Palace intrigue

A thread for discussion of today’s release of correspondence between Sir John Kerr and Buckingham Palace before the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975.

At 11am today, the Australian public will finally be privy to a long-delayed footnote to the 1975 constitutional crisis when a reluctant National Archives releases material that will include correspondence between Sir John Kerr and Buckingham Palace from immediately before the dismissal of the Whitlam government on November 11. This follows a long campaign by Monash University historian Professor Jenny Hocking, whose efforts established the existence of the material and a stipulation by the Palace after Kerr’s death in 1991 that it should not be unveiled until 2027, and perhaps not even then. It had hitherto been the position of the National Archives that the material constituted personal communication, which Hocking succeeded in having the High Court overturn in a 6-1 ruling in May.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

191 comments on “Palace intrigue”

Comments Page 2 of 4
1 2 3 4
  1. Mavis says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 1:46 pm

    “As I alluded to earlier in this thread, there’s evidence that some Opposition Senators were on the cusp of breaking ranks. But it’s evident that Kerr failed to take this into account.”

    What sort of decision making process is that? The GG thinks there might be some Opposition Senators who might do something so in the meantime let’s wait for the Government to run out of money and see what chaos consumes the nation?

  2. Bucephalus:

    [‘Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 1:40 pm’]

    I take it for granted that you’re aware of the separation of powers’ doctrine. It’s the breach of this convention which is at the heart of the matter. Clearly, Barwick and Mason should’ve butted out. Granted, there is an overlap in the doctrine where the Executive – ministers – are also part of the Legislature. But there’s no overlapping when it comes to the HC. It should be seen as completely impartial. Barwick’s letter to Kerr of November 10, 75 was highly inappropriate. We know now that the Queen’s private secretary was most happy with Kerr’s
    carriage of the matter, based on advice from a Canadian constitutional scholar. He should not have sought the counsel of the chief justice of the HC.

  3. TPOF says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 1:55 pm

    Thanks for that – the Statement of Reasons supporting the Letter to Whitlam dismissing him – that’s all I needed.

    You appear to have some anger issues. I suggest some counselling as a start.

  4. Buce…As you can no doubt see from some of the references here, despite 45 years having gone, the events surrounding the ’75 dismissal still rub raw for many Labor supporters. No amount of soft-soap is ever likely to change this………..yours, or anyone else’s.
    Labor supporters have had their day in the political destruction of Fraser by Hawke and Rudd booting Howard out, so it has not been a one way street. As much as anyone could have been in the day, Fraser was hated and his self indulgent tear on his defeat is something Labor supporters, at the time, jumped for joy over.
    Oh, and I forgot, the cheer that went up from the passengers of a plane heading east, when the captain mentioned that Abbott had been tossed out…………………….Morrison’s day will undoubtedly come…………….

  5. meher baba says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 1:23 pm

    “Buce: there is a convention, originating from Westminster, about not blocking supply in the upper house.”

    Further to my last on this the Statement of Reasons by Kerr includes the following:

    “The position in Australia is quite different from a position in the United Kingdom. Here the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision. In United Kingdom the confidence of the House of Commons alone is necessary. But both here and in the United Kingdom the duty of the Prime Minister is the same in a most important aspect – if he cannot get supply he must resign or advise an election.”

  6. I’m interested to know what Whitlam’s strategy was going to be once he ran out of money.

    Half Senate Election? How long would that have taken?

    Ask the Russians for a loan?

  7. MB

    In some ways, Fraser won because he was a tougher guy.

    Fraser won because he had no principles and because he had the Murdoch propaganda machine behind him.

  8. You appear to have some anger issues. I suggest some counselling as a start.
    ___________________________________

    Yeah. I look at the USA and think of all the people who are dying because clever-dick right wing scum like you would rather get your jollies from winding up a leftie even if it means incalculable harm to others.

    There are still many on the right who have maintained a commitment to the system and the public interest, but increasingly its people like you – here and in other countries – who think that winning and the public interest are the same and that the public interest will always be served by winning.

    Increasingly some of the scum, especially in the USA, couldn’t even give a shit about the public interest.

