When investigating the US Shutdown I was not lost on the similarity to the constitutional crisis in 1975 known as the Whitlam Dismissal.  It seems I am not the only one seeing the similarities here in Australia.   This blog will drill down as I write and there are some revelations to my surprise.

I’ve just read more on the story and thought immediately of Malcolm Fraser (former Australian PM in 1975) who after politics went on to become the Chairman and founder of CARE Australia. CARE Australia is an Australian charity and international humanitarian aid organisation fighting global poverty, with a special focus on empowering women and girls to bring lasting change to their communities. Malcolm Fraser changed considerably from his early political days where he was not liked. He is much more respected today by Australians.

Malcolm Fraser became the Australian Prime Minister in 1975 because his party (Liberal Party/conservative) shutdown the Labor Government headed by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.  They caused, what is called, a double dissolution by blocking a money bill (supply) in the Senate which cut off the elected government from the money it needed to pay for services and government employees. This action created the fall of the Australian Government. There were many suspicions about players in the background, some indicated they thought the CIA got rid of Whitlam, a criticism never proved but as you will see further in the blog there is youtube information on this question. Obviously I can’t validate the information but I think it raises powerful questions.

Below is a twitter feed from Malcolm Fraser followed by the Washington Post article musing about the similarities with the Whitlam Dismissal.  Me smells a rat… although rats are intelligent, let’s think of another analogy hmmm – guess what popped into my mind – All the Presidents Men.  I go and check out on Google what was that about again? … here is the outline from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_President%27s_Men_%28film%29

In June 1972, a security guard (Frank Wills, playing himself) at the Watergate complex finds a door kept unlocked with tape. He calls the police, who find and arrest five burglars in the Democratic National Committee headquarters within the complex. The next morning, The Washington Post assigns new reporter Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) to the local courthouse to cover the story, which is thought to be of minor importance.

Woodward learns that the five men, four Cuban-Americans from Miami and James W. McCord, Jr., had bugging equipment and have their own “country club” attorney. McCord identifies himself in court as having recently left the Central Intelligence Agency and the others also have CIA ties. Woodward connects the burglars to E. Howard Hunt, a former employee of the CIA, and President Richard Nixon‘s Special Counsel Charles Colson.

Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman), another Post reporter, is assigned to cover the Watergate story with Woodward. The two are reluctant partners, but work well together. Executive editor Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards) believes their work is incomplete, however, and not worthy of the Post’s front page. He encourages them to continue to gather information.

Woodward contacts “Deep Throat” (Hal Holbrook), a senior government official, an anonymous source he has used in the past. Communicating through copies of The New York Times and a balcony flowerpot, they meet in a parking garage in the middle of the night. Deep Throat speaks in riddles and metaphors about the Watergate break-in, but advises Woodward to “follow the money“.

Over the next few weeks, Woodward and Bernstein connect the five burglars to thousands of dollars in diverted campaign contributions to Nixon’s Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP, or CREEP). Bradlee and others at the Post dislike the two young reporters’ reliance on unnamed sources like Deep Throat, and wonder why the Nixon administration would break the law when the President is likely to defeat Democratic nominee George McGovern.”

The latest twitter from Malcolm Fraser (@MalcolmFraser12). public figure & former Prime Minister of … @lightonhill I wanted election, let people judge, no provision in US Constitution … The shutdown is a Republican civil war via @washingtonpost.

@MalcolmFraser12 : Shutdown: The tea party’s last stand via @washingtonpostHope it is like Custer’s at Little Big Horn http://t.co/PrWsW0sj7R 2 minutes ago

Note in the Washington Post article that the Governor General is the Queen’s representative here in Australia but his role was largely symbolic.  However, given the stalemate he acquired the Queen’s consent to dissolve Parliament, the argument here was whether this was a political ploy to undermine a legitimate government by the opposition or a legitimate impasse.  It was not just a question of sacking them all, it was a strategic move.  You only need look into the history to find the answer.  I feel the issue in the US is the same.  Visit http://whitlamdismissal.com/what-happened/overview1 to find out more information. Both my parents were in the crowd when Whitlam gave his speech, they were only a few feet from him. It was a powerful speech refer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOJNaqjUra4.

I just found another video by chance about the Dismissal and the CIA. Interesting…. the secrecy of Pine Gap appears the central issue that was raised by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. According to this video (part 2) the Governor General had been President of the Law Association for Asia which was a CIA funded organisation in the Pacific. I would think ASIS (Australian Security Intelligence Service now ASIO)  should have picked that up.  I would think that would render him inappropriate for the high position of Governor General.  Interesting if this is verified, that this hasn’t been brought up here in Australia as a significant issue.

