Category Archives: Foreign Interference

Foreign Influence in Whitlam Dismissal

in the public interest. The issue here from my perspective is sovereignty and self determination. For me 11/11 is about Australian democracy not the first World War. Although there is a link. The Dismissal

The Dismissal: Why

Gough Whitlam Couldn’t

Simply Say No




A companion paper to Remember, Remember, 

The Eleventh of November, As A Time Of Blood And Death.

by David Atwell

I am quite sure by the time some even finish the end of this paragraph, they may think that I am some crazy left-wing Australian unworthy of breathing their oxygen. Yet, considering some 31 years have passed since the greatest political crisis of Australian history, and having done much academic study since then, I do believe that “It’s Time” to begin, not only a Constitutional analysis of those events back in November 1975, but also ask the fundamental question why the dismissed Australian Prime Minister, who was central to this drama, one Gough Whitlam, simply did not tell the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to basically fornicate off.

For those of you who may not be aware of this infamous act in Australia history, I will spend some time narrating it here. On 11 November 1975, Remembrance Day in Australia took on a whole new meaning. Instead of remembering the ending of the First World War in 1918, Australians had a new thing to remember: the sacking of a democratically elected government, lead by Gough Whitlam, by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr. This act had come about for several reasons, which I will now outline.

The obvious reason for Whitlam’s dismissal, now readily known as simply The Dismissal, was due to the fact that the Opposition in Australia, the Liberal Party and their coalition partners the Country Party, used their numbers in the Senate to defer the Supply Bill. This Supply Bill was the all important annual Budget, which ensured that the government of the day could govern the country, as it paid for everything more or less. Without it the country would soon shut-down as the Federal government would have no money. As a consequence of this, Kerr argued he was given no choice other than dismiss the current government and ensure new general elections. Whether he had to power to do so, without such advice from the Prime Minister of the time, is highly questionable and we will look at this a little later.

There are other reasons for The Dismissal, although it must be stressed that they are of the conspiracy type and little hard evidence exists to prove them. Having said that as the saying goes truth is stranger than fiction, and considering these theories have persisted for over 30 years, combined with the fact that they have become Dismissal folklore, they should be mentioned even if not necessarily accepted. What they often do, however, is orbit Fraser’s desire to become Prime Minister through any means available. Hence if Kerr gains much of the blame, for The Dismissal, Fraser too should accept much of it as well, because of his political expediency in order to become Prime Minister, regardless of the Constitution, and the damage that it received thanks to his political games.

All of the leading conspiracy theories involve, thus, Fraser on the one hand and the American Central Intelligence Agency on the other. Depending upon which exact theory we follow, they always seem to depend upon how much the CIA was actually involved with The Dismissal itself. Mind you it must be noted that it was not as if the Whitlam Government was not involved with the CIA themselves on various matters, nor can it be denied that the Coalition Parties had not had dealings with the CIA either. What a number of the conspiracy supporters point out, though, are three undeniable events which took place leading up to The Dismissal: all involving the CIA.

The first event took place during the cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate between the Whitlam government and the Opposition. Out of nowhere, or so it seemed, the government accused the leader of the Country Party of sharing a house in Canberra with a couple of CIA employees. This was somewhat denied at first, but eventually Doug Anthony, leader of the Country Party, finally admitted to this whilst claiming that it did not prove a thing.

The second instance was far more substantive albeit somewhat connected with the first. When the Whitlam government found itself in trouble over the Loans Affair (which we will look at a bit later) the government launched an attack against the CIA. No one knows, to this day, why Whitlam begun this action, but essentially he demanded from them a list of every employee, agent or otherwise, who was in Australia during the period in question. By treaty, such information was supposed to have been passed on to the Australian government, regardless of party, as a matter of course anyway, but for some reason Whitlam demanded that it all be done in public and the list was to be tabled in Parliament. This list was supposed to be handed to Whitlam on or around 11 November 1975. It never was.

And finally, connected with the CIA agent list business, there was a back channel communiqué made by the CIA to the Australian Secret Intelligence Agency (ASIS) office at the Australian embassy in Washington DC. In no short terms it asked ASIS whether the security arrangements between the two countries had altered and in what direction was Whitlam taking Australia politically. Although it was probably an honest attempt at trying to get an understanding as to what Whitlam was doing, it nevertheless gained the attention of the Head of ASIS who immediately informed Whitlam. Within 24 hours Whitlam had been sacked.