    It’s interesting looking back to the second half of the 1970s when Fraser actually knew the damage he had done and set about to repair it, lest it get out of hand. Contrast that with Abbott, who has done more damage to this nation than any PM, before or since, before and after he got to power. And you want on about a nobody like Thomson. Fuck!

  9. TPOF says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 2:13 pm

    “Yeah. I look at the USA and think of all the people who are dying because clever-dick right wing scum like you would rather get your jollies from winding up a leftie even if it means incalculable harm to others.”

    I actually don’t see the connection that you are trying to make. Am I in a CIA operation of some type?

    “There are still many on the right who have maintained a commitment to the system and the public interest, but increasingly its people like you – here and in other countries – who think that winning and the public interest are the same and that the public interest will always be served by winning.”

    Does the Left have the sole rights to their policies being in the public interest?

    “Increasingly some of the scum, especially in the USA, couldn’t even give a shit about the public interest.”

    And exactly why am I included in that group? My passport is right next to me on the desk and it says I’m an Australian as does my birth certificate which is in the book case.

    “It’s interesting looking back to the second half of the 1970s when Fraser actually knew the damage he had done and set about to repair it, lest it get out of hand. Contrast that with Abbott, who has done more damage to this nation than any PM, before or since, before and after he got to power.”

    That’s a matter of opinion that I’m sure we will never agree upon.

    “And you want on about a nobody like Thomson. Fuck!”

    His vote was vital to maintaining the ALP Government of the time – that’s not a nobody. If his vote was irrelevant then he would be a nobody.

  10. For what it’s now worth, the hunting of Thomson and to a lesser extent Slipper riles Labor supporters as it all came from the school of dirty tricks………..
    Compare this with the ‘Poor old Scott Morrison (article today in the West) can’t even go to the footy without an attack from Labor. Give the bloke a go will you?” Or, “Look he needs some family time” or “He needs a holiday” stuff from the friendly media. No such luck for Thomson when he, his house, his family staked out by the vultures from the press – egged on and supported no doubt, by Abbott and his merry crew………………………………….All’s fair in war, love and politics I guess and it has been long admitted that the Liberals and the Nats to hypocrisy so much better than Labor…………………

  11. Thomson was a member of Parliament and was entitled to vote in the house. No one could take that away. Besides, it will always be doubtful of the crime he was convicted. After all, there was evidence that Kathy Jackson and her ex got rid of much evidence that may have cleared him of the small amount of ($5,000?) cash misappropriated, that could not be accounted for and that was money apparently spent on his wife. Thomson was as hard done by as Gough.

  12. His vote was vital to maintaining the ALP Government of the time

    ____________________________________

    And that’s the only crime the Liberals ever cared about. Like Slipper, standing in the way of Liberal entitlement to power is an unforgivable crime and, if necessary, to be punished by inflicting any mental or physical punishment that will clear the way.

  13. Speculation on what Whitlam may have done is laughable now, as his mandate was handed over to his political opponent and for about 7 weeks the LOTO became PM with all the powers vested in being an incumbent……The Liberals, of course, shout the odds that “After the election Labor lost” as if this made the disgrace of the coup legitimate…..which is was not.

  14. Muskiemp

    […, there was evidence that Kathy Jackson and her ex got rid of much evidence that may have cleared him of the small amount of ($5,000?) cash misappropriated, that could not be accounted for and that was money apparently spent on his wife.]

    Evidence to this effect was presented at the trial?

  15. DB Cooper says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 3:01 pm
    This looks like the political equivalent of the opening of Al Capone’s vault:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystery_of_Al_Capone%27s_Vaults

    __________________________________

    Not for me, or for serious students of history (rather than those wanting to fulfil conspiracy theories).

    The publication of these letters fills an evidential gap of primary materials about one of the most important and dramatic events in Australian political history.

    All historians, including Jenny Hocking, will tell you that the more primary materials available the more facts can replace theorising and assumptions in detailing the historical record.

    I’m not surprised that the Queen, even then one of the most experienced and thoughtful constitutional heads of state in the world, would not have wanted to be directly involved – or even to give a nudge and a wink in any direction. There was no upside for her in taking any position whatsoever, other than staying out. To that extent, Kerr probably did her no service in writing so much to Charteris, but at least, took total ownership of the decision, rather than share it with her.

