recall watching this song and ad as a 4/5 year old and was completely enchanted by the most incredibly, catchy, song for a political party EVER!! My parents used to watch it and 'spot the stars', eg: "Ooh, there's "Little Pattie" and "such 'n' such", etc. I can also remember the day (I was 7), when Gough was sacked, mum picking me up from school and saying "You must be very quiet when you get home, the Prime Minister's been sacked (!!) and dad's not happy"!!
Does anyone actually acknowledge who wrote this great song BTW? Cant seem to find any acknowledgement anywhere online- Advertising jingle or not someone composed it?
Just heard Mike Maclaren ( Sydney radio host ) play this on his show, with the great line "It's time for bankruptcy" ... Alas, too true ... but as a song, it was very effective.
Thanks mate for uploading! The only other copy ive seen of this was a RealPlayerFile which was of such rubbish quality you couldnt understand/read anything & THAT WAS ON THE OFFICIAL FEDERAL LABOR PARTY SITE!Im sure its gone now tho. Seeing how Guillard and other cretins Whitlamized Kevin Rudd.
RIP Whitlam Ministry Dec 5th 1972 -Nov 11 1975
RIP Rudd Ministry Dec 3 2007 - June 24 2010
BOTH not allowed to complete their full 3 year tenure.
FUCK GUILLARD! Politics is just a pit of rats & pigs now
what happened to political advertising? we used to have these awesome songs, and now we get talked at for 3 minutes about policies that don't make any sense, even to them!!!
@ProducersPeeps i love politics, and I'm a Liberal, and I love this ad...it has the most amazing positive spirit to it. If one of the major parties had a campaign like this at the last election, we would NOT Have had a hung parliament. Bob Katter had a purely musical (more rap) ad watch?v=dQ_zYZBDmls
@MON383 No different than yesterday I believe, should I feel any different? Should I be feeling looser or should I be feeling tighter this time? As the strange and thankfully gone Pauline Hanson said - please explain?
Whether you liked or agreed with the Whitlam government or not, there is no denying that this was the greatest political campaign in Australian history. The anti work-choices campaign a very distant 2nd.
I remember this ad well, tugging on my umbilical cord in tune. One of my first memories. *smirk* Widely criticised fiscally, sure, he still actually gave a damn about people. Abstract concepts like universal free education and health care and that democracy is centred upon people in resourced communities. So much that we take for granted today started there. A national treasure, I think.
Whitlam was the last great believer in socialist principles - free education, free health care, and free opportunity (end to conscription). The idea that government collects money in tax for the good of its people, to return it to them in equitable services is, in my opinion, almost dead in Australian political life.
@hbintl1 yeah, that thing, i cant mention his name, and the 2 that came after him, destroyed this country, they are traitors to this country.Have you seen that thing cairns sitting with the heirarchy of the north vietnamese during the height of the vietnam war? That tall thing was the beginning of our journey down the socialist highway we're on right now. How anybody could call this traitor a good person as far australia is concerned has to be a complete and utter moron.
an idiot that enacted more legislation in 2 years 8 months than any government up to that point,including the 18 years of pig iron bob,legislation that you take for granted today.
Jeez thats not Don Chipp at 1:08 is it? Bwahahahahahaha.Love the room full of skivvies.And i pinched Goughs bum in 1999....still firm and lovely.Love you Gough baby xxx
also... f you joe bjelke petersen. can you imagine if the ALP pulled the same rort against the coalition.. the high end of town would be calling 'blue murder'. but when fraser cried after losing 1983... well, that made me laugh.
I was nearly 17 for this campaign, and believe me, this campaign was electrifying, even now I get goosepimples watching. Its the classic time capsule piece of its day. Australian politics is more a 50/50 proposition these days, but there was a period of 23 years of Conservative rule, which ended with this campaign to put Australia's only true Social Democrat in Government, but at least Whitlam paved the way for Hawke, Keating and Rudd. The conservatives still hate him; so he must have been cool
@patrickbateman1960 he wasnt cool he betrayed this country, we went from living off the sheeps back, to the beginnings of socialism. But the labour partly is going down. BIG TIME. It,mll take you years to get back in. Of course if this is not the case, ihave had at least lived in a democratic society. Good luck to you and your kin, when you are part of the 3rd world australia, working for a pittance, living in slums.
@smellyfishyvag unfortunately your not doing the socialist party any favours. They couldnt care less about you. The original Labor Party was for the working man, but that went to ground, when that thing was voted in in 1972. That was thek beginning of the end for the true labor party. Yeah, you vote for the socialists, do you really understand what socialism is. Governments since 1972, have parted ways with the working man, they couldnt care less about them. and you brain dead
@smellyfishyvag dolts voted them in and probably will for years to come, but you wont get back in in your lifetime, we have had enough. Its time alright, time to bury the labor party.
Best ever political ad. Can't stop watching it. I wish I was born a bit earlier than 1971 so I could see this momentous period in Australia's history.
much better quality than the other clips on youtube of the same video so well done there. As for the new 7TWO intro using the same song well that doesn't surpirse me as that is all channel 7 does is recycle and cannot think of any original. Wake up Adam Boland!!!
well no actually. Nixon was a carpetbagger, a murderer and a complete disgrace.
Gough Whitlam was a REFORMER. We got our beloved Medibank Health care system, free university education, withdrawal from your illegal war in vietnam, the Pill, funds for education, funding for our film and arts communities, equality of opportunity for women, aboltion of the White Australia Policy, and we got our nation back from ugly america.
You reminded me that we can never underestimate americans.
@ParArdua Good point , he got very little credit for what he did. Just remember Gough made more positive and necesary reforms in three years than the Libs did in 25.
@PimpernellP thing is with Labor , they were pro action, Medicare , BER scheme , insulation, NBN, sure there were stuff ups from bogus operators, but Labor had a go , the Libs would rather play it safe and do nothing , no reforms form the Libs what so ever
@hunkydaboyz thanks, the way I see it , in a lot of cases, Labor made most of the reforms. I think the Libs are still stuck in the glory days of the fifties.
@PimpernellP oh my god, if you believe that, i have shares in an opera house, and a harbour bridge,going cheap. Again another example of the dumbing down of education since that traitor got in, in 1972.
However I did not attain this from the NFSA. I have had the footage for a long period of time as part of a collection of campaign adverts that I collected during my campaign activities over the years.