But, regardless of whether or not the conspiracy theorists might be right, at least the legitimate reason why Whitlam was dismissed was the Loans Affairs. These loans all involved one shady character by the name of Khemlani. The Whitlam government wanted to raise a $au4 billion loan to develop the north-west gas and oil fields just in the immediate aftermath of the Yom Kippur War whence OPEC, lead by Saudi Arabia, placed an oil embargo upon the West for its support of Israel during that conflict. The irony is today, the north-west gas and oil fields are one of Australia’s great resources. Whitlam’s mistake, however, was his willingness to use Arab money, as the loan source, instead of the traditional manner of having the loan raised in London or New York.

In doing so, when news got out about the loan, was bad enough, yet the government was able to whether the storm in June-July of 1975. However, it then sealed its fate when, even though Whitlam announced to Parliament that the loans were not going to be sought and that authorisation had be withdrawn to further loan negotiations, two of his government Ministers, one REX Connor and Jim Cairns, decided to continue seeking these loans secretly and thus in total contradiction to what the Prime Minister had told Parliament. Inevitably word got out, from Khemlani himself as a matter of fact, that he had continued to negotiate the loans well after Whitlam had said otherwise. And luckily, or possibly deliberately, for the Opposition, such news arrived just as debate over the Budget had commenced. About three weeks later The Dismissal took place.

Now our first question to raise, in order to explore why Whitlam simply did not tell Kerr to take a hike, is the Constitutional ins-and-outs from which Whitlam was coming from. Essentially Whitlam believed in the Westminster system’s doctrine of Ministerial Advice. Basically it means that the Monarch or their representative – in other words the Governor-General in this case – can only act upon the advice given to them by the Prime Minister or one of the other Ministers of the Crown – in other words Cabinet Ministers. The Monarch may reject this advice, however, but they may not initiate independent action themselves nor may they gain advice from any other source other than those already mentioned above.

In Australia, prior to The Dismissal, it was generally believed that this doctrine of Ministerial Advice had been written into the Constitution under the following Sections:


62. There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

63. The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.


Do note that the term Federal Executive Council usually applies to the senior members of Cabinet: in other words the Prime Minister, the Deputy PM, and one or two other Ministers of State.

The supporters of Kerr, however, always point towards Section 2 (as well as Section 64 Para i & ii above) in justifying his actions insofar as the Governor-General has the right to hire and fire:


2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.


But this Section cannot be taken alone, nor Section 64 for that matter, when dealing with such issues, because Section 67 very clearly defines the situation:


67. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the appointment and removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall be vested in the Governor-General in Council, unless the appointment is delegated by the Governor-General in Council or by a law of the Commonwealth to some other authority.



In other words the Constitution states that the Governor-General can appoint and dismiss, but can only do such things when the Governor-General is advised to do so by members of the Federal Executive Council. It goes without saying that this was never the case in November 1975.

So essentially Whitlam was taken by surprise on that fateful morning as he never expected whatsoever to be ambushed by his dismissal.

And now finally we get to explore the alternate history part of this essay. It is well known that it took some 2 hours before Whitlam finally made a public appearance with some eloquence, tempered with great passion, in giving his famous speech on the steps of Parliament, proclaiming in part:


Well may we say ‘God Save the Queen’, because nothing will save the Governor-General.


These are some fighting words, but Whitlam never really made a fight of it: not at least in the more traditional sense of leading a revolution against the Governor-General (and the Monarch) akin to what our American cousins did some 200 years prior to 1975. In many respects, considering the great anger of the crowd in Canberra that day, it would not have been hard for Whitlam to have done that. Certainly the large student population would have likely joined such a revolution as would have the large trade union population. And, as events would unfold throughout the rest of November and early December, such a revolution could have taken place judging by the tens of thousands of protesters who turned out at the various Labor Party political rallies running up to the election in December 1975.


The answer to this question probably lies in two parts. And it was all because of Whitlam in many respects. At this point in time we should probably look at the man himself in question albeit briefly. To begin with he was a World War II veteran. In fact he served in the Royal Australian Air Force. Furthermore, he was also a lawyer for many years before being elected to Federal Parliament. As a consequence, he had served in Parliament for many years. He was also, what was called back then, a social democrat – not a revolutionary socialist. And finally, after Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, and the wholehearted unpopularity which it had gained by early 1972, wherein millions of Australians marched everywhere against that war, all convinced Whitlam that war achieved nothing but blood and death.

