I take exception to the view, that is, that the economic troubles experienced by the Whitlam govt, were solely, or even mostly, caused by the govt’s actions. It is convenient to forget the effects of the world wide “oil shocks” of 1974. Action taken by OPEC members to create a spike in the price of oil which reverberated through the world economy causing inflation and unemployment in most economies.
The Labor govt had been excluded from power largely through the efforts of the DLP throughout the 60’s and so were very inexperienced. It took most of the 2 shortened terms for Gough to sort out his ministry. Having exiled Cairns and sidelined some others, he was assuming a dominance and control over the parliament in 1975. However, Whitlam's lack of a majority in the Australian Senate, and the hostility of the conservative state governments made it difficult to effectively manage the economy.
The CIA were very much active during this period, having achieved the violent overthrow of another leftish govt in Chile and institution of the new “voodoo economics” (as Nixon himself had called it) neoliberal economic policies was the aim. Kerr was known to have been a CIA recruit in his earlier academic roles. Additionally, there is still a blanket over the role of the Palace and Her Majesty's communications with Kerr to this day. BTW peak interest rates were experienced under Fraser’s treasurer, John Howard in early 1981 (23%)
While many people and businesses had some hard times in the time of the Whitlam govt, the real economic damage was felt under Fraser. I still recall that he appeared relieved when Hawke won in ‘82. The wages and prices accord, under Hawke was a continuation of Whitlam’s prescription revealed in the latter half of 1975 when Hayden replaced Cairns as treasurer.
It is convenient, in some people’s minds, to air brush a lot of the background to the dismissal and events leading up to it. The establishment, represented by the press, business and political conservatives have the whip hand in Australian politics. This partly explains their political success, even though their policies and personnel are largely unimpressive. Don