Always happy to endorse appropriate recognitions however. Good to see you're on the ball.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Jst like it was time in 07 for this useless cunt rudd!!! NOT it was certainly time 4 him 2 fuck this country just like these labor, comy,union cunts do every time. THIS CUNT SAID HE WAS AN ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE!! HE IS AS CONSERVATIVE AS WHITLAM AND WILL FUCK THE JOINT IN3 YRS AS WELL I HOPE WE PUNT THIS USELESS WASTE OF SPACE CHINESE SPEAKING POOF
his decision was validated by two landslide defeats of the labor party. the australian people decided. you know what? if john howard had been forced to call an election because the senate was blocking legislature then i would have accepted it. most pms do call an election when the senate is unworkable.
whitlam refused to call an election and end a standoff as he SHOULD have because he knew the australian people wanted to get rid of him. he would rather drag the country down then call an election
Most pm's would do so if the senate was hostile as a result of a democratic election. But two labor senators were wrongly replaced by coalition premiers with senators who would oppose supply. Calling an election would have legitamised those tawdry, undemocratic appointments and set a terrible precedent. Imagine if Nick Minchin died and Mike Rann appointed Iemmato replace him instead of Turnbulls choice. What Whitlam did was defend the Australian peoples democratic right to choose a government.
at the end of the day they took it to the people to decide.
if they had thought whitlam was doing a good job then they would have returned him to office with a working majority in the senate. whitlam should have called an election. he didnt and got martyred.
Can you imagine how the notion of her majesty dismissing a government would reflect upon the government? Especially with them not having served in over twenty years? It was a grave demonstration of no confidence from someone supposedly aloof and impartial. And Howard ignored UN directives over Iraq, over the MV Tampa and over the stolen generation which William Deane seriously disaproved of and his government was at times very unpopular but Deane knew where his place was, Kerr didn't.
kerr was caught between a rock and a hard place. if he did nothing he country would have gone to hell because there would have been NO MONEY!
when he did do something he got condemned and made whitlam a martyr and everyone forgot just how badly he screwed our economy up.
so you would have preferred that he just sat idly by whilst whitlam refused to call an election when the senate is blocking legislature? how long? he waited for MONTHS. how much longer should have have waited? a year? 2 years?
Will you stop stating that Whitlam was a poor economic manager as if it is a fact, it is an opinion, you can cite unemployment, inflation or something similar I have no qualms with that but to just state he "ruined the economy" is broad sweeping and subjective. On to the point at hand Kerr was not elected to the parliament, Fraser and Whitlam were, they were responsible for resolving the deadlock, not Kerr, if Kerr had told Fraser no do you think he would have blocked supply for two years?
under the australian constitution whitlam should have called an election. he did not. he was sitting idly by while he had the power to resolve the deadlock?
if kerr had done it all of a sudden for no reason i would have condemned him. however the deadlock continued for MONTHS with no apparent end in sight. if he had done nothing then history would have judged him even more harshly.
He should have done so within three years of being elected which he did in 74, he had no constitutional mandate to call an election. If Kerr had not acted history would never have heard of him, Whitlam would have secured supply through bank loans and a liberal party revolt would have eventually lead to the passing of supply.
The government(it says nothing about the pm) is permitted to call a double dissolution, they are not compelled to call any election. Whitlam was securing supply through bank loans, that was the ultimate justification for the dismissal so don't say it is speculative hindsight. Kerr was concerned or so he said about the ramifications of a government becoming financed through private money for an extended period time. If supply was not passed until then Aus would owe a fair bit to the banks...
but as they hadn't spent any public money for two years there'd also be a fair bit left in the kitty and the Australian people could use their democratic right to punish Whitlam and Fraser for orchestrating the problem by voting elsewhere, that is who has the authority to sack and appoint governments, the majority of the Australian people, not queens and monarchs. And just on another point, on the rare occasion the crown did intervene with the affairs of the parliament, convention held they...
issue an ultimatum to the government. EG, Gough call the election now or I will sack you within the month. Kerr issued no such ultimatum to allow the democratically elected government to take the best course of action with all the facts at their disposal.
quite frankly all that happened was that whitlam was facing a hostile senate, supply was not being passed, no money was getting through and whitlam did not call an election.
kerr finally decided that the country was being brought to its knees while both pig headed leaders had their standoff that was endangering the economy and vital functioning of the country.
after months of this standoff in which whitlam SHOULD have called an election because it wasnt getting anywhere, kerr finally acted
I notice you ignored what I said about bank loans andyou ignored what I said aout issuing the ultimatum to the government, you ignored what I said about the crown's decision being a grave sign of no confidence toward the incumbent government and just kept churning out the same lines which can roughly be translated to read "I don't like the Whitlam government so I'm glad Kerr and Fraser found a way to stop him"
It was a loans scandal neccessitated in order to preserve democracy in Australia which was under threat from Malcolm Fraser and Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen. Ambassador appointments to get rid of nuisances are a long held habit of many governments, it shouldn't happen but it is a far cry from actually appointing a senator from a different party. KHere are thepoints you need to be reminded of, there are other ways of getting supply, senate was blocked undemocratically, kerr could have done other stuff
actually joh did appoint someone to the senate from the same party, he just didnt choose their candidate.
kerr should have done other stuff? like what? he waited for months for the crisis to resolve itself. he gave the liberals a chance to negotiate supply or whitlam to hold an election. neither happened.
so then he had two choices - either sit idly by while the idiotic leaders of both parties brought this country to its knees by stopping laws and supply being passed for the next two years.
Field had not attending a party function, and besides that other bloke, the coalition premier whose name I can'tremember because he wasn't as bigger jerk as sir joh appointed an independant. Kerr could have ordered a half senate election, he could have disolved the parliament and appointed Whitlam caretaker prime minister, he could have issued the government with an ultimatum, or he could have kept his nose where it belong, but instead he chose to signal the no confidence agaisnt the pm.
he dismissed whitlam because he had refused again and again to hold an election.
and how stupid do you think the australian people are? if they had thought that whitlam was doing a good job and been unfairly dismissed they would have voted him back. the whole election campaign was based around the economy and whitlam lost.
kerr did exactly as what any responsible person in that position would have done. it was the nsw and qld premiers fault for putting him in that position.