    Kerr was a fool, but not stupid. Elizabeth II was neither a fool nor stupid.

  16. Shellbell

    Thomson is a red herring. His situation has nothing to do with Bjelke-Peterson’s corrupt exercise of power and the corruption of the Liberals and Fraser in taking advantage of it.

    As for the 43rd Parliament, whether he was guilty of fraud and embezzlement or not is beside the point.

    The fact is that he was totally denied the presumption of innocence by the sleazy Abbott and his baying hounds – especially the media. And, as I said, the only ‘crime’, and one punishable by death if necessary, that the Liberals cared about was that his not rolling over stood in the way of them stealing power.

  17. [‘Charteris followed this up the next day with the clearest suggestion that the reserve powers may need to be used which, Charteris wrote, “places you in what is, perhaps, an unenviable, but is certainly a very honourable position. If you do, as you will, what the constitution dictates, you cannot possible [sic] do the Monarchy any avoidable harm. The chances are you will do it good”. He ends with a reference to the “discretion left to a governor-general”. These critical letters provided Kerr with the advice and comfort he needed to feel secure that the Palace accepted the existence and potential use of the reserve powers as moved towards dismissing the Whitlam government.’]

    And, of course, the Queen was kept in the dark throughout. With her implicit support, Charteris’s, Barwick’s endorsement, Kerr sacked the Whitlam Government. It’s as simple as that.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-palace-letters-are-every-bit-the-bombshell-they-promised-to-be-20200713-p55bpx.html

  18. TPOF,

    It was the conspiracy theories I was referring to. I don’t question the historical value of knowing all the details. But a lot of people were certain it was going to expose that the Queen was instrumental in organising the dismissal.

  19. TPOF

    I am responding to a post which suggests he was really innocent.

    He was convicted by a magistrate, appealed somewhat successfully but still was convicted on 13 charges and his silk, (a retired NSW Supreme Court judge) Greg James QC, made admissions on his behalf.

    The union wanted him gaoled.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-17/craig-thomson-fined-escapes-jail-time-over-hsu-theft/5972518

    Plus he has been struck off as a solicitor in NSW.

    Plus plus he was the subject of proceedings in the Federal Court which he lost

  20. My mum always thought there was something iffy about the death (and cremation on the same day) of Kerr’s first wife, and his subsquent remarriage only 7 months later. I wonder what Margaret who knew the first wife, made of it?

  21. The definition of Chutzpah:

    “Muskiemp says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 2:46 pm
    Thomson was a member of Parliament and was entitled to vote in the house. No one could take that away. Besides, it will always be doubtful of the crime he was convicted. After all, there was evidence that Kathy Jackson and her ex got rid of much evidence that may have cleared him of the small amount of ($5,000?) cash misappropriated, that could not be accounted for and that was money apparently spent on his wife. Thomson was as hard done by as Gough.”

  22. “The Crown” series on Netflix illuminates how close the relationship between the Queen and her private secretary is. Yes, it is fiction but I reckon it goes very close to the truth. George III never got over losing the American colonies…

  23. shellbellsays:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 3:40 pm
    “How did Thomson get on this thread anyway?”

    I compared the reliance of Gillard on his vote to retain power with Fraser using Senator Field.

  24. Zwaktyld:

    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 3:34 pm

    [‘My mum always thought there was something iffy about the death (and cremation on the same day) of Kerr’s first wife, and his subsquent remarriage only 7 months later.’]

    I think your mum was right.

  25. Shellbell
    As far as evidence presented, it’s very hard when there is no evidence to present due to Kathy Jackson.
    Thomson was brought into this by Buce.

  26. Mavis says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 1:46 pm
    Bucephalus:

    [‘Allow the Government to run out of money and the Federal Government default on its payments to suppliers and employees?’]

    Of course, the RBA can always simply credit the Commonwealth with any funds required….which is in effect what happens every day.