So here we are, in November 1975, with Australia on the very edge of civil war. Regardless of the moment, Whitlam would have known for certain that, even though he may have had much support in various parts of the nation, a significant number of Australians would be against him regardless of what he decided to announce on the footsteps of Parliament. As such, and even though Whitlam probably did not know it at the time, the armed forces had been alerted to expect trouble by the Governor-General. Although the reservists had not been called up, the regular forces were mobilising nevertheless with the possible task of taking on rioting students and trade unionists. This could have meant that Australia would face a war, in the end, not too dissimilar to Vietnam, which was clearly an experience anyone, let alone Whitlam, would want to avoid. Furthermore, Whitlam knew all too well the fate of the socialist Chilean President Allende from only a few years before where his death, at the hands of the military, meant a dreadful future for Chile under the likes of Pinochet. Taking account of all this, then, as well as Whitlam’s character, it is not surprising then that he declined to call for a revolution.

Although the above few paragraphs may appear to make Whitlam out to be pious, in truth he was anything but. He was a politician first and foremost. Whilst Whitlam may have feared destruction and much bloodshed, had he called for a revolution, we must remember that he was also a lawyer who loved the Constitution. He believed that the Constitution was on his side. But he also believed that he was just given a huge political windfall. Due to lots of different reasons, the Labor Party had become very unpopular with the voters. The oil blockade of OPEC ensured a global recession had taken place. Not only was the price of oil high, but food and everything else had become much more expensive. Similarly, unemployment began to rise and numerous companies had gone to the wall. Then there was the Loans Affair business. All this made for one very unhappy Australian electorate.

Then came The Dismissal. This changed the entire political scene, not just overnight, but within a matter of minutes. All of a sudden Whitlam was seen in a new light by many Australians insofar as it was seen that big business, the Liberal Party, not to mention the nation’s elites, had broken the rules in order to kick Whitlam out of office by any means necessary. To put it simply, in terms most Australians understood, the so called “neutral umpire”, that being the Governor-General, had conspired with the “enemy” which led him to deliberately cheat and break the rules. Whitlam, in the few hours he had from when he was dismissed to when he gave his impromptu speech on the steps of Parliament, had probably thought about this and believed that, in just under a month’s time, he would romp it in at the elections and given a new lease of life. He more than likely believed that, if he played by the rules, whilst the others did not, Australians would side with him, if for nothing else, he played the game fair.

What Whitlam did not calculate on, however, was the political campaign waged by Fraser. Fraser knew he was tarnished by The Dismissal, regardless of how innocent he tried to portray himself, and hence basically ignored The Dismissal in his election campaign. Consequently, he concentrated on petrol prices, he concentrated on Australia being in an economic recession, he concentrated on bankruptcies, and he concentrated on unemployment. At first, Australians hardly listened to what Fraser had to say, as they were too wound up in the emotional climatic events of The Dismissal itself. But as the election approached, Australian’s anger over The Dismissal lessoned and they looked into their ever shrinking wallets. It is probably fair to say that the election results in December 1975 were of mixed emotions. In the end, however, Australia may have wanted to vote for Whitlam, but their reduced hip pockets made them vote for Fraser instead.





Primary Sources


Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1987.

Congalton, A. A., Status and Prestige in Australia, Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire Publishing, 1969.

Fraser, M., Malcolm Fraser on Australia, (eds) White, D. M. and Kemp, D. A. Melbourne: Hill of Content Publishing, 1986.

Kerr, Sir John, Matters for Judgement, Melbourne, Macmillian Press, 1979.

Mackerras, M., Elections 1975, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1975.

Quick, J. and Garran, R. The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Sydney: Legal Books, 1995.

Whitlam, E. G., The Truth of the Matter, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1979.

Whitlam, E. G., The Whitlam Government 1972-1975, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1985.

Secondary Sources


Archer, J. and Maddox, G., “The Concept of Politics in Australia“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP7-12.

Forward, R., “Editorial opinion and the Whitlam government“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP136-141.

Holmes, J., “Swingers and stayers, 1974-75“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP47-53.

Staveley, R. W. 1976, “The conventions of the constitution: Kerr’s folly”, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP16-19.


Ayres, P., Malcolm Fraser, Richmond: William Heinemann, 1987.

