Well, I tend to think I'm more focused on middle Australia too and have at times not voted the way some people think I might because I thought the choice was crap. They have to earn my vote (when I voted), its not a rubber stamp. I'm glad I didn't vote in 2016 as no way in hell could I have voted for MT and likewise BS.

Yes in I recall you posting that Abbott wouldn't do a Rudd when he was rolled
As for your focus on "middle Australia", isn't that more like  'F ck off I'm all right Jack'. Labor never had your vote with or without "Billy" or those terrible unions.

I may never qualify for a pension card let alone a pension because we've been too aspirational. However I don't believe it's right that 'right' governments look after the well off at the expense of those supposedly less deserving. Nevertheless I'll take as much LNP socialism as the next 'aspirational' whilst it's on offer.

Well, I tend to think I'm more focused on middle Australia too and have at times not voted the way some people think I might because I thought the choice was crap. They have to earn my vote (when I voted), its not a rubber stamp. I'm glad I didn't vote in 2016 as no way in hell could I have voted for MT and likewise BS.

Yes in I recall you posting that Abbott wouldn't do a Rudd when he was rolled
As for your focus on "middle Australia", isn't that more like  'F ck off I'm all right Jack'. Labor never had your vote with or without "Billy" or those terrible unions.

I may never qualify for a pension card let alone a pension because we've been too aspirational. However I don't believe it's right that 'right' governments look after the well off at the expense of those supposedly less deserving. Nevertheless I'll take as much LNP socialism as the next 'aspirational' whilst it's on offer.

Yep, I was wrong about Abbott, I also thought Campbell Newman wouldn't have done a better job and likewise Rudd.

2nd, nope, I don't wear a Blue T-shirt to bed and will not vote for an incompetent team if there is something better on offer.

However the process basically put decision to the people and the people in a landslide gave it to Fraser. So for me, right or wrong the people where given the choice and democracy played it out from there. So for the hero worshipers, do they oppose democracy? And if Gough was outplayed (again no idea), then that's politics and people need to accept this.

It is for this reason that I consider that the dismissal of the Whitlam Government was not a constitutional crisis.

It was actually a demonstration that one of the crucial 'safety valves' in the constitution worked as designed. It was not only the fact that it worked which matters, but also that the method of its working hinged on passing a short term budget extension just to cover the time needed to refer the issue back to the people at an election.

Give me an example of possible wrongdoing by a government where one of the constitutional safety valves may need to be triggered:

Inability to pass money bills through the parliament.

Refusing to resign after losing confidence of the parliament.

Inability to pass money bills through the parliament.

Refusing to resign after losing confidence of the parliament.

Hello All,

in relation to Justapassenger's comments above,

1 / the Liberal Country Party Coalition determined to block all Government Bill irrespective of merit, and up until that time had actually rejected more legislation whilst in Opposition than the total number of rejected since since federation in 1901.

( The LNP still holds the record for an Opposition rejecting 97% of Government Legislation. )

Senator Withers ( WA ) justified this on the grounds that as the ALP Government had secured less total votes ( though more seats ) than the Opposition, therefore the ALP Government was illegitimate, and all measures should be used to remove the Government.

2 / Any Government must have the Confidence of the House of Representatives to retain the confidence of Parliament. The Whitlam Government never lost a Confidence Motion in the House.

When Kerr appointed Fraser as PM, Fraser lost a Confidence Motion in the House and then called a General Election. Whilst calling a General Election after loosing a Confidence Motion is an option, it is not the only option. The other option is the House can call for a Confidence Motion for an alternate group of MPs, which, if they win, can then form a Government.

( It should be pointed out that the Menzies UAP Country Party Coalition lost a Confidence Motion in 1940, and the Curtain Labour Party won a subsequent Confidence Motion, and went on to form Government until the 1943 General Election, which the ALP also won.

