Fifty years ago, a political earthquake shook Australia to its core: the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. To this day, the event remains a lightning rod for debate, with emotions running high on both sides. But here's where it gets controversial: while the wounds of that day still fester, a surprising alliance has emerged between two political heavyweights, John Howard and Anthony Albanese, over a proposal that could reshape Australian democracy.
On the anniversary of Whitlam’s ousting, Howard, a former Liberal Prime Minister, threw his weight behind Albanese’s long-standing push for four-year parliamentary terms. This rare moment of bipartisan agreement stands out in a landscape still polarized by the events of 1975. Howard, in a candid conversation with broadcaster Barrie Cassidy, urged current Liberal leader Sussan Ley to join forces with Albanese, calling the current three-year terms “crazy” compared to the four-year terms in state governments. “It’s ludicrous,” Howard remarked, “that the national parliament operates on shorter terms than the states. It’s just madness.”
Albanese, meanwhile, has framed this change as a matter of “common sense,” but he acknowledges the uphill battle: securing bipartisan support for a referendum is no small feat. Historically, only eight out of nearly 50 proposed referendums have succeeded. And this is the part most people miss: the stability and continuity of four-year terms could, in theory, prevent the kind of political deadlock that led to Whitlam’s dismissal—a point Howard himself highlighted when he defended the need to break the Senate impasse in 1975.
The anniversary commemorations at the Museum of Australian Democracy (formerly Old Parliament House) were a stark reminder of the event’s enduring impact. Politicians, historians, and the public gathered to dissect the decision, revisit Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser’s roles, and reflect on how far—or how little—Australian democracy has evolved. The atmosphere was charged, with attendees donning Labor’s iconic 1972 “It’s time” t-shirts, a symbol of Whitlam’s reformist agenda, standing out in a sea of muted tones.
The audience largely sided with Whitlam, erupting in applause when one speaker labeled Governor-General Sir John Kerr’s actions as “profoundly dishonest.” Paul Keating went even further, calling the dismissal a “coup” and suggesting Kerr should have been arrested. Yet, amidst the nostalgia and outrage, current Governor-General Sam Mostyn sounded a sobering note, warning of the “fragility” of Australia’s democracy. While refusing to judge Kerr, she admitted she couldn’t fathom blindsiding a Prime Minister in such a manner.
Mostyn’s remarks underscored a broader concern: the growing “collision of apathy and disinformation” that threatens democratic institutions. She challenged Australians, particularly the younger generation, to engage more deeply with their political system. “I hope young Australians feel the same curiosity about our democracy,” she said, “but I fear that, 50 years on, their interest and understanding are waning—a trend we cannot afford.”
Here’s the controversial question: Could four-year terms truly strengthen Australian democracy, or would they simply concentrate power in the hands of the ruling party? Howard and Albanese’s unlikely alliance offers a glimmer of hope for bipartisan reform, but it also raises deeper questions about the balance of power and the lessons we’ve learned—or failed to learn—from Whitlam’s dismissal. What do you think? Is this a step forward, or a risky gamble? Let’s debate it in the comments.