Beed, T., “Opinion Polling and the Elections”, in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP211-256

Bolton, G., The Oxford History of Australia, The

Middle Way 1942-1988, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Browning, H. O., 1975 Crisis, Sydney: Hale and Iremonger, 1985.

Chomsky, N. Necessary Illusions, Boston: South End Press, 1989.

Clark, M., A Short History of Australia, fourth edition, Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1995.

Connell, R. W., Ruling Class, Ruling Culture, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Cooray, L. J. M., Conventions, The Australian Constitution, and the Future, Sydney: Legal Books Pty. Ltd. 1979.

Freudenberg, G., A Certain Grandeur, Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1977.

Goodall, P., High Culture, Popular Culture, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1995.

Goot, M., Constructing Public Opinion, Sydney: Ethnic Affairs Commission, 1984.

Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N., Manufacturing Consent, New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.

Horne, D., Winner Take All?, Ringwood: Penguin Australia, 1981.

Horne, D., Death of The Lucky Country, Ringwood: Penguin Australia, 1976.

Howard, C., The Constitution, Power and, Politics, Melbourne: The Dominion Press, 1980.

Kelly, P., November 1975, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1995.

Kelly, P., The Dismissal, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1983.

Kelly, P., The Unmaking Of Gough, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1976.

Lane, P. H., An Introduction to the Australian Constitution, second edition, Sydney: The Law Book Company, 1977.

Lloyd, C. J., “The Media and the Elections”, in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP171-210.

Lloyd, C. J. and Clark, A., Kerr’s King Hit, Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1976.

McMullin, R., The Light on the Hill, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Marshall, I. And Kingbury, D. Media Realities, South Melbourne: Longman, 1996.

Molony, J., The Penguin History of Australia, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1987.

Reid, G. S., “Conventions and the Constitution”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP67-69.

Sawer, G. 1980, “Laws and Convenstions”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP62-66.

Sawer, G., Federation Under Strain, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1977.

Sexton, M., Illusions Of Power, Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1979.

Smith, R, , “The News Media”, in R. Smith, and L. Watson, (eds.) Politics in Australia, North Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1989, PP254-269.

Turner, G. “Media Texts and Messages”, in S. Cunningham, and G. Turner, (eds.) The Media in Australia, second edition, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1997, PP291-348.

Ward, R., The History of Australia: The Twentieth Century 1901-1975, London: Heinemman Educational Books, 1978.

Weller, P. and Smith, R. F. I. 1977, “The Rise and Fall of Whitlam Labor: The Political Context of the 1975 Elections” in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP49-76.

West, F., “Constitutional Crisis 1975 – An Historian’s View”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP70-80.


Israel advocates in Australia targeted Journalists

I am on a roll with the Israeli Lobby looks like they have been busy little beavers building walls and smoke screens. And NO I am not anti-Semitic I just believe in democracy and want the corruption to STOP.

The media is used to spin messages to change public opinion to build hate against particular groups or to advocate for others as ‘friends’, ‘doing good’ etc. We want impartial professional media to report the truth of matters. I would prefer a peace journalism approach similar to Transcend (Johann Galtung – Peace researcher) where both sides are reported as part of conflict mapping. Looking at the players on both sides, who is influencing the conflict, who is funding it, who is benefiting from it. I am sure journalists who are independent will do this. As for those being paid to promote one side over another they should be charged with fraud. As for those influencing (financing) journalists they should be charged with espionage, deception, fraud, defamation etc. The bottom line is why is it allowed? How far does the corruption go?

I have to laugh at the point made about the Israeli’s criticising the journalist but they can’t criticise Israel?? How easily Australian’s are suppressed… where is integrity?

A few questions here as an Australian citizen learning of this:

  • Why were Jewish members on the ABC Board? Were they not checked out as spies? Below was critiqued by Jewish members:

    McNeill comment: “one of the saddest things I’ve seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children’s cancer ward in Gaza”.
  • Who were the key parliamentarians?
  • Why are excellent journalists blocked?
  • How is this acceptable that a foreign group seek to influence our coverage: Sophie McNeill and the ABC that her every word will be watched closely by AIJAC and she starts on the ground with this key interest group sceptical. We are all aware she will be under even closer scrutiny now. As they seek to influence our coverage, this is a pre-emptive ‘shot across the bows’.
  • The question comes down to media ownership and political influence, so corruption at higher levels allows bias at media levels. So we require an independent Integrity Commission to oversight corruption. This is a check and balance. Excerpt: The US reporter Jodi Rudoren was targeted when she was appointed Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times in 2012 and accused of being biased against Israel and unsuitable for the post

