1973 Australian incomes referendum

Last updated

Australian Income Control referendum, 1973
Flag of Australia (converted).svg
8 December 1973 (1973-12-08)
Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to enable the Australian Parliament to make laws with respect to incomes"?
OutcomeNot carried
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes2,420,31534.42%
Light brown x.svg No4,612,08565.58%
Valid votes7,032,40098.39%
Invalid or blank votes114,9671.61%
Total votes7,147,367100.00%
Registered voters/turnout7,653,46993.39%
1973 Income Referendum Results Australia.png
Results by state
Note: The darker the shade of green, the more "yes" votes

The Constitution Alteration (Incomes) 1973 was a referendum proposed by the Australian Labor Party in December 1973 which sought to alter section 51 of the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth legislative power over incomes. The Whitlam government's most prominent reason for posing this amendment was the issue of inflation, [1] as they argued that with government power over incomes, inflation would be better managed. [2]

Contents

The proposal did not pass due to a majority "no" vote from all states. [1] This referendum was extremely unpopular and had the lowest percentage of public support when compared to any previous referendum held in Australia. [2]

Question

The question presented on the ballot paper:

Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to enable the Australian Parliament to make laws with respect to incomes"? [3]

Background

Economic context

Inflation escalated rapidly from the early 1970s to 1980s. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) in 1970 was 3.5% pa but quickly rose to 15.3% pa in 1975, [4] indicating a significant increase in the rate of inflation. In addition, a supply shock hit the Australian economy with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) strikes and "Oil Shock", which not only led to an increase in oil prices but an international recession. [4] The Australian economy became increasingly unstable within the global context. [5] Significant pressure was placed on the Whitlam government to overcome these economic issues and restabilise the economy [6] resulting in the 1973 Referendum (Incomes), Whitlam’s main attempt to control inflation. [5]

Political context

The Whitlam government held power from 1972-1975, and was the first Labor government to be elected in 23 years. [7] Whitlam’s government was prone to criticism over the number of policies his government tried to implement in a short period of time. [8] Whitlam was also frequently criticised by some media, economists and the public for his management of the economy, especially in a time of economic crisis. [8]

Many Australians supported Whitlam for his charisma and charm, [9] believing he made positive impacts on Australia. [10] Whilst others believed that he failed to effectively govern Australia, especially economically. [11] ABC political journalist Annabel Crabb stated that it was Whitlam’s "irrepressible curiosity and quest for wisdom in his life" [9] that was so appealing. [9] However, some Australian commentators, such as Andrew Bolt, argue that this charisma was not enough, and that Whitlam governed "chaotically" [11] as Prime Minister. [11] Whitlam’s government remained controversial, especially in regard to its economic decisions and support for First Nations Australians. [12] This overall controversy meant that there was no likely outcome for Whitlam’s 1973 Income referendum, especially considering the failed history of many Australian referendums. [13]

Public opinion and polls

At the beginning of the campaign before any major press or debates surrounding the income referendum, public opinion polls revealed that three states (NSW, VIC, and SA) would potentially vote ‘Yes’. [1] However, as more press was garnered and Whitlam and Snedden began to make their cases for and against, public approval dwindled significantly, and polls suggested that no state was predicted to vote ‘Yes’. [1]  


The McNair Gallup opinion poll was published in the Melbourne Herald in October 1973. This poll was conducted before the referendum campaign had properly begun and therefore only showed early opinions. It contained the following data: [1]

YesNoUndecided
Voting Intention49373


The Bulletin opinion poll was conducted in mid-November 1973, published on 8 December 1973 and indicated the following spread of public opinion: [1]

YesNoUndecided
Voting Intention473716


The Age opinion poll was conducted on 6 December 1973 and revealed the following data: [1]

YesNoUndecided
Voting Intention41.651.56.9
Billy Snedden, Leader of the Opposition. Billy Snedden 1973 (1).jpg
Billy Snedden, Leader of the Opposition.

