Looks like the Labor supporters are taking this opportunity to slam Abbott and the LNP!
The Whitlam Era versus the Abbott Era: Are we better off today?
THEN: Free university courses
You know that HECS debt that you carry with you? Well, back in Whitlam’s day there was no such thing. University courses were free.
NOW: University fee deregulation
Whitlam’s successor Bob Hawke introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) in the 1980s, which spelt the end of free tertiary education.
The change would increase the debt for current and future students. Under the changes, a debt of $30,000 could grow to $38,000 after five years, based on the 10-year bond rate reaching 5 per cent, The Australian reports. After 20 years it would be more than $80,000.
THEN: Universal healthcare
In the 1970s, a large proportion of the population lacked health insurance, so the Whitlam Government introduced universal healthcare to Australians in 1975, with the establishment of Medibank, which was later renamed Medicare. The opposition vehemently opposed the scheme, but it eventually passed in 1974 after being rejected in the Senate three times.
NOW: Medicare co-payment
Medicare has been tweaked a number of times since to ensure it remains viable, most notably with the Medicare levy.
Today, Australia is grappling with a way to pay for Medicare, the cost of which continues to grow. In its unpopular first Budget, the Abbott Government has proposed a $7 fee for everyone who visits the doctor but, again, it unclear whether this measure will pass the Senate.
THEN: Multiculturalism
The Whitlam Government was the first to adopt the concept of a multicultural Australian society.
Whitlam removed the last vestiges of the White Australia policy, and the concept of a multicultural Australian society became government policy for the first time.
The government established multicultural radio stations and telephone translation services, and provided special educational support for migrant children.
Immigration Minister Al Grassby passionately promoted the benefits of cultural diversity and the importance of social harmony and tolerance.
NOW: Ban the burqa
With the nation on heightened terror alert, suspicion of Australia’s Muslim community has travelled all the way the Parliament House.
Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and Senate president Stephen Parry were among the Coalition members to push for women wearing the Muslim headdress of the burqa and the niqab to sit behind a glass enclosure if visiting Parliament.
The controversial plan has since been dumped.
THEN: Revolutionising foreign policy
Whitlam was seen as a brave reformer for shifting Australia’s international outlook.
Crucially, he was the first prime minister to establish a relationship with Communist China.
Mr Whitlam created the Australian Development Assistance Agency, the precursor to AusAID, and increased foreign aid from $220 million in 1972-73 to $350 million in 1975-76. NOW: Cuts to foreign aid
Cuts to foreign aid have been a major savings measure in the latest federal Budget, and in budget forecasts. The Abbott Government devoted $5.042 billion to foreign aid in the 2013-14 Budget, a cut of $600 million, and it plans to shave off a further $7 billion over the next four years.
THEN: Political courage
Say what you will about Gough Whitlam — and opinion varies wildly between those who call him Australia’s worst ever prime minister to those he see him as a visionary — but he did not lack political courage.
NOW: Poll-driven sound bites
No matter which side of politics you look at, it’s hard to find a politician with the vision and political courage that Mr Whitlam possessed.
On the conservative side of the fence, Tony Abbott is yet to show the type of courage that his mentor, John Howard, regularly displayed. In the face of significant popular opposition, Mr Howard managed to implement a goods and services tax (GTS), buy back the nations guns, and make the case for Australia to go to war.
Mr Abbott was criticised at the last federal election for regurgitating a list of slogans — eg. “stop the boats” — rather than engaging with the issues in depth.