From a peacemaking perspective what we have here is a very small group comparatively to the world of national states. However, not dissimilar to the British they mastered divide and conquer. They used colonisation strategies to garner influence. They used money to pay for influence. Ethically they compromised themselves as the lie becomes the truth. Their influence in Washington is the signal sent to others who see powerful backers. The fear from the perspective of others is power and influence as democracy is a word not practiced as true principles of a democratic nation. I have just written a large piece of information that has come in inspiration so I will post it in the next blog.

Here is an article from the Guardian.

Pro-Israel advocates in Australia targeted three journalists, new book claims

John Lyons says he was put under constant pressure when covering the Middle East for the Australian, and so were ABC reporters Sophie McNeill and Peter Cave

Amanda Meade

Sat 29 Jul 2017 08.01 AEST Last modified on Sat 29 Jul 2017 19.21 AEST

ABC's Sophie McNeill
The ABC’s Sophie McNeill was one of the network’s two reporters who were put under the microscope by pro-Israel advocacy groups, a new book claims. Photograph: Sophie McNeill/Instagram

Pro-Israel advocacy groups in Australia targeted the Middle East correspondent of the Australian newspaper and two ABC reporters, a new book claims.

John Lyons says he was subjected to consistent pressure from the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) while based in Jerusalem for the Australian for six years, as were the ABC’s Sophie McNeill and the veteran ABC correspondent Peter Cave.

In his Middle East memoir Balcony Over Jerusalem, Lyons says Cave told him another group prepared dossiers on Cave and other ABC reporters “and sent them to like-minded journalists and members of parliament”.

Lyons says pressure also came from inside his own paper. He says the former editor of the Weekend Australian Nick Cater refused to publish his work and the pro-Israel lobby bombarded editors with criticism of his reports.

“I phoned Cater and he confirmed that he’d asked for my work to no longer appear in Inquirer [the Australian’s Saturday opinion section],” Lyons writes.

“I let [editor-in-chief Chris] Mitchell know that, from my point of view, the exclusion from Inquirer was just the latest in a long series of disagreements with Nick Cater … he intervened and told Cater that excluding me from Inquirer was not acceptable.”

Lyons writes that an Israeli embassy official was invited by Cater to the Australian’s head office in Sydney, and told editors that the embassy was not happy with him. “To me the idea of an officer of a foreign government wandering the floor of my newsroom criticising me was outrageous.”

Lyons interviewed Mitchell and others for the book, but Cater declined.

In 2015, AIJAC sent a file on McNeill to Jewish members of the ABC board, including the then chairman James Spigelman, and this file claimed among other things that she was unsuitable because she had said “one of the saddest things I’ve seen in my whole life is spending time filming in a children’s cancer ward in Gaza”.

The then ABC managing director Mark Scott ordered a detailed response from corporate affairs, which he took to the board.

“I will not cower to the AIJAC,” Scott said, according to Lyons.

The two-state solution in the Middle East – all you need to know

Read more

Scott was also forced to defend McNeill from attacks at Senate estimates after the dossier was sent to key parliamentarians.

“Before this reporter set foot in the Middle East, there was a campaign against her personally taking up that role,” he said in response to a question from senator Eric Abetz.

“I am saying that she is a highly recognised and acclaimed reporter … she deserved that appointment and she needs to be judged on her work.”

In a letter to the board, Scott wrote: “The article [by AIJAC] demonstrates to Sophie McNeill and the ABC that her every word will be watched closely by AIJAC and she starts on the ground with this key interest group sceptical. We are all aware she will be under even closer scrutiny now. As they seek to influence our coverage, this is a pre-emptive ‘shot across the bows’.

“The pre-emptive attack on McNeill is similar to the approach employed by lobby groups internationally. The US reporter Jodi Rudoren was targeted when she was appointed Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times in 2012 and accused of being biased against Israel and unsuitable for the post … The New York Times refused to bow to the pressure and Rudoren remained in the position.”

Lyons writes that AIJAC director Colin Rubenstein had unprecedented access to the Australian, speaking regularly to editors and even suggesting articles the paper should run.

