From Whitlam to Albanese: who really won in 1975?
Labor’s journey from Whitlam’s humiliation to Albanese’s record majority reveals the most dramatic reversal in our political history.
Over this half century Australia has engaged in an act of stunning reinvention. Whitlam Labor was crushed in 1975, yet Albanese Labor reigns supreme in 2025, untouchable by a depleted Liberal Party. The crisis of 1975 cast a devastating shadow over Labor as a governing party – yet 50 years later Albanese speculates about Labor being the natural party of government.
This reversal challenges the imagination, yet it constitutes the new Australian reality. The Malcolm Fraser “born to rule” Liberal Party of 1975 no longer exists. Indeed, the 1975 Liberals, driven by cultural confidence and allied to the power centres of Australian society, have long since disappeared. Labor, by contrast, now occupies probably the most dominant phase in its history, the Dismissal now memorialised not as a story of ruinous collapse but as a milestone in Labor’s recuperative power and ability to resurrect itself as a far more formidable party.
Many people today would be unaware of the desperation, anger and fragility that haunted the Labor Party after the double blow of the Dismissal and Whitlam’s rejection at the 1975 election.
Bill Hayden, Labor’s next leader and the only Labor MP who survived in Queensland after the wipe-out, put the decisive question: “How long was the servitude of opposition to be endured this time round? Ten years? Twenty years? More perhaps? The situation was horrid to contemplate. There was the knowledge that Labor had the propensity to self-destruct.”
Hayden asked whether the defect lay in Labor’s character: “Was Labor a party, by its nature, largely condemned to opposition? A party only rarely and briefly permitted to hold the reins of government? To the time of the Whitlam government the Labor Party had spent 56 of the first 72 years of nationhood in opposition.”
Herein lay the diabolic truth: Labor at the national level had failed to bond with the Australian electorate. The defect was chronic and now looked more entrenched, deepened by Whitlam’s humiliation. Yes, there were exceptions – Andrew Fisher in the early post-Federation era was a Labor prime minister on three occasions and John Curtin assumed heroic status during World War II.
But Labor was constantly fuelled by illusion. On the afternoon of November 11, ALP veteran Clyde Cameron told a young Liberal MP, John Howard, of the coming election: “You won’t win, and even if you do the country will be ungovernable.” Wrong on both counts.
Hayden identified the uniqueness of Whitlam’s tragedy. No new PM had arrived so well prepared with so comprehensive a plan arousing “greater confidence and enthusiasm” and yet no government had experienced “such a humiliating close” after “such a brief period”, all arising from “its own bizarre conduct”. Whitlam was a study in doomed magnificence.
The Whitlam Dismissal, 50 years on
‘I saw journalists with their hands shaking’: Paul Kelly recalls the Dismissal
From Whitlam to Albanese: the remaking of Australian politics
The day that shocked the nation
Whitlam’s long shadow still looms over us all
Whitlam ignored all the warnings
I saw it all – Kerr’s move strengthened democracy
The action of the governor-general resolved an administrative gridlock and political stalemate.
My dad’s downfall brought out the worst and best in people
Truth and fury: Whitlam Dismissal not quite as unprecedented as it seemed
‘Don’t write some emotional piece of trash’: Paul Kelly on the Dismissal
Kerr failed by not warning Whitlam: Fraser
Kerr’s torture over Whitlam dismissal revealed from grave
Dismissal day: ‘People very nearly fell down in the street with dismay’
The Dismissal wasn’t the end of democracy
In fact, Australia escaped virtually unscathed from the political crisis of 1975.
An unforgettable Remembrance Day
The Whitlam era was one of enduring change and great mistakes.
‘Partisan ambush’: PM fights for Whitlam in scorching speech
Labor historian and Whitlam’s speechwriter Graham Freudenberg identified the curse that stained the party’s brand: “What happened on 11 November was simply the crowning point of all that had gone before: the denial of legitimacy of a Labor government. The dismissal of that government by the governor-general, the queen’s representative, the crown in Australia, was merely the ultimate expression of that denial of legitimacy.” It was 74 years since Federation; Labor still suffered a legitimacy problem.
Whitlam was destroyed first by the Australian establishment, then by the Australian people when Liberal leader Fraser won a massive 55-seat majority at the December 13 election. Australia in 1975 was a conservative country. It was a country dominated by a conservative establishment that no longer exists today and its political culture was shaped by a conservative disposition that has largely passed into history.
The Dismissal’s main men
The conservative establishment was embodied, above all, in the three figures who orchestrated the Dismissal: Fraser, the architect of the crisis and ruthless traditionalist ready to smash convention to depose Whitlam; jurist Sir John Kerr, once a Labor man who switched allegiances in the 1950s and even fantasised about replacing RG Menzies as PM; and Sir Garfield Barwick, chief justice of the High Court and former Liberal minister, who told Kerr that dismissal was consistent with his “authority and duty”.
To say there was an Australian establishment in 1975 and that Whitlam’s divisive government helped to give it cohesion and purpose is not to construct a conspiracy but to diagnose a political reality. Moving to block the budget and force an election, Fraser called the Whitlam government “the most disastrous and incompetent government in Australian history”.