This level of opposition to the referendum was a result of many factors. The referendum was posed at a time when Whitlam’s government was dealing with the Watergate scandal as well as anxieties surrounding the conflict in Vietnam. [5] Much of the Australian public blamed Whitlam for these issues and were therefore less willing to place more power and trust in his government. [5] Furthermore, polls suggested the public felt that the Whitlam government was not being clear enough about how the Labor government intended to use its power over income and believed their campaign to be unconvincing and vague. [14] The general public confusion surrounding the referendum was emphasised by newspapers and journalists, such as Kenneth Davidson from The Australian, reporting that the parties themselves were confused about how income powers would be exercised. [1]

The Sydney Morning Herald stated that incomes were a particularly personal and "hip pocket" issue for Australians, justifying the large degree of hesitation and apprehension around the proposed bill, revealed in numerous public opinion polls. [2] The Sydney Morning Herald also argued that due to the personal nature of this referendum, The Liberal Party has been using this apprehension to foster a sense of fear, promoting a "When in doubt vote No" campaign. [2] [1] Public opinion polls revealed that the public had a general lack of understanding of the implications of the referendum and an overall ambivalent attitude towards the income referendum. [1] The public's general lack of understanding, and their ambivalent attitude surrounding the incomes referendum was reflected throughout much of the campaign, revealed in many public opinion polls. [1]

Support and opposition

Whitlam’s Labor government proposed this bill and argued the ‘Yes’ case. Snedden’s Liberal party was the opposing party, arguing ‘No’.

Gough Whitlam, Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam 1972 (cropped).jpg
Gough Whitlam, Australian Prime Minister

Labor (support)

The main arguments from Whitlam’s Labor government in support of increasing income power were:

  1. States were not able to effectively deal with inflation themselves, and therefore, an increase of federal power over incomes was needed. [1]
  2. Inflation could be dealt with through the introduction of quarterly wage adjustments and without the need for wage freezes or increased unemployment. [15]
  3. This power would advance equal pay for women and would create a more equitable income and wage system. [5] [1]
  4. It would not be enough to just have powers over prices. Power over incomes was crucial in stabilising the economy. [15]

Liberal (opposition)

The main arguments in opposition to the increase of income power from Snedden’s Liberal party were:

  1. The increase in federal powers would be a direct threat to federalism and defeat the purpose of the separation and division of powers to the states. [1]
  2. The proposal would be unnecessary as states were capable of managing income control. [1]
  3. That the Labor government were trying to abuse the declining economy to secure more power. [6] [15]
  4. That it was unclear how the federal government intended on using this power once obtained. [5]
  5. Concerns about the permanency of the power and how that could be used and potentially abused by governments that succeeded Whitlam. [15]
  6. There would be a better way of dealing with inflation by holding a conference with federal and state governments and a variety of unions and other industry organisations. Here, they would create an effective plan to deal with the declining economy. [6] [15]
Bob Hawke, then-leader of the ACTU. Hawke Bob BANNER.jpg
Bob Hawke, then-leader of the ACTU.

Other opposition

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), and other trade unions, almost unanimously advocated for a ‘No’ vote to federal powers over incomes. The leader of the ACTU, Bob Hawke, had significant influence in leading the trade union campaigns against the income referendum. [14] Their main concerns focused on what those powers could be used for in the future by non-labor governments and they did not believe wages should be controlled by the federal government. [1] [16] The unions did not believe that the proposed powers would be effective in controlling inflation. [2] [1]

Other minor political parties including the Country Party, led by Doug Anthony, also voted and supported the ‘No’ campaign as they believed that by controlling incomes and capping wages it would be more difficult to maintain productive workplaces. [5]

Other support

Whilst the support for the passing of the income referendum did fall in the minority, some economists and academics in support of increasing income controls, such as Stephen J. Turnovsky and Michael Parkin, believed that the government had little choice to do anything else. [2] Their views were that if the government did not increase their controls over income, they would have to allow for unemployment to grow and the economy to stagnate. However, they believed that if they didn’t gain control over incomes, inflation would be likely to continue escalating. [5]