I think the Australian people are very stupid but what I think of there intelligence should not effect who they get to choose as their government.For the crown to feel it neccessary to remove an elected government from power is an incredible sign of no confidence and to many it lead them to believe that the government must therefore be doing something very wrong. You also ignored my list of alternvatives which I find amusing to say the least.
your list of alternatives? whitlam had his chance to call the election and he kept on refusing. kerr dismissed him and replaced him with fraser so
a) supply would be passed
b) HE WOULD CALL AN ELECTION.
no australian prime minister has EVER tried to govern without supply. it was very arrogant and irresponsible of whitlam to do so.
oh and please, the election campaign was entirely centred around the economy. thats where people were hurting and wanted an election in the first place!
My list of alternatives? Kerr could have disolved half the senate, Kerr could have disolved both houses and appointed Whitlam, or an independant caretaker prime minister, he could have issued the government with an ultimatum or he could have sought the advice of the government. He did not, he sought the advice of the chief justice who was a former liberal party member, he sought the advice of the crown and the advice of the oppposition.
all kerr wanted was an election to be held to end the deadlock in the senate. whitlam refused to give it to him so he had to be removed otherwise an election would not have taken place.
The people had decided, only a year ago, at which time they chose to be governed by Whitlam for the next three years with a very tight senate. Then the two premiers appoined non labor replacements for labor members, both these members were up for re-election at the next election. Surely the fairest way for Kerr to resolve it if he felt so compelled to do so was call a half senate election?
because constitutionally senate elections can only be held a certain time after a normal election. it was not until 1977 until the actual senate and house of rep elections coincided.
wait apoligies i got mixed up with another law about the timetable for senate elections.
my point was why should kerr have just called a senate election? they had been facing months of standoff and what happens if whitlam is again facing a hostile senate? all polling was showing that whitlam was going to lose so the senate would have remained hostile
If he was to call anything it should have beenthe half senate election because the stand off had been caused when senators had been appointed instead of elected and going to the people would give them a trully democratic senate, their house of represenatives was allready democratically elected by the people.
kerr was not an idiot. he could see how unpopular labor were at the time - thats why the liberals were blocking supply to force whitlam to call an election.
kerr knew that if he called a senate election then the problem would have been aggravated because even more senators hostile to the whitlam government would have been elected.
Video evidence of Kerr at an infamous Melbourne cup suggests he was not quite as clever as the average bear. And I missed the part where we decided it was ok for monarchs to second guess the decisions of the electorate and control the options they were given to choose their government before them.
well obviously rather then take the risk of continuing this destructive political farce kerr decided it would be far safer to hold a double dissolution the risk a hostile senate remaining in power.
There was a risk of a double dissolution returning a Whitlam government but a Fraser senate was there not? I don't know where you get off thinking that governor generals should be deciding for the Australian people how their democracy was to function, surely thats a perogative for those democratically elected?
well if a double dissolution returned the whitlam government then they would have had the numbers in the senate.
however if they dissolve the senate then what happens if the polls come true and the whitlam government is so deeply unpopular that the coalition won even more seats? that would have given them the courage to keep on blocking and blocking
kerr did what had to be done so that supply could be passed. it was not going to get through unless one of the parties gained control of both houses
There is no reason why a party can't hold a slim majority in the house and another hold a slim majority in the senate. You cannot "what if", monarchs don't get to second guess the Australian people, his job is to protect democracy not the continuity of government. And no my attitude is not that Kerr should have disolved the senate, it is that he should have acted upon the advice of the government, Fraser should have passed supply and Sir Joh should have appointed Colston.
oh i see, you dont care how many elections it took so long as whitlam got to stay in power?
the whole affair was ridiculous. months without supply and kerr had to take into account that if the coalition won the senate election in a month then theyd have to call another, and another, and another.
it was far safer and more responsible just to call an election and let the people democratically decide their government.
Calling a DD was not safer than a half senate election, less than a year ago the people had elected a labor majority to the house and a minority to the senate. How was Kerr to assume that would not reoccur? Opinion polls? The things that said Hewson should have won a landslide? And yes my primary concern is that the government that was democratically elected by the Australian people not chosen, appointed and endorsed by the monarch govern Australia.
The risk of calling the half senate election was no greater than calling a DD. Whitlam didn't deserve an extra anything, just the same right that has been given to every government that has ever commanded a majority in the house of represenatives in this country before and after him. If the people hadn't wanted him, they would not have elected him in 1974 in a fair, democratic election free o influence from Queens, Premiers and chief justices.
It's the common line, the coalition were no saints either, Whitlam constantly belittled Kerr's authority in public, whilst that wasn't the sole cause their is a reason why Sir Ninian and Hasluck who had cordial relationships with Whitlam did not support Kerr's decision.
lol labor only has itself to blame. theyre the ones who changed the constitution in 1948 when they knew they were about to go into opposition so they had the senate elected via proportional representation. beforehand any party that won government won the senate virtually automatically
yes you do. you just dont care about any changes that are adventageous to the labor party.
the fact of the matter is that whitlam was acting illegally trying to procure funds behind the back of the senate. he should have gone to jail.
if labor had not changed the way the sentae was elected we would never have had this problem but they changed it when they were in power and were about to lose
a government is elected to pass bills. when it cannot do that anymore it is not fulfilling its purpose and an election needs to be held. you keep saying they should have had a senate election. well 99% of the senators were elected just like the house of representatives. if they held a senate election and power remained with the coalition nothing would have been achieved.
government was not working and when it was it was trying to attain money thorough illegal means
Actually 95% of the senate was elected, you may poo poo five percent but when supply was being blocked by a grand majority of 1 seat it means a helluva lot.
by the way i checked. constitutionally you're not allowed to call a half senate election for a set period of time. rudd for instance can call a house of reps election anytime but that would be pointless since he cannot call a senete election til march next year at the earlies. that is why kerr was forced to call the election. constitutionally if an important piece of legislature gets knocked back twice in a 3 month period they are supposed to call a double dissolution.
Corrections: If any piece of legislation is knocked back twice within 3 months they are permitte to disolve the senate, ordinarilly governments confident of their ability to improve their position in the senate are similarly confident of being able to do so and will thus disolve both houses. They are not "supposed to" however, there is no reason why the legislation cannot be dropped or resubmitted a third or fourth or fifth time. It is just an option the government has.