This election was interesting for two reasons, firstly, those members of the Armed Forces who were under the then voting age of 21 were permitted to be enrolled to vote, my late father being one. Secondly, the ALPs landslide 1943 election win led to the demise of the UAP, and later on, the formation of the Menzies Liberal Party. )

( It should also be pointed out that Churchill formed a new Government in 1940 as a result of Chamberlain resigning. Churchill went on to form a Government of National Unity, which was a cross party Government , and which also extended the existing Parliament until the defeat of Germany. As a result, the 1940 general election was deferred until 1945.

This is not possible in Australia due to the Constitution specifying the maximum length of a parliament's term. )

3 / The Senate has no provision for a Confidence Motion in the Government the Day. The Senate is a House of Review, not a House of Government.

4 / The Rules of the Commonwealth Parliament are those pertaining to the British House of Commons as at Federation, per Section 49. Although the Rules have subsequently been amended, the principle of the Government only being required to enjoy the Confidence of the House of Representatives has not changed, and neither did, or currently does, the Senate have any Rule pertaining to a Confidence Motion in the Government.

5 / The intransigence displayed, especially by Senator Withers ( WA ) and Phillip Lynch ( Flinders, Victoria ) is not the way Parliament is supposed to work.

They could have chosen to amend Government legislation, or negotiate a compromise, but instead they determined to reject all Government legislation, some Money Bills excepted.

6 / I am therefore not impressed by Senator Cormann's argument that the ALP Opposition should recognise the Coalition's mandate to pass all Tax Cuts, especially when Stage 3 is not scheduled to commence until July 2024, which is half way into the next Parliament after the next General Election due in 2022.

It should also be pointed out that the past practice has been that a current Parliament does not direct a yet to be elected Parliament on future legislation.

7 / It was Opposition Leader Andrew Peacock ( he of the sunlamp ! ) who announced that the Liberal Party would only support a Constitutional Amendment if it is the Party of Government.

8 / It was Opposition Leader Tony Abbott who announced that only senior military leaders would be nominated for Governor General by a Liberal Government.

Regards, Radioman.

I read the other day that Hawkie accumulated a large part of his $200 million fortune after leaving office by being paid to promote a nuclear waste dump and nuclear electricity for Australia. He was quite open in his support for that option but then didn't disclose that he was being paid as this speech in 2016 indicates - ABC:

Former prime minister Bob Hawke's assertion that nuclear power is the salvation for a planet ravaged by global warming divided the crowd at the Woodford Folk Festival, north of Brisbane today.

But it was his assertion that Australia should take on the world's nuclear waste that had the crowd most worked up, prompting several calls of "no thanks" from the audience.

Keating sits on the board of a Chinese bank and tells us to sack our intelligence heads because they're too anti-communist; Hawke takes money from the nuclear industry and goes out to spruik their wares without telling us that he's being paid. Delightfully honest people.

Yes in I recall you posting that Abbott wouldn't do a Rudd when he was rolled
As for your focus on "middle Australia", isn't that more like  'F ck off I'm all right Jack'. Labor never had your vote with or without "Billy" or those terrible unions.

I may never qualify for a pension card let alone a pension because we've been too aspirational. However I don't believe it's right that 'right' governments look after the well off at the expense of those supposedly less deserving. Nevertheless I'll take as much LNP socialism as the next 'aspirational' whilst it's on offer.

Yep, TA behavior after being dumped by MT surprised me and I have called for his resignation since the 2016 election and glad he got voted out which I find sad for him as he would have been better to simply not contest , ie resign.

Your assumptions on with or without Billy are wrong, as I said no way in hell I would vote for MT or TA again.

Radioman,
I think the clear advantage of Fraser holding a general election after being appointed PM is that his leadership and that of the Liberal party in govt was basically Rubber stamped by the people. Surely this should have ended any debate or argument that what Kerr did was wrong. But unfortunately too many Whitlam Supporters on the left saw this differently thus ending Kerr's ability to even reside in Australia.

I read the other day that Hawkie accumulated a large part of his $200 million fortune ...
Keating sits on the board of a Chinese bank ...

Here we go (again)
Guess which party has the most former politicians on ASX 50 company boards.