Economists from The Australian Economic Review acknowledged that inflation in Australia in 1973 was a result of a ‘wage-price spiral’. [17] They argued that the increasing price levels in Australia resulted in the Australian public demanding higher wages, thus, resulting in a "wage-price spiral". [17] Many economists, including those at The Australian Economic Review, argued that if the Whitlam government did not step in and take control over incomes and manage this ‘wage-price spiral’, inflation would continue to escalate, and the public would be negatively impacted. [17]

Results

The 1973 Referendum (Incomes) failed to achieve a ‘Yes’ majority from any state. 34.42% of voters voted ‘Yes’ to the incomes question with a minority of 2 191 770 votes. [5] [18] [15]

Result  [3]
StateElectoral rollBallots issuedForAgainstInformal
Vote %Vote %
New South Wales2,827,9892,618,6731,041,42940.311,542,21759.6935,027
Victoria2,129,4942,001,924657,75633.441,309,30266.5634,866
Queensland1,128,4171,055,299331,16331.70713,56268.3010,574
South Australia737,573700,333193,30128.25490,94371.7516,089
Western Australia588,789542,122133,53125.21396,19974.7912,392
Tasmania241,207229,01663,13528.31159,86271.696,019
Total for Commonwealth7,653,4697,147,3672,420,31534.424,612,08565.58114,967
ResultsObtained majority in no state and an overall minority of 2,191,770 votes.Not carried

Aftermath

Legacy

Owing to the failure of this referendum and the majority opposition towards increased controls over income, the Labor government were unable gain control over incomes. [1] Whitlam’s main impact on issues surrounding income was the implementation of universal healthcare and policies to improve social housing. [19] Both of these reforms aimed to give more equal opportunities to those with lower incomes, however, they could not manage inflation. [19] Academic Joan Rydon, writing in 1974, asserted that "Already the referendum seems to have faded into the past.", [1] indicating the insignificant legacy of this referendum. [1]

Reasons for rejection

The rejection of the income referendum was believed to be due to a multitude of reasons. Alec Robertson, a political journalist for Tribune, the newspaper for the Communist Party of Australia, stated that this rejection of the referendum would significantly impact Australians on lower wages. [20] This was due to the disproportionate impact that inflation, and particularly "stagflation", had on those with lower socio-economic statuses as unemployment increased along with the increase of prices. [21] Furthermore, Robertson argued that a major reason that this referendum did not pass was due to the Labor government’s insistence on posing two referendum questions at once. [20] One question on government control over prices and one on incomes. Robertson asserted that "workers were torn between loyalty to the Labor Government and loyalty to the trade union movement." [20] He believed that if one question had been asked, this would have allowed the government to gain some economic controls to manage inflation as there would have been less confusion and the public would have been less divided. [20] [1]

For the Whitlam government, the failure of this referendum was a clear sign that no other referendum proposed by his government, succeeding the 1973 referendum, would have any hope of passing. [5] [1] This referendum ultimately served to affirm the notion that the Australian constitution is notoriously difficult to amend, and continued the history of failed referendums. [18] Of the twenty seven referendums [2] posed since Federation in 1901, the incomes referendum was the twenty second failed referendum. [2] It also became the most unpopular referendum in Australian history, with the lowest amount of support from voters. [2]

Economic trajectory

Inflation continued to escalate rapidly, exacerbated by a ‘wages explosion’ in 1974. [22] Inflation levels peaked at 19 percent in 1974 [23] and continued to remain at a high level for the next two decades. [24] Economists, such as Richard Holden, in hindsight, view Whitlam’s increase in government spending [25] after the failed referendum to be a large failing by the Labor government. Holden believed that Whitlam only served to worsen the inflation crisis and ‘wage price spiral’ [17] at the time with his economic management. [26] The rejection of Whitlam's 1973 income referendum gave way to later policies that attempted to manage the Australian economy such as the 1975 Wage Indexation Policy. [21] This policy was in response to rapidly increasing wages and attempted to restrict any further growth. [23] However, Bruce Hockman, former Chief Economist at the Australian Bureau of Statistics, argues that this indexation policy only ended up "locking in inflation in the long run". [21] The Australian economy fell into a greater recession from 1982-83. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gough Whitlam</span> Prime Minister of Australia from 1972 to 1975

