Whitlam was in office 5 December 1972 – 11 November 1975
The figures in the table below tell a different story to the legend.
Because his term started and finished mid financial year the actual figures would be between these quoted two figures.
So he started with between $496m to $790m surplus and ended with between a $1,901m to $341m surplus.
So even if you take the worse case figures Whitlam ended with $449m less than he started with.
Hardly supports the claims about Whitlams wild spending over the total period he was in government.
Especially when you consider that the incoming Liberal government went from a $341m surplus to a $898m debt in the next financial year, a spending deficit of $1,239m.
The table below shows the opposite to what you and others have claimed.
Also considering how the Liberal government went on to increase our debt substantially over the following years, just adds to the inconsistency of the claims against Whitlam.
Sorry but I have not seen any numbers that have supported the claims against the Whitlam government, in fact the figures seem to consistently show the opposite of the legend.
If you do have actual figures, it would be interesting to see them.
As I have previously said the legend does not seem to fit the reality.