Radioman,
I think the clear advantage of Fraser holding a general election after being appointed PM is that his leadership and that of the Liberal party in govt was basically Rubber stamped by the people. Surely this should have ended any debate or argument that what Kerr did was wrong. But unfortunately too many Whitlam Supporters on the left saw this differently thus ending Kerr's ability to even reside in Australia.

Dear RTT Rules and others,

I do not dispute that the people decided to collectively elect a different Government, but I do not think that translates to the electorate agreeing with the way Kerr dealt with the crisis.

I also think that as the detail of Kerr's actions became public knowledge, many people , irrespective of their vote, were appalled at some of those actions.

I personally think the approach of the Coalition was wrong in that the Coalition, by their own statements, made it clear that they thought the elected government was illegitimate, and this is despite the Whitlam Government being elected under a voting system that favoured rural electorates over urban electorates.

I also think that Kerr should have made it plain to the Parliament ( he did have access to a telephone after all )  that they should all try to seek a mutually acceptable compromise before embarking on the sacking of an elected government who had the confidence of the House.

In my view Kerr was wrong to have discussions with Fraser without advising the PM. Kerr also had the option of advising Fraser that he should seek some compromise with the Government, but it has been reported that he declined to do so.

I accept that Kerr was put in a difficult position, and that whatever his choice of action, there would be a backlash from some sections of the community. But, the way he dealt with the issues pretty much ensured the resultant backlash.

Once this eventually became public knowledge, then Kerr should not have been overly surprised at the reaction of a significant portion of the public, especially considering that many Trade Unionists well remembered his role in the Penal Clauses Case with the ATMOEA / Tramways Union Secretary, Clarrie O'Shea, which resulted in nationwide strike protests.

The current Coalition Government has a slim majority, who knows what the future holds, in the normal course of events they should hold office for three years, the Menzies UAP Coalition Government certainly did not anticipate falling in 1940.

There are always a series of choices parties in conflict can make to either resolve, or exacerbate a particular issue. In the case of Parliament, all MPs need to be very careful of what they say and do, as it will be on public record, and in some cases, the desire to humiliate or destroy an opponent, can lead to revenge being a dish best served cold.

Shakespeare's Coriolanus comes to mind.

Regards, Radioman.

I read the other day that Hawkie accumulated a large part of his $200 million fortune ...
Keating sits on the board of a Chinese bank ...

Here we go (again)
Guess which party has the most former politicians on ASX 50 company boards.

Yeah but supposedly you know exactly what you're getting when you vote Liberal, I would expect an ex-Liberal PM to be sitting on the board of a Chinese bank trying to figure out how to screw Australia. You don't vote Labor in the expectation that they're going to off-shore all the good working class jobs, privatise everything not nailed down and then make millions after they leave office trying to turn Australia into a nuclear waste dump. Kinda the opposite of the worker's best mate really don't you think?

Or are you and your ilk still going to keep apologising for their treacherous behavior?

Andrew Robb??

Dear RTT Rules and others,

I do not dispute that the people decided to collectively elect a different Government, but I do not think that translates to the electorate agreeing with the way Kerr dealt with the crisis.

I also think that as the detail of Kerr's actions became public knowledge, many people , irrespective of their vote, were appalled at some of those actions.

I personally think the approach of the Coalition was wrong in that the Coalition, by their own statements, made it clear that they thought the elected government was illegitimate, and this is despite the Whitlam Government being elected under a voting system that favoured rural electorates over urban electorates.

I also think that Kerr should have made it plain to the Parliament ( he did have access to a telephone after all )  that they should all try to seek a mutually acceptable compromise before embarking on the sacking of an elected government who had the confidence of the House.

In my view Kerr was wrong to have discussions with Fraser without advising the PM. Kerr also had the option of advising Fraser that he should seek some compromise with the Government, but it has been reported that he declined to do so.

I accept that Kerr was put in a difficult position, and that whatever his choice of action, there would be a backlash from some sections of the community. But, the way he dealt with the issues pretty much ensured the resultant backlash.