Edward Gough Whitlam was the 21st prime minister of Australia, serving from 1972 to 1975. He held office as the leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), of which he was the longest-serving. He was notable for being the head of a reformist and socially progressive administration that ended with his removal as prime minister after controversially being dismissed by the governor-general of Australia, Sir John Kerr, at the climax of the 1975 constitutional crisis. Whitlam is the only Australian prime minister to have been removed from office by the governor-general.

A minimum wage is the lowest remuneration that employers can legally pay their employees—the price floor below which employees may not sell their labor. Most countries had introduced minimum wage legislation by the end of the 20th century. Because minimum wages increase the cost of labor, companies often try to avoid minimum wage laws by using gig workers, by moving labor to locations with lower or nonexistent minimum wages, or by automating job functions. Minimum wage policies can vary significantly between countries or even within a country, with different regions, sectors, or age groups having their own minimum wage rates. These variations are often influenced by factors such as the cost of living, regional economic conditions, and industry-specific factors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1975 Australian constitutional crisis</span> Governor-General dismissal of PM Whitlam

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the prime minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General who then commissioned the leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as prime minister. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history.

Full employment is a situation in which there is no cyclical or deficient-demand unemployment. Full employment does not entail the disappearance of all unemployment, as other kinds of unemployment, namely structural and frictional, may remain. For instance, workers who are "between jobs" for short periods of time as they search for better employment are not counted against full employment, as such unemployment is frictional rather than cyclical. An economy with full employment might also have unemployment or underemployment where part-time workers cannot find jobs appropriate to their skill level, as such unemployment is considered structural rather than cyclical. Full employment marks the point past which expansionary fiscal and/or monetary policy cannot reduce unemployment any further without causing inflation.

The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 was a United States law that authorized the President to stabilize prices, rents, wages, salaries, interest rates, dividends and similar transfers as part of a general program of price controls within the American domestic goods and labor markets. It established standards to serve as a guide for determining levels of wages, prices, etc., which would allow for adjustments, exceptions and variations to prevent inequities, taking into account changes in productivity, cost of living and other pertinent factors.

<i>Economics in One Lesson</i> Book by Henry Hazlitt

Economics in One Lesson is an introduction to economics written by Henry Hazlitt and first published in 1946. It is based on Frédéric Bastiat's essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas.

Incomes policies in economics are economy-wide wage and price controls, most commonly instituted as a response to inflation, and usually seeking to establish wages and prices below free market level.

Labour power is the capacity to do work, a key concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of capitalist political economy. Marx distinguished between the capacity to do work, i.e. labour power, and the physical act of working, i.e. labour. Labour power exists in any kind of society, but on what terms it is traded or combined with means of production to produce goods and services has historically varied greatly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1973 Australian price control referendum</span>

The Constitution Alteration (Prices) 1973 was a bill proposing amendments to section 51 of the Australian Constitution which would give the Commonwealth legislative power over prices. The proposed changes to the constitution were not upheld, with Australians voting against the constitutional alteration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clyde Cameron</span> Australian politician

Clyde Robert Cameron,, was an Australian politician. He was a member of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and served in the House of Representatives from 1949 to 1980, representing the Division of Hindmarsh. He was a leading figure in the Australian labour movement and held ministerial office in the Whitlam government as Minister for Labour (1972–1974), Labor and Immigration (1974–1975), and Science and Consumer Affairs (1975).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whitlam government</span> Australian government, 1972–75