The forces arrayed against Whitlam included corporate Australia, the finance sector, the farmers, the miners, the media proprietors and the pivotal institutions – the Senate, conservative state governments, the governor-general and a compromised High Court where Kerr enjoyed the support of not only Barwick but also future chief justice Sir Anthony Mason.
In some ways the ultimate symbol was The Age newspaper in Melbourne, famous for its independence and long praised by Whitlam. Yet the paper editorialised on its front page when Fraser decided to block the budget: “We will say it straight and clear, and at once. The Whitlam Government has run its course; it must go now, and preferably by the honourable course of resignation.”
Even the great voices behind Whitlam reformism had brought down the curtain.
Fraser, as the victor, briefly symbolised the nation’s new mood – for the restoration of discipline and order. Elected to parliament as long ago as 1955, Fraser was imbued with the cultural confidence the Menzian age had instilled in the Coalition parties. Embedded in Fraser’s outlook was the belief that the Liberal Party and Coalition were the protectors of the ruling order that had safeguarded Australian sovereignty and prosperity. They were now being called, yet again, to honour that mission.
An unmatched saga of political violence
Fraser’s partner, National Party leader Doug Anthony, had entered parliament in 1957 following his father, “Larry”, who had been a minister in the Menzies government. This was a Coalition united in spirit, steeped in political aggression, wired into middle Australia. It bears almost no resemblance to the feeble Coalition of 2025.
The establishment that Fraser represented was galvanised by the guarantee of electoral victory and its cultivated sense of moral justification. Fraser was big on morality. In his long quest to redeem the integrity and fortitude of the ruling order, Fraser launched an unmatched saga of political violence that saw him destroy John Gorton’s prime ministership in 1971, depose Bill Snedden as Liberal leader in March 1975, block the budget to the Whitlam government in October 1975 and over the following month orchestrate Whitlam’s dismissal with Kerr.
A calculating politician and a stoic longing for a crisis to resolve, Fraser had famously said: “There is within me some part of the metaphysic and thus I would add that life is not meant to be easy … We need a rugged society but our new generations have seen only affluence.”
Fraser believed the strong leader who instigated upheaval must also accept responsibility for his actions. He felt his responsibility came with the election and that was his vindication. It came in spades: a 91-36-seat victory casting doubt on Labor’s future.
Yet politics moves in cycles and twists. The next decade would see one of the most remarkable events in Labor’s history – its political resurgence based on its self-belief and its recuperative ability with the emergence of probably the most outstanding generation in the party’s history, spearheaded by the trio of Hayden, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and supported by a conga line including John Button, Lionel Bowen, Peter Walsh, Mick Young, Don Grimes, Ralph Willis, Gareth Evans, Susan Ryan, John Dawkins, Neal Blewett, John Kerin and Kim Beazley, among others. Over time, Fraser’s 1975 triumph looked different – as the last gasp of the “born to rule” Liberal Party.
The Liberals failed to adapt
That party is long since dead. Indeed, the Liberals today are defined by uncertainty, confusion about identity, policy and belief, and their divorce from nearly all the powerful and cultural centres of Australian life. Fraser would not recognise today’s Liberal Party.
As Australia changed over the past 50 years the Liberals were by-passed, failing to read the pace of social change and adapt. A different and more diverse Australia cancelled any pretensions to the Liberals as the natural party of the ruling order. Indeed, this transition became apparent during the Howard era, 1996-2007, since Howard was never a “born to rule” Liberal or representative of a ruling elite.
On the contrary, he was a down-to-earth pragmatist, with ties to battlers, bush and mateship, a blend of conservative and reformer with a cultural outlook that often located him as an anti-establishment figure.
Hawke and Keating transformed Labor ideology and policies. The defining feature of the Hawke government, as I argued in my book The End of Certainty, was its generation of a “ruling mentality” for Labor. They wanted to turn Labor into a long-run governing party. They came to end the cycle of shooting-star ALP governments, bright but brief.
They respected Whitlam but their government was based on an anti-Whitlam model: no hectic rush to reform, no “crash through or crash”, no short-term fatalism, no big government excesses, an enduring ALP government and nothing, absolutely nothing, to ever resemble the Dismissal. They reclaimed the legitimacy that Whitlam had lacked.
In shaping a Labor “ruling mentality”, Hawke and Keating attacked Fraser’s record as PM: what started as the restoration of discipline ended with Fraser’s refusal to modernise and deregulate the economy. Hawke and Keating grasped the weakness and obsolescence of the old Liberal establishment – they plunged the political knife into the Fraser record and then the Menzies record.
They sought to remake the institutions of the country according to their conception of Labor values and aspirations, the result being the float of the dollar, tariff abolition, industry-based superannuation, pro-market deregulation, enterprise bargaining, a more competitive economy and a balance between financial capital and trade unions. Labor’s recovery from the Dismissal became complete. The party learnt from Whitlam’s blunders and decided that Fraser in office was no giant killer, more a phoney tough. At the 1980 election Hayden put Fraser under serious pressure. While Fraser finished with a 23-seat majority, the contest was much closer; the Coalition won with a tight two-party-preferred vote of 50.4 per cent to Labor’s 49.6 per cent. Labor was back, competitive after just two terms.