Once this eventually became public knowledge, then Kerr should not have been overly surprised at the reaction of a significant portion of the public, especially considering that many Trade Unionists well remembered his role in the Penal Clauses Case with the ATMOEA / Tramways Union Secretary, Clarrie O'Shea, which resulted in nationwide strike protests.

The current Coalition Government has a slim majority, who knows what the future holds, in the normal course of events they should hold office for three years, the Menzies UAP Coalition Government certainly did not anticipate falling in 1940.

There are always a series of choices parties in conflict can make to either resolve, or exacerbate a particular issue. In the case of Parliament, all MPs need to be very careful of what they say and do, as it will be on public record, and in some cases, the desire to humiliate or destroy an opponent, can lead to revenge being a dish best served cold.

Shakespeare's Coriolanus comes to mind.

Regards, Radioman.

So in summary
1) Kerr sacked Whitlam for running an incompetent govt and invited Fraser to be the PM
2) There was an election shortly after
3) Fraser won by the so called landslide thus the people rubber stamped Kerr
4) Many union leaders and others didn't accept that the people's vote didn't support Kerr and took their vengeance out on Kerr personally and he was forced to leave the country for which the should have equally taken to the airport and told to leave.

I read the other day that Hawkie accumulated a large part of his $200 million fortune ...
Keating sits on the board of a Chinese bank ...

Here we go (again)
Guess which party has the most former politicians on ASX 50 company boards.

Yeah but supposedly you know exactly what you're getting when you vote Liberal, I would expect an ex-Liberal PM to be sitting on the board of a Chinese bank trying to figure out how to screw Australia. You don't vote Labor in the expectation that they're going to off-shore all the good working class jobs, privatise everything not nailed down and then make millions after they leave office trying to turn Australia into a nuclear waste dump. Kinda the opposite of the worker's best mate really don't you think?

Or are you and your ilk still going to keep apologising for their treacherous behavior?

I heard SCOMO did a nice speech in parliament last year.

He asked those in the house (all) to raise their hands if they were former small, med or large business owners or CEO's. As you could imagine various people on the LNP side raised their hands but none on ALP side. He then asked for those who were union leaders etc to raise their hands, none did and basically stated to the Speaker why are they so ashamed to acknowledge their background.

Politics aside, who do you want running a $500B budget? Someone with small, medium and large business experience, maybe a few self made millionaires, or likes of John Setka? Actually no quite, the govt does need to be mixed with some representing working class as well as other backgrounds.

So in summary

1) Kerr sacked Whitlam for running an incompetent govt and invited Fraser to be the PM

2) There was an election shortly after

3) Fraser won by the so called landslide thus the people rubber stamped Kerr

4) Many union leaders and others didn't accept that the people's vote didn't support Kerr and took their vengeance out on Kerr personally and he was forced to leave the country for which the should have equally taken to the airport and told to leave.

Your point 1) is complete tripe.

Kerr could not sack Whitlam on the grounds of a so-called incompetent government. Kerr's only Constitutional reason was that the government could not guarantee supply. This was still speculation, because supply had not run out, and the Senate had not voted on the Appropriation Bills. Kerr should have exercised his prerogative and requested ( he could not demand) that the Senate bring the Bills to a vote. Subsequent events demonstrated why he didn't take this action.

Then, what followed was a landslide to Fraser due to two factors; (a) Yes; voters were fed up with the Labor government which did make silly mistakes. It was also hamstrung by a hostile Senate in which Senator Reg Withers ( aka The Toecutter) made no bones about about trying any means to get the ALP out, and (b) many people expressed the view that the government "must have done something wrong" for Kerr to dismiss it. This latter point is not speculation; I heard it and read it everywhere.

The affair was a triumph for Kerr, Fraser and Withers. It was also no secret that the US Ambassador and some of his colleagues in Washington, desperately wanted Whitlam out.

The bottom line was that Fraser knew how to handle Kerr, and Whitlam didn't. Kerr was a very vain man, and was consumed with the importance of his office which he regarded as powerful rather than ceremonial. He expressed this view to many foreign leaders in various visits to him or by him. Whitlam continually expressed the view, in public, that the Governor General must act upon the advice of his Ministers, and this got vertically up Kerr's nose. On the other hand, Fraser knew how to scratch Kerr's back.