It IS time...for the ALP to be sacked.
G1RaceCaller 1 week ago
recall watching this song and ad as a 4/5 year old and was completely enchanted by the most incredibly, catchy, song for a political party EVER!! My parents used to watch it and 'spot the stars', eg: "Ooh, there's "Little Pattie" and "such 'n' such", etc. I can also remember the day (I was 7), when Gough was sacked, mum picking me up from school and saying "You must be very quiet when you get home, the Prime Minister's been sacked (!!) and dad's not happy"!!
smellyfishyvag 2 weeks ago
Where is she now? 40 years ago this year.
marspowerhaus 2 weeks ago
Does anyone actually acknowledge who wrote this great song BTW? Cant seem to find any acknowledgement anywhere online- Advertising jingle or not someone composed it?
dillonsc 1 month ago
And as I have just learned, penned by Pat Aulton.
lapuntadelfin 1 month ago
This was way way ahead of it's time. Best election ad ever in Oz, even around 40 years later.
PeterA82 2 months ago
Geez what happened to the ALP? it's like two planes crashed into it's platform and there's been a war against socialism ever since!
atje43 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How could you ever forget it?
allanr44 4 months ago
check out the Porkchops on Bert Newton @1:13
pettee1979 7 months ago in playlist Old Footy/Sport Ads
all those people were sick of conservative monarchists
sliat1981 9 months ago
Just heard Mike Maclaren ( Sydney radio host ) play this on his show, with the great line "It's time for bankruptcy" ... Alas, too true ... but as a song, it was very effective.
wmw2525 9 months ago
@wmw2525
actually the whitlam government left no debt at all,because as spending increased,so did taxes
heathirving 1 week ago
For crying out loud- who would vote Labor now?! By the way isn't a very similair song used for channel 7TWO?
kalslater 11 months ago
The only decent election ad ever. Everything else is crap!
darthnarodnik 11 months ago
I'm so glad we don't look like that anymore...well most of us!
properjujitsu 1 year ago
Thanks mate for uploading! The only other copy ive seen of this was a RealPlayerFile which was of such rubbish quality you couldnt understand/read anything & THAT WAS ON THE OFFICIAL FEDERAL LABOR PARTY SITE!Im sure its gone now tho. Seeing how Guillard and other cretins Whitlamized Kevin Rudd.
RIP Whitlam Ministry Dec 5th 1972 -Nov 11 1975
RIP Rudd Ministry Dec 3 2007 - June 24 2010
BOTH not allowed to complete their full 3 year tenure.
FUCK GUILLARD! Politics is just a pit of rats & pigs now
theAlgod 1 year ago 6
@theAlgod Tony Abbott stabs Malcolm Turnball in the back twice in a matter of a few days. Rudd won his position via leadership challenge. Hypocrite!
darthnarodnik 11 months ago
@theAlgod I'm sorry. I've been in a terrible mood today.
darthnarodnik 11 months ago
This is an awesome ad.
aufdieinsel 1 year ago
what happened to political advertising? we used to have these awesome songs, and now we get talked at for 3 minutes about policies that don't make any sense, even to them!!!
ProducersPeeps 1 year ago
@ProducersPeeps i love politics, and I'm a Liberal, and I love this ad...it has the most amazing positive spirit to it. If one of the major parties had a campaign like this at the last election, we would NOT Have had a hung parliament. Bob Katter had a purely musical (more rap) ad watch?v=dQ_zYZBDmls
kbbbb7 1 year ago
It's time to get Gillard out of office.
napalm5 1 year ago
to all those who appeared in this clip, how do you feel now??? Looser!!!!!
MON383 1 year ago
@MON383 Why would they feel looser?
Keiraholic06 1 year ago
@Keiraholic06 how do you feel now????
MON383 1 year ago
@MON383 No different than yesterday I believe, should I feel any different? Should I be feeling looser or should I be feeling tighter this time? As the strange and thankfully gone Pauline Hanson said - please explain?
Keiraholic06 1 year ago
I like PM Gough Whitlam. Medibank became a reality in 1975.
PsychoPunk1965 1 year ago
@PsychoPunk1965
so do i mate,so do i.the only man who gave a shit about the battlers of this country
heathirving 1 week ago
Edward Gough Whitlam. The great man!!!
Thank you for posting this. It's wonderful.
likesdamoosic 1 year ago
Compare this ad to the crap on TV in this election. What a shame.
MooingChoir 1 year ago
this is the most catchiest tune for a political party ad. must have been a winner with the audience and voters.
beachgirl1701 1 year ago
Comment removed
thekidmindlesscom 1 year ago
Comment removed
thekidmindlesscom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WOW beats this years election ads...... Hell she can belt it out
thekidmindlesscom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WOW beats this years election ads...... Hell she can belt it out
thekidmindlesscom 1 year ago
WOW beats this years election ads...... Hell she can belt it out
thekidmindlesscom 1 year ago
@thekidmindlesscom Thats Alison McCallum, she had a her biggest hit that year with 'Superman' - the B&w clip is up on YT.
OneHectare 1 year ago
There's a microglimpse of Bert Newton at 1.14
sjm1 1 year ago
if campaign ads were this good today, i might actually care about politics
and whitlam's wife looks like a man (at 2:01)
BeNjI6576 1 year ago
I can't wait until the 1972 election.
supercrevolution 1 year ago 3
@supercrevolution who will you vote for?
314159192829 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whether you liked or agreed with the Whitlam government or not, there is no denying that this was the greatest political campaign in Australian history. The anti work-choices campaign a very distant 2nd.
richspur2004 1 year ago
Comment removed
richspur2004 1 year ago
aparently burt newton is in this ad somewhere, haven't found him yet tho
BeNjI6576 1 year ago
@BeNjI6576 1:15 he has the typical 70s mutton chops lol
InformationMinister 1 year ago
Comment removed
sjm1 1 year ago
I remember this ad well, tugging on my umbilical cord in tune. One of my first memories. *smirk* Widely criticised fiscally, sure, he still actually gave a damn about people. Abstract concepts like universal free education and health care and that democracy is centred upon people in resourced communities. So much that we take for granted today started there. A national treasure, I think.
PerculaPlushPet 1 year ago
Whitlam was the last great believer in socialist principles - free education, free health care, and free opportunity (end to conscription). The idea that government collects money in tax for the good of its people, to return it to them in equitable services is, in my opinion, almost dead in Australian political life.
jlandles 1 year ago
Is that Blanche d'Alpuget at 1.47 or am I seeing things?
ilovevideos1000 1 year ago
style over substance, classic ALP modus operandi.
whessly 1 year ago
Comment removed
hbintl1 1 year ago
@hbintl1 "You could ever believe they voted for Gough" A complete idiot you are.
InformationMinister 1 year ago
@hbintl1 yeah, that thing, i cant mention his name, and the 2 that came after him, destroyed this country, they are traitors to this country.Have you seen that thing cairns sitting with the heirarchy of the north vietnamese during the height of the vietnam war? That tall thing was the beginning of our journey down the socialist highway we're on right now. How anybody could call this traitor a good person as far australia is concerned has to be a complete and utter moron.
TheBobbsey 2 months ago
@hbintl1
an idiot that enacted more legislation in 2 years 8 months than any government up to that point,including the 18 years of pig iron bob,legislation that you take for granted today.
heathirving 1 week ago
I wish rudd advertisements had decent music
Kubrick8Fanatic 1 year ago
And it still rings true today.
meringandan 1 year ago
I love the backlit hair at the beginning..........a real evangelical look.
Who was this red headed broad?
stegatops 2 years ago
This version was shown in cinemas, hence the colour and reasonable quality
DavidGigg 2 years ago
How can it be in colour when colour TV didn't come to Australia till 1976 or have my parents lied to me?
bumtownv2 2 years ago
LABOUR SCUM
camerondavo 2 years ago
Jeez thats not Don Chipp at 1:08 is it? Bwahahahahahaha.Love the room full of skivvies.And i pinched Goughs bum in 1999....still firm and lovely.Love you Gough baby xxx
trickynic66 2 years ago
um it's bobby limb at 1:08
phoenixseccie 2 years ago
also... f you joe bjelke petersen. can you imagine if the ALP pulled the same rort against the coalition.. the high end of town would be calling 'blue murder'. but when fraser cried after losing 1983... well, that made me laugh.
phoenixseccie 2 years ago
Nope, it's Bobby Limb.
Themikanic 2 years ago
Labour in New Zealand used this jingle as well - Norman Kirk got in just three days after Gough Whitlam. Sadly he died less than two years later.
kmfw72 2 years ago
I was nearly 17 for this campaign, and believe me, this campaign was electrifying, even now I get goosepimples watching. Its the classic time capsule piece of its day. Australian politics is more a 50/50 proposition these days, but there was a period of 23 years of Conservative rule, which ended with this campaign to put Australia's only true Social Democrat in Government, but at least Whitlam paved the way for Hawke, Keating and Rudd. The conservatives still hate him; so he must have been cool
patrickbateman1960 2 years ago
@patrickbateman1960 he wasnt cool he betrayed this country, we went from living off the sheeps back, to the beginnings of socialism. But the labour partly is going down. BIG TIME. It,mll take you years to get back in. Of course if this is not the case, ihave had at least lived in a democratic society. Good luck to you and your kin, when you are part of the 3rd world australia, working for a pittance, living in slums.
TheBobbsey 2 months ago
@TheBobbsey -fuck off, ya stupid 'YOUNG LIBERAL' BITCH WANKER - DIE, FUCKFACE, DIE
smellyfishyvag 2 weeks ago
@smellyfishyvag unfortunately your not doing the socialist party any favours. They couldnt care less about you. The original Labor Party was for the working man, but that went to ground, when that thing was voted in in 1972. That was thek beginning of the end for the true labor party. Yeah, you vote for the socialists, do you really understand what socialism is. Governments since 1972, have parted ways with the working man, they couldnt care less about them. and you brain dead
TheBobbsey 2 weeks ago
@smellyfishyvag dolts voted them in and probably will for years to come, but you wont get back in in your lifetime, we have had enough. Its time alright, time to bury the labor party.
TheBobbsey 2 weeks ago
@smellyfishyvag oh yeah did i mention they have dumbed down the schooling system. Oh wait, your a good example, i rest my case.
TheBobbsey 2 weeks ago
Ahhh, those 70's were snitcher days.
nameian777 2 years ago
Best ever political ad. Can't stop watching it. I wish I was born a bit earlier than 1971 so I could see this momentous period in Australia's history.
phoenixseccie 2 years ago
much better quality than the other clips on youtube of the same video so well done there. As for the new 7TWO intro using the same song well that doesn't surpirse me as that is all channel 7 does is recycle and cannot think of any original. Wake up Adam Boland!!!
Tim525 2 years ago
@Tim525 I only just released that 7 Two used the same song.
bumtownv2 2 years ago
@bumtownv2 * Realised
bumtownv2 2 years ago
allan
well no actually. Nixon was a carpetbagger, a murderer and a complete disgrace.
Gough Whitlam was a REFORMER. We got our beloved Medibank Health care system, free university education, withdrawal from your illegal war in vietnam, the Pill, funds for education, funding for our film and arts communities, equality of opportunity for women, aboltion of the White Australia Policy, and we got our nation back from ugly america.
You reminded me that we can never underestimate americans.
ParArdua 2 years ago 2
that bitch is talking about recognising China, which the two leaders did do, but the only thing they had in common.
Funny knowing now that the powerhouse that is China OWNS that little bitch allen and his arse wipe country, lol.
SmileFromBehind 2 years ago
@ParArdua Good point , he got very little credit for what he did. Just remember Gough made more positive and necesary reforms in three years than the Libs did in 25.
PimpernellP 1 year ago
@PimpernellP thing is with Labor , they were pro action, Medicare , BER scheme , insulation, NBN, sure there were stuff ups from bogus operators, but Labor had a go , the Libs would rather play it safe and do nothing , no reforms form the Libs what so ever
hunkydaboyz 1 year ago 6
@hunkydaboyz thanks, the way I see it , in a lot of cases, Labor made most of the reforms. I think the Libs are still stuck in the glory days of the fifties.
PimpernellP 1 year ago 2
@PimpernellP oh my god, if you believe that, i have shares in an opera house, and a harbour bridge,going cheap. Again another example of the dumbing down of education since that traitor got in, in 1972.
TheBobbsey 2 weeks ago
@TheBobbsey great, hope you sell them soon
PimpernellP 2 weeks ago
Be appropriate if you had credited the
National Sound and Film Archive of Australia
from whom you have 'borrowed' this piece of history.
ParArdua 2 years ago
Thanks for that ParArdua.
However I did not attain this from the NFSA. I have had the footage for a long period of time as part of a collection of campaign adverts that I collected during my campaign activities over the years.
Always happy to endorse appropriate recognitions however. Good to see you're on the ball.
Canberra666 2 years ago 18
@Canberra666 Man this is a gem!!!! Thanx :)
JustICEthx 11 months ago
@ParArdua No, you should have given credit to the Labor party donators after all they are the ones that own it.
Westsydneyshemale 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ParArdua No, you should have given credit to the Labor party donators after all they are the ones that own it.
Westsydneyshemale 1 year ago
Little Patty, you rock!
ParArdua 2 years ago
I LOVE this!!
chelsea1802 2 years ago 2
Did you see the channel 7 rip off? A lot worse!
ozziegal12 2 years ago
Channel 7TWO the new HDTV station is using an up[dated version of this as it's theme, check it out!!
cactusvinyl 2 years ago
Comment removed
cactusvinyl 2 years ago
greatest election campaign ever better than anything that Obama could muster its still powerful today :)
aussieallover 2 years ago
It is a great ad, though President Obama's "Yes We Can" video was in my opinion better.
1prouddemocrat 2 years ago
@1prouddemocrat yeah another socialist, whose going down the gurgler as fast as the labor party here.
TheBobbsey 2 weeks ago
great vid! from kr and tp
swish1234567890 2 years ago
lets face it, if hitler had this advertisement id vote for him
rohaxfx001 2 years ago 25
Gough Whitlam was Australia's Richard Nixon... Fucking dick.
Made deals with anyone that would credit him and discredit others.
allanxxx99 2 years ago
@rohaxfx001 If you'd had an unbroken 23 yrs of Liberal govt you would have too!
weskittun 11 months ago
@rohaxfx001
Which is essentially what happened.
TheLoadedDog 7 months ago
Little known fact, Kevin Rudd is a Freemason.
Marspyramids 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jst like it was time in 07 for this useless cunt rudd!!! NOT it was certainly time 4 him 2 fuck this country just like these labor, comy,union cunts do every time. THIS CUNT SAID HE WAS AN ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE!! HE IS AS CONSERVATIVE AS WHITLAM AND WILL FUCK THE JOINT IN3 YRS AS WELL I HOPE WE PUNT THIS USELESS WASTE OF SPACE CHINESE SPEAKING POOF
camerondavo 2 years ago
Pfft vote liberal much? Piss off you numpty twit.
InformationMinister 2 years ago
You said it, camerondavo!
SenhorBundy 2 years ago 2
I love this song!! Vote 1 Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard!!
sydbenj001 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That still makes the hair on the back of my head stand up - I was 2 when that ad. played - the best political ad. ever!
It worked because it was sincere - not another "stay on message" banal drivel sound-bite.
euphemus2 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
euphemus2 2 years ago
Can someone please send me the song or video of this so l can add it into my presentation of Gough Whitlam 'cause l can't find it anywhere. ;)
yuluvme106 3 years ago
Whatever your politics are....this is a terrific ad!!!!
sdfeinstein 3 years ago 23
Yeah, no wonder Labor got in that year. Any party with a campaign like that would've won by a landslide.
Kachiko20 2 years ago
kinda like barack obama, but a little less tech-savvy.
TimeImp 2 years ago
Kinda like Barak Obama but FORTY FIVE YEARS earlier.
Djehuti8 2 years ago 3
Malcolm Fraser was better.
AMnationwide 3 years ago
his decision was validated by two landslide defeats of the labor party. the australian people decided. you know what? if john howard had been forced to call an election because the senate was blocking legislature then i would have accepted it. most pms do call an election when the senate is unworkable.
whitlam refused to call an election and end a standoff as he SHOULD have because he knew the australian people wanted to get rid of him. he would rather drag the country down then call an election
liber8me 3 years ago
Most pm's would do so if the senate was hostile as a result of a democratic election. But two labor senators were wrongly replaced by coalition premiers with senators who would oppose supply. Calling an election would have legitamised those tawdry, undemocratic appointments and set a terrible precedent. Imagine if Nick Minchin died and Mike Rann appointed Iemmato replace him instead of Turnbulls choice. What Whitlam did was defend the Australian peoples democratic right to choose a government.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
...Joe the plumber for all I care it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the events leading up to and including the dismissal were right.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
at the end of the day they took it to the people to decide.
if they had thought whitlam was doing a good job then they would have returned him to office with a working majority in the senate. whitlam should have called an election. he didnt and got martyred.
liber8me 3 years ago
Can you imagine how the notion of her majesty dismissing a government would reflect upon the government? Especially with them not having served in over twenty years? It was a grave demonstration of no confidence from someone supposedly aloof and impartial. And Howard ignored UN directives over Iraq, over the MV Tampa and over the stolen generation which William Deane seriously disaproved of and his government was at times very unpopular but Deane knew where his place was, Kerr didn't.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
kerr was caught between a rock and a hard place. if he did nothing he country would have gone to hell because there would have been NO MONEY!
when he did do something he got condemned and made whitlam a martyr and everyone forgot just how badly he screwed our economy up.
so you would have preferred that he just sat idly by whilst whitlam refused to call an election when the senate is blocking legislature? how long? he waited for MONTHS. how much longer should have have waited? a year? 2 years?
liber8me 3 years ago
Will you stop stating that Whitlam was a poor economic manager as if it is a fact, it is an opinion, you can cite unemployment, inflation or something similar I have no qualms with that but to just state he "ruined the economy" is broad sweeping and subjective. On to the point at hand Kerr was not elected to the parliament, Fraser and Whitlam were, they were responsible for resolving the deadlock, not Kerr, if Kerr had told Fraser no do you think he would have blocked supply for two years?
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
under the australian constitution whitlam should have called an election. he did not. he was sitting idly by while he had the power to resolve the deadlock?
if kerr had done it all of a sudden for no reason i would have condemned him. however the deadlock continued for MONTHS with no apparent end in sight. if he had done nothing then history would have judged him even more harshly.
liber8me 3 years ago
He should have done so within three years of being elected which he did in 74, he had no constitutional mandate to call an election. If Kerr had not acted history would never have heard of him, Whitlam would have secured supply through bank loans and a liberal party revolt would have eventually lead to the passing of supply.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
see there you go making assumptions based on hindsight.
how was anyone at the time supposed to know that the standoff wasnt going to continue until an election was called.
and whitlam should have called an election as a pm is supposed to when the senate blocks supply in accordance with the constitution.
liber8me 3 years ago
The government(it says nothing about the pm) is permitted to call a double dissolution, they are not compelled to call any election. Whitlam was securing supply through bank loans, that was the ultimate justification for the dismissal so don't say it is speculative hindsight. Kerr was concerned or so he said about the ramifications of a government becoming financed through private money for an extended period time. If supply was not passed until then Aus would owe a fair bit to the banks...
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
but as they hadn't spent any public money for two years there'd also be a fair bit left in the kitty and the Australian people could use their democratic right to punish Whitlam and Fraser for orchestrating the problem by voting elsewhere, that is who has the authority to sack and appoint governments, the majority of the Australian people, not queens and monarchs. And just on another point, on the rare occasion the crown did intervene with the affairs of the parliament, convention held they...
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
issue an ultimatum to the government. EG, Gough call the election now or I will sack you within the month. Kerr issued no such ultimatum to allow the democratically elected government to take the best course of action with all the facts at their disposal.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
quite frankly all that happened was that whitlam was facing a hostile senate, supply was not being passed, no money was getting through and whitlam did not call an election.
kerr finally decided that the country was being brought to its knees while both pig headed leaders had their standoff that was endangering the economy and vital functioning of the country.
after months of this standoff in which whitlam SHOULD have called an election because it wasnt getting anywhere, kerr finally acted
liber8me 3 years ago
I notice you ignored what I said about bank loans andyou ignored what I said aout issuing the ultimatum to the government, you ignored what I said about the crown's decision being a grave sign of no confidence toward the incumbent government and just kept churning out the same lines which can roughly be translated to read "I don't like the Whitlam government so I'm glad Kerr and Fraser found a way to stop him"
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
you want to debate the loans scandal where the whitlam government tried to illegally acquire supply from behind the senate's back?
and yes whitlam did unconventional things like appoint senators to ambassadors positions to get someone who would vote his way. both sides did it.
you are so ideological you ignore the actual reality of the situation as i keep reminding you about.
hostile senate = no election being called = no supply = kerr having to do something to end it.
liber8me 3 years ago
It was a loans scandal neccessitated in order to preserve democracy in Australia which was under threat from Malcolm Fraser and Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen. Ambassador appointments to get rid of nuisances are a long held habit of many governments, it shouldn't happen but it is a far cry from actually appointing a senator from a different party. KHere are thepoints you need to be reminded of, there are other ways of getting supply, senate was blocked undemocratically, kerr could have done other stuff
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
actually joh did appoint someone to the senate from the same party, he just didnt choose their candidate.
kerr should have done other stuff? like what? he waited for months for the crisis to resolve itself. he gave the liberals a chance to negotiate supply or whitlam to hold an election. neither happened.
so then he had two choices - either sit idly by while the idiotic leaders of both parties brought this country to its knees by stopping laws and supply being passed for the next two years.
liber8me 3 years ago
Field had not attending a party function, and besides that other bloke, the coalition premier whose name I can'tremember because he wasn't as bigger jerk as sir joh appointed an independant. Kerr could have ordered a half senate election, he could have disolved the parliament and appointed Whitlam caretaker prime minister, he could have issued the government with an ultimatum, or he could have kept his nose where it belong, but instead he chose to signal the no confidence agaisnt the pm.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
he dismissed whitlam because he had refused again and again to hold an election.
and how stupid do you think the australian people are? if they had thought that whitlam was doing a good job and been unfairly dismissed they would have voted him back. the whole election campaign was based around the economy and whitlam lost.
kerr did exactly as what any responsible person in that position would have done. it was the nsw and qld premiers fault for putting him in that position.
liber8me 3 years ago
I think the Australian people are very stupid but what I think of there intelligence should not effect who they get to choose as their government.For the crown to feel it neccessary to remove an elected government from power is an incredible sign of no confidence and to many it lead them to believe that the government must therefore be doing something very wrong. You also ignored my list of alternvatives which I find amusing to say the least.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
your list of alternatives? whitlam had his chance to call the election and he kept on refusing. kerr dismissed him and replaced him with fraser so
a) supply would be passed
b) HE WOULD CALL AN ELECTION.
no australian prime minister has EVER tried to govern without supply. it was very arrogant and irresponsible of whitlam to do so.
oh and please, the election campaign was entirely centred around the economy. thats where people were hurting and wanted an election in the first place!
liber8me 3 years ago
My list of alternatives? Kerr could have disolved half the senate, Kerr could have disolved both houses and appointed Whitlam, or an independant caretaker prime minister, he could have issued the government with an ultimatum or he could have sought the advice of the government. He did not, he sought the advice of the chief justice who was a former liberal party member, he sought the advice of the crown and the advice of the oppposition.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
all kerr wanted was an election to be held to end the deadlock in the senate. whitlam refused to give it to him so he had to be removed otherwise an election would not have taken place.
liber8me 3 years ago
the facts show it quite plainly:
the senate was blocking supply
you cannot govern without supply
the easiest way to resolve the crisis was to call an election an let the people decide
whitlam refused so he was dismissed in favour of someone who would call an election
liber8me 3 years ago
The people had decided, only a year ago, at which time they chose to be governed by Whitlam for the next three years with a very tight senate. Then the two premiers appoined non labor replacements for labor members, both these members were up for re-election at the next election. Surely the fairest way for Kerr to resolve it if he felt so compelled to do so was call a half senate election?
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
because constitutionally senate elections can only be held a certain time after a normal election. it was not until 1977 until the actual senate and house of rep elections coincided.
liber8me 3 years ago
wait apoligies i got mixed up with another law about the timetable for senate elections.
my point was why should kerr have just called a senate election? they had been facing months of standoff and what happens if whitlam is again facing a hostile senate? all polling was showing that whitlam was going to lose so the senate would have remained hostile
liber8me 3 years ago
If he was to call anything it should have beenthe half senate election because the stand off had been caused when senators had been appointed instead of elected and going to the people would give them a trully democratic senate, their house of represenatives was allready democratically elected by the people.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
kerr was not an idiot. he could see how unpopular labor were at the time - thats why the liberals were blocking supply to force whitlam to call an election.
kerr knew that if he called a senate election then the problem would have been aggravated because even more senators hostile to the whitlam government would have been elected.
liber8me 3 years ago
Video evidence of Kerr at an infamous Melbourne cup suggests he was not quite as clever as the average bear. And I missed the part where we decided it was ok for monarchs to second guess the decisions of the electorate and control the options they were given to choose their government before them.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
well obviously rather then take the risk of continuing this destructive political farce kerr decided it would be far safer to hold a double dissolution the risk a hostile senate remaining in power.
liber8me 3 years ago
There was a risk of a double dissolution returning a Whitlam government but a Fraser senate was there not? I don't know where you get off thinking that governor generals should be deciding for the Australian people how their democracy was to function, surely thats a perogative for those democratically elected?
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
well if a double dissolution returned the whitlam government then they would have had the numbers in the senate.
however if they dissolve the senate then what happens if the polls come true and the whitlam government is so deeply unpopular that the coalition won even more seats? that would have given them the courage to keep on blocking and blocking
kerr did what had to be done so that supply could be passed. it was not going to get through unless one of the parties gained control of both houses
liber8me 3 years ago
There is no reason why a party can't hold a slim majority in the house and another hold a slim majority in the senate. You cannot "what if", monarchs don't get to second guess the Australian people, his job is to protect democracy not the continuity of government. And no my attitude is not that Kerr should have disolved the senate, it is that he should have acted upon the advice of the government, Fraser should have passed supply and Sir Joh should have appointed Colston.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
oh i see, you dont care how many elections it took so long as whitlam got to stay in power?
the whole affair was ridiculous. months without supply and kerr had to take into account that if the coalition won the senate election in a month then theyd have to call another, and another, and another.
it was far safer and more responsible just to call an election and let the people democratically decide their government.
liber8me 3 years ago
Calling a DD was not safer than a half senate election, less than a year ago the people had elected a labor majority to the house and a minority to the senate. How was Kerr to assume that would not reoccur? Opinion polls? The things that said Hewson should have won a landslide? And yes my primary concern is that the government that was democratically elected by the Australian people not chosen, appointed and endorsed by the monarch govern Australia.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
why take the risk of just calling a senate election?
why does whitlam deserve this extra privilege? just call an election, if they people had wanted him he would have stayed in power.
liber8me 3 years ago
The risk of calling the half senate election was no greater than calling a DD. Whitlam didn't deserve an extra anything, just the same right that has been given to every government that has ever commanded a majority in the house of represenatives in this country before and after him. If the people hadn't wanted him, they would not have elected him in 1974 in a fair, democratic election free o influence from Queens, Premiers and chief justices.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
do you know why kerr did it?
a) because if he called a senate election the deadlock would have remained as the liberals would have been returned to office and
b) he was concerned about the legality of whitlams proposals to borrow money from the bank to keep the government running.
c) appropriations began to run out in november and he knew unless they held an election no money at all would get through
liber8me 3 years ago
Oh he told you this did he? Have one too many at the Melbourne cup and let slip or soemthing?
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
its common knowledge. what whitlam was doing to procure funds was illegal.
whitlam had to dismiss he own treasurer for misleading parliament and his party lost a lot of credibility due to the loans scandal.
liber8me 3 years ago
It's the common line, the coalition were no saints either, Whitlam constantly belittled Kerr's authority in public, whilst that wasn't the sole cause their is a reason why Sir Ninian and Hasluck who had cordial relationships with Whitlam did not support Kerr's decision.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
neither party were saints but the coalition never acted illegally and against the australian constitution.
whitlam tried to procure loans ILLEGALLY. he should have been sent to jail.
liber8me 3 years ago
If you cant win fair and square
Do what Libs did in 1975
Gutless bastards quickly changed the constitution so no one could use the same tactic against them
Then dumped pisshead Kerr a few years later
Now we have a Lib opposition doing the same thing again
Holding up funds to suit themselves
lawlers69 3 years ago
lol labor only has itself to blame. theyre the ones who changed the constitution in 1948 when they knew they were about to go into opposition so they had the senate elected via proportional representation. beforehand any party that won government won the senate virtually automatically
liber8me 3 years ago
I dont care who changed what
They were elected to govern the country
And to blue bloods like you who think that you were born to rule
That was hard to take
lawlers69 3 years ago
yes you do. you just dont care about any changes that are adventageous to the labor party.
the fact of the matter is that whitlam was acting illegally trying to procure funds behind the back of the senate. he should have gone to jail.
if labor had not changed the way the sentae was elected we would never have had this problem but they changed it when they were in power and were about to lose
liber8me 3 years ago
a government is elected to pass bills. when it cannot do that anymore it is not fulfilling its purpose and an election needs to be held. you keep saying they should have had a senate election. well 99% of the senators were elected just like the house of representatives. if they held a senate election and power remained with the coalition nothing would have been achieved.
government was not working and when it was it was trying to attain money thorough illegal means
liber8me 3 years ago
Actually 95% of the senate was elected, you may poo poo five percent but when supply was being blocked by a grand majority of 1 seat it means a helluva lot.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
but hey you know what? those senators were chosen by the democratically elected representatives of those states.
furthermore the whole dismissal was due to the fact that the government couldnt function and was acting illegally.
liber8me 3 years ago
by the way i checked. constitutionally you're not allowed to call a half senate election for a set period of time. rudd for instance can call a house of reps election anytime but that would be pointless since he cannot call a senete election til march next year at the earlies. that is why kerr was forced to call the election. constitutionally if an important piece of legislature gets knocked back twice in a 3 month period they are supposed to call a double dissolution.
liber8me 3 years ago
Corrections: If any piece of legislation is knocked back twice within 3 months they are permitte to disolve the senate, ordinarilly governments confident of their ability to improve their position in the senate are similarly confident of being able to do so and will thus disolve both houses. They are not "supposed to" however, there is no reason why the legislation cannot be dropped or resubmitted a third or fourth or fifth time. It is just an option the government has.
cleaverwielder 3 years ago
tha was in response to your statement that they should have called just a half senate election
liber8me 3 years ago