should be looking after the Australian population during the Depression, not the European Nations. Sir Phillip Games and the New Guard saw this as treason and advised Lang to repay the debts or he would be dismissed from the premiership of New South Wales. Lang's stubbornness resulted in his dismissal.

The dismissal of Edward Gough Whitlam was caused mainly by the sinister intents of one man, Malcolm Fraser and his ability to either force a new election, or revoke Whitlam's title of P.M. The dismissal was caused by Fraser's refusal to vote on the money bill and block supply. If this continued it may have created another depression for Australia. John Kerr had no other choice but to dismiss Whitlam.

So in Conclusion the dismissals of each elected head of State and Nation were similar in nature because of the views that both Labor Parties during their respective eras had, the greed for power and money that was shown by opposing factions of the Labor Party and lastly because of the power that had been Constitutionally enforced by the representatives of the Queen.



A Discussion by Sean Dubois.