It is significant that Fraser took office in November 1975, and Kerr's tenure finished on 8 December 1977. In other words, Kerr was not offered a second term. Fraser wasn't stupid; he used Kerr but he sure wouldn't trust him.
Instead, the office was taken up by an excellent choice; Sir Zelman Cowen, the universally respected former Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Melbourne.

Kerr was also widely known to give the Scotch bottle a good work out pretty frequently. There is one recorded instance of him wandering out of Admiralty House in the dead of night, and bashing on the door of Kirribilli House next door, looking for more booze. His final performance was the 1977 Melbourne Cup where he was to present the cup to the winner. He was as full as a boarding house pisspot, and the presentation was a farce. He departed the scene a month later and nobody from either side of politics was sorry to see him go.

Andrew Robb??

Yeah but you expect that from the Liberals - or I do anyway. It's the sheer greed of Hawke and Keating that I still can't stomach; why did Hawkie have to go out and spruik for the nuclear waste industry? Compare their behavior to that of Malcolm Fraser who actually spent the rest of his life devoted to working for charities... Fraser might not have been the most memorable or popular PM but at least he spent his retirement trying to better the community. Who benefited from Hawke and Keating's work after retirement except Hawke and Keating?

It's pretty obvious in hindsight that neither of them gave a damn about anyone but themselves.

I heard SCOMO did a nice speech in parliament last year.

He asked those in the house (all) to raise their hands if they were former small, med or large business owners or CEO's. As you could imagine various people on the LNP side raised their hands but none on ALP side. He then asked for those who were union leaders etc to raise their hands, none did and basically stated to the Speaker why are they so ashamed to acknowledge their background.

Politics aside, who do you want running a $500B budget? Someone with small, medium and large business experience, maybe a few self made millionaires, or likes of John Setka? Actually no quite, the govt does need to be mixed with some representing working class as well as other backgrounds.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Your point 1) is complete tripe.

Kerr could not sack Whitlam on the grounds of a so-called incompetent government. Kerr's only Constitutional reason was that the government could not guarantee supply. This was still speculation, because supply had not run out, and the Senate had not voted on the Appropriation Bills. Kerr should have exercised his prerogative and requested ( he could not demand) that the Senate bring the Bills to a vote. Subsequent events demonstrated why he didn't take this action.

Then, what followed was a landslide to Fraser due to two factors; (a) Yes; voters were fed up with the Labor government which did make silly mistakes. It was also hamstrung by a hostile Senate in which Senator Reg Withers ( aka The Toecutter) made no bones about about trying any means to get the ALP out, and (b) many people expressed the view that the government "must have done something wrong" for Kerr to dismiss it. This latter point is not speculation; I heard it and read it everywhere.

The affair was a triumph for Kerr, Fraser and Withers. It was also no secret that the US Ambassador and some of his colleagues in Washington, desperately wanted Whitlam out.

The bottom line was that Fraser knew how to handle Kerr, and Whitlam didn't. Kerr was a very vain man, and was consumed with the importance of his office which he regarded as powerful rather than ceremonial. He expressed this view to many foreign leaders in various visits to him or by him. Whitlam continually expressed the view, in public, that the Governor General must act upon the advice of his Ministers, and this got vertically up Kerr's nose. On the other hand, Fraser knew how to scratch Kerr's back.

It is significant that Fraser took office in November 1975, and Kerr's tenure finished on 8 December 1977. In other words, Kerr was not offered a second term. Fraser wasn't stupid; he used Kerr but he sure wouldn't trust him.
Instead, the office was taken up by an excellent choice; Sir Zelman Cowen, the universally respected former Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Melbourne.

Kerr was also widely known to give the Scotch bottle a good work out pretty frequently. There is one recorded instance of him wandering out of Admiralty House in the dead of night, and bashing on the door of Kirribilli House next door, looking for more booze. His final performance was the 1977 Melbourne Cup where he was to present the cup to the winner. He was as full as a boarding house pisspot, and the presentation was a farce. He departed the scene a month later and nobody from either side of politics was sorry to see him go.