Read more

After criticising Lyons’s reporting, Rubenstein emailed an alternative article to Cater.

Mitchell, who was supportive of Lyons, later told him that Rubenstein would go behind his back and call Cater if he refused to take his call, Lyons writes. “I got upset with Colin when he rang me and attacked [Australian reporter] Elisabeth Wynhausen as ‘a self-loathing Jew’. I thought it was inappropriate for him to be making that kind of comment about one of my staff. For some time after that I stopped taking his calls.”

Lyons argues that Australian journalists should not accept the trips to Israel organised by the lobby . “During my time in Israel I would come to believe that Australia’s uncritical support of Israel is both illogical and unhealthy,” he writes.

“For more than 20 years, Australians have read and heard pro-Israel positions from journalists, editors, politicians, trade union leaders, academics and students who have returned from the all-expenses-paid Israel lobby trips. In my opinion, no editors, journalist or others should take those trips: they grotesquely distort the reality and are dangerous in the sense that they allow people with a very small amount of knowledge to pollute Australian public opinion.”

Rubenstein told the Guardian he had spoken to editors over the years, including Cater. “I find it hard to see in what way this is nefarious or improper.”

He added: “I certainly did speak to Chris Mitchell about Elisabeth Wynhausen in 2006, and specifically about a piece which read like a ‘hit job’ on both AIJAC and myself, while evoking all too familiar caricatures. I felt entitled to some right of reply – which I received in the form of a letter.

Amanda Meade

Amanda Meade

Read more

“I do not recall ever calling her a ‘self-loathing Jew’ and that does not sound like the kind of terminology I would use. As for Chris Mitchell’s claim about ceasing to take my calls, I must say I was not aware he felt that way at the time – which shows how infrequently I actually spoke to him.

“We did put together a public document explaining why we thought Sophie McNeill … was an inappropriate choice for Middle East correspondent for the taxpayer funded ABC, with its statutory obligations of impartiality.

”Everything we do – critiquing media stories; contacting editors, politicians and journalists and explaining our point of view to them; writing our our letters and op/eds; making complaints – are absolutely normal elements of deliberation and debate in a democratic society.

“I would call on those who oppose our views, including Mr Lyons, to engage with different views in a democratic, tolerant and constructive spirit, rather than demand, as he appears to be doing, that those who disagree with him be silenced or suppressed.” Pro-Israel advocates in Australia targeted three journalists, new book claims | Media | The Guardian

The Guardian approached Cater but he declined to comment

Subcontracting foreign policy to Israeli donors

In the public interest. I felt the words ‘Australia israel lobby’ so started a search. I am being inspired around Israeli influence.

All donations to political parties MUST BE BANNED. This is how democracy is subverted by interest groups.

The concerning part of this article is that Australian politicians are gagged by the Israeli Lobby when Australian values indicate that we must condemn violence and we don’t. That is servitude not sovereignty. It shows how divided we are. The Jewish lobby is successful as it is a small group united (and money). That is why they have power. Without unity there I no power. They control the narrative, as a form of counter terrorism, it is publicly known that Mossad set up politicians in sexually exploitative ways e.g. prostitutes, paedophilia. Blackmail is the modus operandi of control. The world community must say no to tyranny as it escalates.

There is a wise saying – it is out of love for the tyrant that you must stop the tyrant, for their own good. That came from a higher source.

Bob Carr’s book is a step in the right direction. So what will other Australian politicians do – business as usual or leadership?

I note in the article Bob Carr states:

Carr’s new autobiography, Diary of a Foreign Minister, reveals the “extraordinary influence” of the Israel lobby in that nation and says that Australia’s foreign policy has been “subcontracted” to Jewish party donors, which prevents any criticism of Israel, no matter how negatively that affects Australia or world affairs.

Here is the article:

“Israel Lobby Controls Australian Foreign Policy”—Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr

May 19, 2014


In yet another example of something that could be straight out of the Protocols of Zion, former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr has revealed that what he calls the “Israel lobby in Melbourne” controls that nation’s foreign policy and that his nation’s policy has been “subcontracted” to Jewish donors.

Carr’s new autobiography, Diary of a Foreign Minister, reveals the “extraordinary influence” of the Israel lobby in that nation and says that Australia’s foreign policy has been “subcontracted” to Jewish party donors, which prevents any criticism of Israel, no matter how negatively that affects Australia or world affairs.