    As to the matter of supply, it’s pretty well established now that the Senate can refuse Supply at any time and on any pretext. I think Labor should be prepared to use this power and I think the Greens should join them and be willing to force LibHeavy governments to the polls at the time most convenient to Labor and the Greens.

    The Liberals have always asserted this right. Labor should match them. If this eventually leads to reform of the Senate’s powers, well that would be a good thing.

  27. The appointments of Albert Field and Cleaver Bunton were due to a disconnect between the proportional electoral system used for the Senate and the then Casual Vacancy provisions in section 15, designed for either a majoritarian or plurality electoral system (as were used until 1949). This was partially remedied by the 1977 changes, which would have completely prevented Bunton`s appointment and prevented the Queensland Parliament`s appointment of Field.

    However, there are 2 major flaws in the 1977 Casual Vacancy system. It does not prevent a Senate seat being left vacant, as Tasmania proved in 1987 by not replacing Don Grimes with John Devereux. It also does not prevent an Albert Field-style rouge party member being appointed by the relevant Governor in Council (as long as the relevant state parliament is prorogued or dissolved at the time), while the Senate is sitting, and turning up to be sworn in before they can be expelled. Such a Senator could be kept in by not allowing the relevant state Parliament to get to 14 days in the following session (through prorogation), potentially for the entire rest of the 6-year term (the by-elections provisions in the original section 15 limited the time such an appointee could be in the Senate).

    Tasmanian style Countback, with some way of insuring the writ is issued, is the only effective solution. However this would need a constitutional crisis to for a referendum.

  28. That’d be the same Murdoch Press that gave Whitlam’s ALP free advertising in the 1973 campaign and supported his election?

    The Murdoch Press didn’t support anyone in the 1973 election because there wasn’t one. The fact that he supported Whitlam in 1972 is neither here nor there because let’s be honest, William McMahon was not going to win irrespective of what Murdoch did or did not do.
    Up until Tony Abbott, William McMahon had the wooden spoon of ineffectual Prime Ministers who achieved nothing while in power.
    Not that it matters, the point I was making, and that you simply validated, is that the Murdoch press seems to think that democracy is something to be co-opted for his own purposes.

  29. c says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 3:58 pm

    “Of course, the RBA can always simply credit the Commonwealth with any funds required….which is in effect what happens every day.”

    Ah, no. That doesn’t fix the issue of Supply that approves the spending. If they had of done that they would have been breaking the law.

    “As to the matter of supply, it’s pretty well established now that the Senate can refuse Supply at any time and on any pretext. I think Labor should be prepared to use this power and I think the Greens should join them and be willing to force LibHeavy governments to the polls at the time most convenient to Labor and the Greens.”

    Your only problem there is that the ALP+Greens doesn’t = a majority in the Senate. They need some Crossbenchers to go with them. Good luck with that. I believe that you need two.

  30. One brief comment on this from what I have read so far – there was a feud for some years between Kerr and Whitlam over whose version of events should be believed, and whose memoirs were accurate. Regardless of views on Whitlam, I think it is clear at this point that Kerr’s book “Matters for Judgement” should be removed from Library bookshelves, or placed in the Fiction section.

    I note this in particular on the shameless self-interest of Kerr’s behaviour:

    “A really critical part of the correspondence shows that the governor general Sir John Kerr believed he may be recalled by the Queen at the request of the prime minister Gough Whitlam. We’ve known of this fear for some time. But it is laid out more comprehensively in the correspondence.

    Kerr was clearly keen not to put the Queen in a position where he was trying to dismiss Whitlam while Whitlam was trying to dismiss him.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2020/jul/14/palace-letters-release-queen-correspondence-john-kerr-gough-whitlam-1975-dismissal-released-live?page=with:block-5f0d1a5f8f08a2bb7d3dbf3e#block-5f0d1a5f8f08a2bb7d3dbf3e

  31. Socrates says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 4:18 pm

    “A really critical part of the correspondence shows that the governor general Sir John Kerr believed he may be recalled by the Queen at the request of the prime minister Gough Whitlam. We’ve known of this fear for some time. But it is laid out more comprehensively in the correspondence.