So basically what you are saying in a very long winded and historical way is that Whitlam as a PM was a failure or incompetent and the dismissal was likely the right thing to do regardless of the reason.

Fraser did what any other Opposition Leader and later PM would have done, used any legal grounds to take govt and then get rid of anyone he deemed a threat to retaining govt and removed a drunk from the GG's office (another failure by Whitlam, appointing a drunk as GG), obviously he did something right because the people didn't dump him as PM for 7 years. 3rd longest servicing PM since Menzies and only just shorter than Bob Hawke.  

And before you start, no I don't think the Fraser Govt did much at all for the economy during his time, he didn't go backwards, but it didn't modernise either, Bob Hawke started that.

Thank you, Valvegear. I could not have expressed it better.
Unlike some commentators here who were probably in nappies if actually born in 1975, I remember it well. being 31 at the time. I would have manned the barricades but Whitlam called for calm. In 1972 the nation elected a government that finally did something for the people. As a teacher I saw amazing changes in schools. Some things were done too quickly and the world economy was adverse but we had suffered 23 years of an increasingly stale conservative government lacking any vision. But the conservatives thought they were born to rule and, as stated, did everything to block reform. They forced an election after 18 months and lost then 18 months later used the Senate to block supply and manipulated Kerr. Kerr got everything he deserved, despised by both sides of politics and the general public.
I agree point 1 by RTT is the most stupid of  the many stupid statements he has written.
As I understand it in the Senate after the recent election (much more complex than in 1975), if Labor/Greens were able to convince 4 of the other 6 cross benchers, they could block supply and create a rerun of '75. Not going to happen because neither side is likely to go down that road again.
At the time I hated Fraser but came to give him some respect and actually felt a little sorry for him the day Hawke won the election, although I was elated.   I am unlikely to ever have any respect for Howard and still have no words to describe my utter detestation of Kerr

So basically what you are saying in a very long winded and historical way is that Whitlam as a PM was a failure or incompetent and the dismissal was likely the right thing to do regardless of the reason.

No. What I am saying is what actually happened.

So basically what you are saying in a very long winded and historical way is that Whitlam as a PM was a failure or incompetent and the dismissal was likely the right thing to do regardless of the reason.

No. What I am saying is what actually happened.

Yes, you basically stated the govt was fired for being incompetent and overall a poorly performing PM. I agree with that.

Thank you, Valvegear. I could not have expressed it better.
Unlike some commentators here who were probably in nappies if actually born in 1975, I remember it well. being 31 at the time. I would have manned the barricades but Whitlam called for calm. In 1972 the nation elected a government that finally did something for the people. As a teacher I saw amazing changes in schools. Some things were done too quickly and the world economy was adverse but we had suffered 23 years of an increasingly stale conservative government lacking any vision. But the conservatives thought they were born to rule and, as stated, did everything to block reform. They forced an election after 18 months and lost then 18 months later used the Senate to block supply and manipulated Kerr. Kerr got everything he deserved, despised by both sides of politics and the general public.
I agree point 1 by RTT is the most stupid of  the many stupid statements he has written.
As I understand it in the Senate after the recent election (much more complex than in 1975), if Labor/Greens were able to convince 4 of the other 6 cross benchers, they could block supply and create a rerun of '75. Not going to happen because neither side is likely to go down that road again.
At the time I hated Fraser but came to give him some respect and actually felt a little sorry for him the day Hawke won the election, although I was elated.   I am unlikely to ever have any respect for Howard and still have no words to describe my utter detestation of Kerr

Brian,
In 1975 the PM and the govt was fired for poor performance and on a side note generating a bucket load of debt in a very short space of time, Kerr did the job he was paid to do, we need to get over this. If Kerr was so bad then why the hell did Whitlam give the job in the first place?

Fraser's time was more than up by 1982, it was his time to go.

Howard did more for the economy the PM's Whitlam, Keating, Rudd/Gillard/Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull did combined.