Hawke’s promise to reunite the country
In 1983 Hawke’s winning slogan was “Bringing Australia Together” – capturing Hawke’s belief in consensus, it also exploited Fraser’s enduring flaw: he was seen as an agent of division. The Dismissal wasn’t an election issue. But Hawke’s appeal for national reconciliation – with almost religious overtones – had an inclusive message that stretched back to the Dismissal. Hawke pledged “to reunite this great community of ours”, a promise that “embraces every undertaking”.
His 25-seat election-winning majority terminated the Fraser era but also terminated the fading idea of a conservative establishment tied to Liberal Party supremacy. Election results proved the point. In the 10 years from 1981 to 1990 there were 22 state and federal elections with Labor winning 17 and the Coalition side only five. The wheel had turned, nearly full circle.
This story invites further insights into Whitlam. His famous speech on the stairs of Parliament House on the afternoon of November 11 calling on the people to “maintain your rage and enthusiasm” risks being misinterpreted. Whitlam waged a campaign in the cause of Australian democracy. He attacked Fraser, Kerr and the Senate but he campaigned as a constitutionalist. Whitlam never descended into populism; just think about that in terms of 2025 politics.
During the month-long campaign he never tried to incite the mob or encourage violence. Covering his campaign with the big crowds he drew at nightly meetings, I was struck by Whitlam’s didactic method, endlessly lecturing his audiences about the Constitution, the respective powers of the House of Representatives and Senate, and how constitutional democracy had to be restored.
In his memoirs, Whitlam said the “rage” was “not so important” but the “enthusiasm” was “all-important”. Despite the events of 1975, he remained an optimist, the longer he lived the more abiding his quest to focus on the achievements of his government, not the manner of its removal. But on the merit of the Dismissal, Whitlam was correct. Whitlam was always going to lose the next election. Fraser’s justification for forcing a premature 1975 election was weak. Kerr’s exercise of the reserve powers was improper. He failed to warn and counsel Whitlam beforehand as was his obligation. He compromised the impartiality of the office. He was focused on self-preservation, fearful that Whitlam might seek his removal. As Whitlam said of the Dismissal: the queen would never have done it.
Whitlam’s failures are not Albanese’s
Yet the least understood aspect of the Dismissal was Whitlam’s tactical ineptitude and monumental folly. During the constitutional crisis Whitlam ran a virtual one-man government. Senior ministers, the cabinet and the legal advisers were ignored. Gough believed he knew best. He was convinced Kerr would support him, a misreading of the man and of the crown’s powers.
The list of Whitlam’s blunders defies belief: as PM he failed to provide Kerr with formal written advice on how he should act; he publicly humiliated and intimidated Kerr, saying he had no discretion, treating him as a rubber stamp; his final embrace of a half-Senate election was never going to work and betrayed his weakness; and when the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet gave the pivotal advice that the appropriation bills should contain a clause saying after being passed by the Senate they needed to return to the house to be passed again, Whitlam was not interested – yet this advice would almost certainly have thwarted the Dismissal.
Whitlam’s failures were seminal to his dismissal.
Albanese as PM is a study in sharp differences with Whitlam. Indeed, since 1975 Albanese is the Labor PM whose style and tactics diverge the most from Whitlam. Albanese enshrines the virtues of stability, methodical, orderly government, no surprises. His priority is a united party and cabinet, in contrast to the upheavals of the Whitlam era. Albanese does not present as a figure of destiny seeking to transform the country. His sense of Labor reformism is incremental, not epic. He negotiates with the existing institutions and mostly seeks to navigate in the mainstream. He looks to the long run. Above all, he embodies the reality that Labor has become the ruling party of this era. As a governing party, Labor has been remade.
It is far more electorally successful, but many Labor figures looking back to Whitlam will think something has been lost in the transition. There is no Australian establishment these days. But there is a pro-Labor, pro-progressive, dominant political structure where cultural norms are closer to Labor than the Coalition. None of this is to engage in false praise of Albanese. His government now confronts a massive agenda of problems. But it is to assert Albanese operates as a very different PM to Whitlam.
The final point is that Albanese governs when the Liberal Party and the Coalition are near broken, divided, sunk in political civil war and out of touch with the nation. They bear almost no resemblance to the Fraser-led party of 1975.
Recall that in 1974 Whitlam became the first Labor PM to be re-elected. It had taken more than seven decades for the public to find the confidence to put a Labor PM back into the job. And recall that this year Albanese was re-elected with a result superior to that of Whitlam, Hawke or Kevin Rudd, commanding the biggest Labor majority, 94-43 seats over the Coalition. Half a century later, who really won in 1975?
The 50 years since the Dismissal have seen a transformation in Australian power and values. The journey from Gough Whitlam’s humiliating dismissal in 1975 to Anthony Albanese’s unmatched Labor parliamentary majority in 2025 highlights the bookends in the remaking of Australia.