    Kerr was clearly keen not to put the Queen in a position where he was trying to dismiss Whitlam while Whitlam was trying to dismiss him.”

    What is so controversial about this? It was an accurate analysis of the potential situation and certainly one that needed to be avoided in order to avoid significantly worsening the crisis. Even if there was self-interest in play that is minor compared the Constitutional Crisis that was occurring and would have become significantly worse by a crossover of the two potential events.

  32. https://www.pollbludger.net/2020/07/14/palace-intrigue/comment-page-2/#comment-3445984

    Supply withholding is not creating a lack of revenue input that the Reserve Bank could remedy. Supply is the authority to withdraw the Commonwealth Treasury`s money, which can only be granted by supply legislation.

    I agree that the ALP and Greens should be willing to block supply in the Senate, whenever it is useful to do so. Unfortunately, the ALP takes the lead by example/give the Coalition no incentive for change view.

  33. Apparently Professor Hocking thinks that the letters are alarming because they contain information about the constitutional crisis and the Reserve powers -according to the ABC :

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-14/sir-john-kerr-queen-whitlam-palace-letters-released/12452616?section=politics

    What the?

    What was he meant to be writing about? Cricket and the weather?

    There is no evidence of any political interference from the Palace in any form.

  34. Supply had to be passed by parliament at some stage, but there was nothing special about 11 November, 1975. The money wasn’t going to run out on that day, or even that month.

    You see at the beginning of the morning of 11
    November there was still only a political crisis. Kerr elevated that to a constitutional one by ambushing his democratically elected Prime Minister.

    It is now beyond doubt he did that to save his own job.

    I once asked Gough directly if he would have removed Kerr had Kerr taken him into his confidence and given him a ‘drop dead date’ to get supply passed before dissolving parliament with Gough going to the subsequent election as PM.

    Gough said he would not have removed Kerr. He thought that would have actually been a good idea.

    I also asked him whether being given such a drop dead date – upon receiving advice from treasury about precisely when the money would have run out – would have undermined his confidence in Kerr. Again he said it would not.

    Those conversations took place as I was helping Gough prepare for a series of interviews he gave Paul Kelly in 1995 in his Sydney office when I was employed as his research officer.

    About 5 years ago I had a beer with Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston and I recounted my conversation with Gough about these two points. Kelly told me he believed Gough.

    Interesting stuff.

  35. c says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 3:58 pm

    Mavis says:
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 1:46 pm
    Bucephalus:

    [‘Allow the Government to run out of money and the Federal Government default on its payments to suppliers and employees?’]

    Of course, the RBA can always simply credit the Commonwealth with any funds required….which is in effect what happens every day.
    ——————————————-
    Not in this case because the government needs to have parliament’s approval to spend and in those days Australia had a pegged dollar so the RBA was more constrained.

  36. My suspicions seem to be confirmed that Kerr and the Liberals wanted to bring down Whitlam then Kerr sought advice from the palace which basically said well you have these special powers that you could use but do think deeply about it and Kerr goes i will do it but wont tell the queen until its done.

  37. Mavis says Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 1:11 pm

    In a letter to Kerr dated November 10 1975, Barwick said that:

    [‘A prime minister who could not guarantee supply should either hold an election or resign. If he refused to do either then the Governor-General had the right to dismiss him. (See Sir Garfield Barwick, “Sir John Did His Duty”, Serendip Publications, 1983, p.5.)

    IANAL, but this I think this is bullshit. Most of our federal governments, at least in my memory, have been in the minority in the Senate and so unable to guarantee supply.

    Moreover, the Liberals were in a minority in the HoR and could not have guaranteed supply either.

  38. I note that Martin Charteris accepts at face value Kerr’s tale that Whitlam’s response to being sacked was to look around the room for a telephone and say that he “must get in touch with the palace”. This was flatly denied by Whitlam, and seems to me most unlikely. It’s hard to see why Whitlam would say that out loud even if it’s what he was thinking, and the story is enormously convenient to Kerr, as it vindicates his judgement that ambushing Whitlam was the only approach available to him.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ec3jRLiUMAAU9vg?format=jpg

  39. From https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/federal/queen-s-secretary-offered-kerr-advice-ahead-of-dismissal-20200714-p55bty.html

    In this letter, dated October 2, Sir Martin asked whether one option was for Sir John to give his assent to the supply bill even if the Senate refused to pass it. Sir John did not take up this option.