Thank you, Valvegear. I could not have expressed it better.
Unlike some commentators here who were probably in nappies if actually born in 1975, I remember it well. being 31 at the time. I would have manned the barricades but Whitlam called for calm. In 1972 the nation elected a government that finally did something for the people. As a teacher I saw amazing changes in schools. Some things were done too quickly and the world economy was adverse but we had suffered 23 years of an increasingly stale conservative government lacking any vision. But the conservatives thought they were born to rule and, as stated, did everything to block reform. They forced an election after 18 months and lost then 18 months later used the Senate to block supply and manipulated Kerr. Kerr got everything he deserved, despised by both sides of politics and the general public.
I agree point 1 by RTT is the most stupid of  the many stupid statements he has written.
As I understand it in the Senate after the recent election (much more complex than in 1975), if Labor/Greens were able to convince 4 of the other 6 cross benchers, they could block supply and create a rerun of '75. Not going to happen because neither side is likely to go down that road again.
At the time I hated Fraser but came to give him some respect and actually felt a little sorry for him the day Hawke won the election, although I was elated.   I am unlikely to ever have any respect for Howard and still have no words to describe my utter detestation of Kerr

Brian,
In 1975 the PM and the govt was fired for poor performance and on a side note generating a bucket load of debt in a very short space of time, Kerr did the job he was paid to do, we need to get over this. If Kerr was so bad then why the hell did Whitlam give the job in the first place?

Fraser's time was more than up by 1982, it was his time to go.

Howard did more for the economy the PM's Whitlam, Keating, Rudd/Gillard/Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull did combined.

RTT your facts are wrong. Here is what actually happened:

Just hours after Fraser was sworn in as prime minister, Whitlam presented a motion in the House of Representatives expressing the house's lack of confidence in the newly appointed prime minister and calling on the governor-general to reinstate his government. The motion was carried, 64 votes to 54. The speaker planned to convey this to the governor-general 'at the first opportunity', but by the time he met with Kerr at 4:45pm, Parliament had been dissolved.

Fraser should have been kicked out and Whitlam re-instated. It was in fact a coup.

Brian,
In 1975 the PM and the govt was fired for poor performance and on a side note generating a bucket load of debt in a very short space of time, Kerr did the job he was paid to do, we need to get over this. If Kerr was so bad then why the hell did Whitlam give the job in the first place?

Fraser's time was more than up by 1982, it was his time to go.

Howard did more for the economy the PM's Whitlam, Keating, Rudd/Gillard/Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull did combined.

Absolute rubbish.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/gough-whitlam-left-a-long-list-of-achievements-20141021-119cpu.html

Howard is a mean splrited individual. The only good thing he did was ban automatic weapons. Unfortunately it takes a massacre for governments to do that. I will not shed tears if he dies before me( I shed a few last Friday watching the Hawke memorial).
I will never forgive Howard for making same-sex marriage so much more difficult to achieve in Australia than in New Zealand. I guess I can thank him for making me decide to quit Australia and move to NZ although, by the time I managed to achieve that, Key had become PM over here and I worried I had made the wrong decision. However although a banker and therefore not someone who would ever get my vote, Key was not a social neanderthal like the Australian conservatives. Thankfully NZ now has a progressive government again. The NZ population saw through the conservative's tax bribes although in these modern days a dynamic vibrant leader helps. I have not felt so proud of my country's leader since 1975 as I do today. I am now a very proud Kiwi.

Yes, you basically stated the govt was fired for being incompetent and overall a poorly performing PM. I agree with that.

I posted facts. If that's how you read them, I'm happy for you. However, the fact remains that the government was dismissed because of failure to guarantee supply. It was a coup orchestrated by Withers, Fraser, and Kerr. This is a matter of historical record. As has been pointed out, this was the Coalition's second attempt to overthrow the elected government.

In summary, Whitlam was sacked by a compliant Governor General helping an Opposition which would stop at nothing to regain power.
It may well be that Whitlam was not re-elected because his government was perceived as incompetent, but that is not the reason he was dismissed, because it couldn't be.

Brianr and I both watched it all happen in real time - you didn't.