Ian Moore: Australia's National Archives Irresponsible With Whitlam Papers
[Ian Moore is a former editor of The Sunday Telegraph and the founding editor of the Sunday Herald Sun.]
History must be an impartial -- and accurate -- account of events; a record of man's achievements, failings and follies. To this end, documents such as cabinet papers are invaluable to historians, who have had to wait 30 years for the political tumult (or embarrassment) to abate before they can assess their contents.
The cabinet papers released on January 1 were the more eagerly anticipated because they cover the last months of prime minister Edward Gough Whitlam; a set of documents that would detail the death throes of a government that -- fuelled by incompetence -- self-immolated so brilliantly that there are still many blinded by the light.
So what happened, come December 31, 2005? Whitlam was presented by the National Archives -- along with the documents -- to put his spin on history. It was like asking Nero to critique the fiddle-playing as Rome burned.
There should have been an outcry. It is the third year in a row the Archives have paraded Whitlam upon the release of the cabinet documents, allowing him to pass judgment on issues raised in them. It does nothing to assert the objectivity of the presentation or provide an independent view of contemporary political history.
Whitlam, however, managed to put us straight on one thing. If he was delusional in 1975, the condition remains untreated. Try this comment on for size.
''The dramatic destruction of my government has given rise to many myths and misconceptions,'' he said. (True, however these are usually spread by so-called true believers in the ALP who also are deluded in thinking Whitlam was a great prime minister.) Whitlam continued: ''Chief among these misconceptions is the notion that the political and quasi-constitutional crisis of '75 led to a paralysis of government. These cabinet documents provide ample proof to the contrary. The conduct of the business of the nation proceeded energetically and efficiently.''
No paralysis of government? Efficient? Leaving out the fact Whitlam thought he could raise money by essentially issuing government IOUs to banks and paying public servants with no legal spending authority, the government was bankrupt. It was staring down a deficit of $5 billion, a phenomenal amount in 1975.
...
However, with Whitlam, someone must point out that the emperor has no clothes. Not only was he not the messiah, he was a false prophet and an economic infidel. It is time he got off the stage and allowed history to be the judge of his tumultuous three years in government, with no prompting from the National Archives.
History must be an impartial -- and accurate -- account of events; a record of man's achievements, failings and follies. To this end, documents such as cabinet papers are invaluable to historians, who have had to wait 30 years for the political tumult (or embarrassment) to abate before they can assess their contents.
The cabinet papers released on January 1 were the more eagerly anticipated because they cover the last months of prime minister Edward Gough Whitlam; a set of documents that would detail the death throes of a government that -- fuelled by incompetence -- self-immolated so brilliantly that there are still many blinded by the light.
So what happened, come December 31, 2005? Whitlam was presented by the National Archives -- along with the documents -- to put his spin on history. It was like asking Nero to critique the fiddle-playing as Rome burned.
There should have been an outcry. It is the third year in a row the Archives have paraded Whitlam upon the release of the cabinet documents, allowing him to pass judgment on issues raised in them. It does nothing to assert the objectivity of the presentation or provide an independent view of contemporary political history.
Whitlam, however, managed to put us straight on one thing. If he was delusional in 1975, the condition remains untreated. Try this comment on for size.
''The dramatic destruction of my government has given rise to many myths and misconceptions,'' he said. (True, however these are usually spread by so-called true believers in the ALP who also are deluded in thinking Whitlam was a great prime minister.) Whitlam continued: ''Chief among these misconceptions is the notion that the political and quasi-constitutional crisis of '75 led to a paralysis of government. These cabinet documents provide ample proof to the contrary. The conduct of the business of the nation proceeded energetically and efficiently.''
No paralysis of government? Efficient? Leaving out the fact Whitlam thought he could raise money by essentially issuing government IOUs to banks and paying public servants with no legal spending authority, the government was bankrupt. It was staring down a deficit of $5 billion, a phenomenal amount in 1975.
...
However, with Whitlam, someone must point out that the emperor has no clothes. Not only was he not the messiah, he was a false prophet and an economic infidel. It is time he got off the stage and allowed history to be the judge of his tumultuous three years in government, with no prompting from the National Archives.