    Would the Governor General have had the power to do this?

    This to me suggests the Palace was more interested in a resolution, rather than a particular resolution.

    Whatever is the case, I have seen nothing today that would in anyway enhance the rather poor, although well deserved, reputation of Sir John Kerr.

  40. Yep, Barwick was full of shit as usual.

    Because lord god Bowe prohibits the C word for quim on this august blog, I’ll leave it with the Hansard approved transcript of Gough’s insult in parliament towards Barwick:

    “little runt” …

  41. IANAL, but this I think this is bullshit. Most of our federal governments, at least in my memory, have been in the minority in the Senate and so unable to guarantee supply.

    Moreover, the Liberals were in a minority in the HoR and could not have guaranteed supply either.

    But the Liberals did guarantee supply, because the bill was stuck in the Senate and didn’t need to go back to the House. And there’s an obvious difference from a Senate that’s capable of blocking supply and one that’s actually doing it.

  42. William Bowe says Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 5:23 pm

    But the Liberals did guarantee supply, because the bill was stuck in the Senate and didn’t need to go back to the House. And there’s an obvious difference from a Senate that’s capable of blocking supply and one that’s actually doing it.

    Ok, my memory is hazy on this but I seem to recall a former Labor Senator saying they could have prevented supply being passed if they had been aware of Whitlam’s sacking.

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#Parliamentary_strategy

    Prior to Whitlam’s dismissal, the Labor leadership decided to introduce a motion that the Senate pass the appropriation bills. With ALP senators unaware of Whitlam’s sacking, that plan went ahead. Senator Doug McClelland, manager of the ALP Government’s business in the Senate, informed Coalition Senate leader Reg Withers of Labor’s intent at about 1.30 pm. Withers then attended a leadership meeting where he learned of Fraser’s appointment and assured the new Prime Minister he could secure supply. When the Senate convened, the ALP Senate leader, Ken Wriedt, made the motion to pass the appropriation bills. As Wriedt did so, he was told that the government had been sacked, which he initially refused to believe. Authoritative word did not reach Wriedt until 2.15 pm, by which time it was too late to withdraw the motion and instead obstruct his party’s appropriation bill to hinder Fraser. At 2.24 pm, Labor’s appropriation bills passed the Senate, fulfilling Fraser’s first promise of providing supply.

    So, if Labor had not introduced this motion could supply have been passed? Could they have sent it back to the HoR, or could the Coalition have introduced the motion themselves? I guess some of this would go to the standing orders of the time.

  43. Perhaps its time for a critical reappraisal of the Whitlam Government?

    Lets review:

    1) Hawke and Keating came to office in 1983 determined not to repeat the poor economic performance of the Whitlam Government.
    2) The legislation passed by Whitlam is his greatest achievement, Race Discrimination Act, Family Law Act etc. He can rightly be credited with bringing in long overdue law reform.
    3) Whitlam ran a chaotic and shambolic government. Too many old men in a hurry doing crazy shit – Jim cairns with Junie Morosi etc etc.
    4) The Liberals were absolutely ruthless in tearing down Whitlam, eg Cleaver Bunton, Albert Field, Tirath Khemlani. A young John Howard was involved in these intrigues.
    5) The dismissal salvaged the Whitlam Government’s posthumous reputation. We was robbed by Kerr and maybe the CIA was the defining myth. Most likely Fraser would have won an election in 1976.

    Its time to move on 45 years later!

  44. I don’t think Whitlam would have gone to another election in 1976 – more likely march – May 1977, but I pretty much agree Lars. Except I don’t think the dismissal did rehabilitate the reputation of the Whitlam Government. It rehabilitated Gough with “the left” – loving as they do both a martyr and a right wing elites conspiracy, but with not middle Australia, who clearly gave zero fucks about either. That rehabilitation – to the extent it has occurred is built on the enduring legacy of ‘The Program’.

Comments Page 2 of 4
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *