by a Modest Member of Parliament, The Australian Financial Review, April 19, 1974, p. 3. Note from the Economics.org.au editor»

It wasn’t easy for our side of politics to decide to try to force the Government to an election by refusing them the money to carry on the business of government.

The chief argument against doing what we did is that it sets a precedent whereby any Government that takes unpopular action may be thrown out by the Senate.

If that happens, the main casualty would not be the Government that was thrown out but the democratic system itself. Democracy is not a simple system to operate, although it lends itself quite easily to eloquence.

To run the risk of jeopardising it in any way was not an easy decision.

But the arguments for doing what we did were overwhelming. First, we were all most concerned about the Gair affair. As each sordid step in this sordid story unfolded, as lie after lie was laid bare, we suddenly realised that the standards we had accepted for so long were being dragged in the dirt.

Our side of politics has appointed politicians to diplomatic posts, so it wasn’t this that was worrying us, but rather the way it was done in this case.

We would never even have considered acting in the blatantly cynical way that the Government did in appointing Senator Gair when and how they did.

And then, to compound the felony, the various Government spokesmen gave different versions of the sorry affair. We felt that the Government had exposed itself as being unworthy.

But this was not the main reason. What really frightened us was what was happening to the economy. No country can stand the present rate of inflation without serious damage not only to the economy, but even more important, to the social and moral fibre of the community.

Inflation hits hardest at the weakest members of the community, those who have saved for retirement, the members of the weaker unions, the little people — they are the people who get clobbered by inflation.

The rich man who knows how to handle his money and the members of the strong militant unions, they batten and fatten on inflation.

But we wouldn’t have minded it so much if it appeared that the Government were preparing themselves to tackle the problem.

But the Treasurer himself, who above all men should have been concerned, made it quite clear in answer to a question recently, that the Government was determined to press on regardless of inflation, to do all the nice and noble things that needed to be done.

I can understand the Government’s motives, which certainly weren’t evil. They had so many promises to keep; and besides, they had the nice warm-hearted feeling that there were so many gaps to be filled, so many schools and roads to be built, health schemes to be conceived, and so on.

But the Labor Party hasn’t got an option on warm hearts and good intentions. When we were in government we didn’t do many desirable things which we knew needed doing and which we knew made us popular, because in the last resort we were well aware that trying to do too many things all at once would strain our limited resources and so worsen the inflationary problem.

One of the disciplines of government is living, not within your money income, as any Government can print more money, but within the limits of limited resources.

This the Labor Government just didn’t seem able to do. It just couldn’t say “NO” to all the pressures to do nice popular things. And you know what happened to the girl who couldn’t say “No.” Well, that is now happening to the economy.

We knew that the longer we left the Labor Party in power the worse would be the inflationary mess we would have to clear up when our turn came. It is bad enough now but it would be unmanageable by 1975 unless something drastic were done.

And so we did it. And whatever the outcome of the election, I guess we just had to take the risk. But it wasn’t easy.

Yes, the title used on Economics.org.au for this article is the same title used in the AFR 37 years ago, before Julia Gillard’s Prime Ministership and the suggestions of forcing an early election over the carbon tax. Also of relevance is that six months earlier, in October 1973, a Modest Member column titled “Should we put up with socialism?” suggested that the Whitlam government should stay on, so we would all be forced to learn about the evils of socialism by getting it stuffed in our faces, and so we wouldn’t be able to say that they chickened out and that it would have turned out fine.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5