Speaking in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Carr said that “extreme right-wing” pro-Israel lobbyists had an “unhealthy” influence on Australia’s policy towards Israel and the Occupied Territories.

“I found it very frustrating that we couldn’t issue, for example, a routine expression of concern about the spread of Israeli settlements on the West Bank — great blocks of housing for Israeli citizens going up on land that everyone regards as part of the future Palestinian state if there is to be a two-state solution.”

Carr said that “party donations” and programs targeting journalists were the reason why the numerically small pro-Israel lobby wields so much political influence.

These lobbying tactics “need to be highlighted, because I think it reached a very unhealthy level,” he said, regarding pro-Israel forces in Australia.

In his book, Carr described a conversation he had with former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, about Canberra’s position on the Palestinian UN application.

“How much of this is about money, I asked him,” Carr wrote, according to the Guardian.

“He said about one-fifth of the money he had raised in the 2007 election campaign had come from the Jewish community.”  Jews make up 0.3 percent of the Australian population.

Carr then concludes that, “subcontracting our foreign policy to party donors is what this involves.”

According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, (SMH) Carr also describes Israel’s former ambassador as “cunning” and reveals his fights with the self-described pro-Israel “falafel faction” in [the Australian Labor Party] Labor’s caucus that includes Jewish MPs Mark Dreyfus and Michael Danby.

“The public should know how foreign policy gets made, especially when it appears the prime minister is being heavily lobbied by one interest group with a stake in Middle East policy,” he said in the SMH story.

In diary entries, Carr reveals just how deep his division with former Prime Minister Julian Gillard went.

He complains that Gillard would not even let him criticise Israeli West Bank settlements due to her fear it would anger Australia’s pro-Israel lobby – a reference to the Melbourne-based Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council – which Carr says had a direct line into the prime minister’s office.

“So, we can’t even ‘express concern’ without complaint,” Carr writes. “This lobby must fight every inch.”


Reproducing private text messages, Carr shows how Gillard’s support of Israel was so immovable that she would not even allow him to change Australia’s vote on what he considered to be a minor UN motion.

“Julia – motion on Lebanon oil spill raises no Palestinian or Israel security issues. In that context I gave my commitment to Lebanon,” Carr writes in a text message.

“No reason has been given to me to change,” Gillard replies.

“Julia – not so simple,” Carr responds. “I as Foreign Minister gave my word. I was entitled to because it had nothing to do with Palestinian status or security of Israel.”

Gillard shuts him down in a final message: “Bob … my jurisdiction on UN resolutions isn’t confined to ones on Palestine and Israel.”

* Robert John “Bob” Carr served in the government of Australia as Minister for Foreign Affairs from March 2012 to September 2013, while also serving in the Australian Senate as a Senator for New South Wales. From 4 April 1995 to 3 August 2005, Carr was the Premier of New South Wales, the longest continuously serving Premier of the state.

Intelligence Agencies Undermining Democracy in Australia

In the public interest.

Australia was a progressive country, far more advanced than the United States. Today we are taking on the US system which is very concerning given privatisation, insurance, de-unionisation, deregulation and the loss of rights.

The removal of Whitlam was a coup de tat and a watershed for democracy in Australia.  Some cite it was not different to the Kennedy assassination.  

When does our world move beyond the politics of fear?

Some questions I have pondered as an Australian citizen reflecting on politics that is supposed to represent the Australian people.

What is the nature of the US/Australian alliance? 
In whose interests does it serve?
For those American and UK intelligence analysts reading this, how would you feel if this happened to your country? Stand in Australian shoes.  We are an ally.  A friend. Does that mean anything or is it only about US and UK interests? 
The question is – who are those interests?
Who are the individuals orchestrating a coup de tat or undermining a sitting government?
Is security really ensured through secrecy (deception) or it is about democracy (openness) to ensure transparency and oversight?  What do you want to experience?  
What you do to others returns to the self!
What of drugs?
What of mass surveillance?
What of specific surveillance of peace activists, persons of interest and others?
What of illegal activities?
What of false allegations?
What of undermining a legitimate government?
What of the intended closing down of a US base Pine Gap in Australia?
What of the a national emergency being called by the Governor General?
Are national emergencies used to gain control?
Why did Justice not occur?
Is this happening today?

CIA and Gough Whitlam’s Labor Party of the 1970’s


The CIA and Rupert Murdoch: An Australian Coup