What is the real agenda of stopping supply (money bills)?  Is it the legitimate blocking of legislation that can’t be funded? is it unwanted programs? is it politically motivated? Is it a coup de tat (as previous blog) or is it a subversive criminal activity?

My intuitive message to the Washington Post and other media is go deeper and follow the money, the source not the supply for the health of democracy.  A true democracy is not secret it is open to all perspectives.  As former US President Kennedy said “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society…”  I would agree with that and I think it is a core issue.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/01/australia-had-a-government-shutdown-once-it-ended-with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/

The United States’ self-imposed federal government shutdown has a way of making people around the world shake their heads in bewilderment. As Georgetown professor Erik Voeten wrote for The Washington Post’s new Monkey Cage political science blog, “I cannot think of a single foreign analogy to what is happening in the U.S. today.”

But there actually is one foreign precedent: Australia did this once. In 1975, the Australian government shut down because the legislature had failed to fund it, deadlocked by a budgetary squabble. It looked a lot like the U.S. shutdown of today, or the 17 previous U.S. shutdowns.

Australia’s 1975 shutdown ended pretty differently, though, than they do here in America. Queen Elizabeth II’s official representative in Australia, Governor General Sir John Kerr, simply dismissed the prime minister. He appointed a replacement, who immediately passed the spending bill to fund the government. Three hours later, Kerr dismissed the rest of Parliament. Then Australia held elections to restart from scratch. And they haven’t had another shutdown since.

Here’s how it happened. Australia, like the United States, has both a Senate and a House of Representatives. In 1975, the chambers were controlled by different parties. The House had passed an appropriations bill to fund the government, but the Senate refused to pass it because it believed that the government was spending too much money on unworthy programs during an economic downturn. The opposition party that controlled the Senate said it would not pass the spending bill unless the government met its somewhat outlandish demand. Does this all sound familiar so far? In the Australian case, though, the opposition’s demand wasn’t repeal of a health-care law — they wanted early elections, which they believed would unseat the ruling party.

Prime Minister Gough Whitlam rejected the opposition’s demands but couldn’t bring the parties to a compromise, and the federal budget went unfunded. Then, on the morning of Nov. 11, Whitlam announced he would hold early elections not for the House but for half of the opposition-controlled Senate (typically, only one half of the Senate goes up for reelection at a time). Kerr, as the the official representative of the queen, who is technically still sovereign over Australia, summoned Whitlam to his office and fired him at 1:15 p.m.

Fifteen minutes later, Kerr appointed the leader of the opposition Liberal Party, Malcolm Fraser, as Whitlam’s replacement. By 2 p.m., before most even realized what had happened, Fraser got his allies in the previously deadlocked Senate to push through the government spending bill. Then everything kind of fell into chaos. When the ruling Labor Party, in the House, learned about Whitlam’s firing and Fraser’s appointment, its members revolted with a no-confidence vote against Fraser. At 4:50 p.m., Kerr dissolved the rest of Parliament, essentially firing everyone, with a formal proclamation that ended with the words “God Save the Queen.”

A month later, Australia held national elections to replace the now-dissolved government. The opposition, led by Fraser, swept to victory in both houses. Australia has not had another shutdown since.

This sort of thing, of course, could never happen in the United States. The fact that Australia could pull it off is a quirk of its history as a former British colony that, unlike the United States, never fully broke away.

Australia’s governor general does not typically fire prime ministers, or do much of anything. It’s a largely ceremonial position and a legacy, as the colonial title suggests, of a time when Australia was a far-flung possession of the British Empire. It’s now an independent country but still a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, which means it recognizes the British monarchy as technically in charge. That monarch still has formal power over Australia’s government but almost never actually uses it. The 1975 crisis was the exception.

The governor general technically acts solely on behalf of the monarch —  the office was established before telephones existed, after all. This means that, legally speaking, the 1975 Australian government funding crisis ended because Queen Elizabeth II dismissed everyone in the government. In practice, the governor general did in the actual firing.

You might find yourself wishing that the United States could follow Australia’s example: Fire everyone in Congress, hold snap elections next month and restart from scratch. But we can’t, because we haven’t recognized the British monarchy or had a London-appointed governor -general in more than two centuries. Maybe, if we ask nicely, Britain will take us back?