The Whitlam government was the federal executive government of Australia led by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party. The government commenced when Labor defeated the McMahon government at the 1972 federal election, ending a record 23 years of continuous Coalition government. It was terminated by Governor-General Sir John Kerr following the 1975 constitutional crisis and was succeeded by the Fraser government—the sole occasion in Australian history when an elected federal government was dismissed by the governor-general.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">It's Time (Australian campaign)</span> Australian political campaign

It's Time was a successful political campaign run by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) under Gough Whitlam during the 1972 federal election in Australia. Campaigning on the perceived need for change after 23 years of conservative government, Labor put forward a raft of major policy proposals, accompanied by a television advertising campaign of prominent celebrities singing a jingle entitled It's Time. It was ultimately successful, as Labor picked up eight seats and won a majority. This was the first time Labor had been in government since it lost the 1949 federal election to the Liberal Party.

The Prices and Incomes Accord was a series of agreements between the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), in effect from 1983 to 1996. Central to these agreements was an incomes policy to address the stagflation crisis by restraining wages. The unions agreed to restrict their wage demands, and in exchange, the government provided a 'social wage' of welfare and tax cuts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1974 Australian federal election</span> Election in Australia

The 1974 Australian federal election was held in Australia on 18 May 1974. All 127 seats in the House of Representatives and all 60 seats in the Senate were up for election, due to a double dissolution. The incumbent Labor Party led by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam defeated the opposition Liberal–Country coalition led by Billy Snedden. This marked the first time that a Labor leader won two consecutive elections.

The neoclassical synthesis (NCS), neoclassical–Keynesian synthesis, or just neo-Keynesianism was a neoclassical economics academic movement and paradigm in economics that worked towards reconciling the macroeconomic thought of John Maynard Keynes in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936). It was formulated most notably by John Hicks (1937), Franco Modigliani (1944), and Paul Samuelson (1948), who dominated economics in the post-war period and formed the mainstream of macroeconomic thought in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hawke–Keating government</span>

The Hawke–Keating government is an all-encompassing term to describe the duration of the Hawke government and the Keating government, which together spanned from 11 March 1983 to 11 March 1996. Both governments were formed by the Australian Labor Party, and were led from 1983 to 1991 by Bob Hawke as Prime Minister, and from 1991 to 1996 by Paul Keating as Prime Minister, with Keating serving as Treasurer throughout the Hawke government. During the Hawke–Keating government, the Labor Party won five successive federal elections, its most electorally successful period to date; the 13-year uninterrupted period of government also remains the Labor Party's longest spell in power at the federal level.

Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) is a theoretical level of unemployment below which inflation would be expected to rise. It was first introduced as NIRU by Franco Modigliani and Lucas Papademos in 1975, as an improvement over the "natural rate of unemployment" concept, which was proposed earlier by Milton Friedman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fraser government</span> Australian government, 1975–1983

The Fraser government was the federal executive government of Australia led by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. It was made up of members of a Liberal–Country party coalition in the Australian Parliament from November 1975 to March 1983. Initially appointed as a caretaker government following the dismissal of the Whitlam government, Fraser won in a landslide at the resulting 1975 Australian federal election, and won substantial majorities at the subsequent 1977 and 1980 elections, before losing to the Bob Hawke–led Australian Labor Party in the 1983 election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">McMahon government</span> 1971-1972 Australian federal administration

The McMahon government was the period of federal executive government of Australia led by Prime Minister William McMahon of the Liberal Party. It was made up of members of a coalition between the Liberal Party and the Country Party, led by Doug Anthony as Deputy Prime Minister. The McMahon government lasted from March 1971 to December 1972, being defeated at the 1972 federal election. Writing for the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Julian Leeser describes McMahon's prime ministership as "a blend of cautious innovation and fundamental orthodoxy".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Department of Labour (Australia)</span> Australian government department, 1972–1974

The Department of Labour was an Australian government department that existed between December 1972 and June 1974. This department was created and operated under the Whitlam government, with Clyde Cameron appointed as minister. The Department of Labour was a catalyst for the increase in the national minimum wage and pushed for the equalising of pay rates between men and women. During this period, Cameron pushed for paid maternity and annual leave. They also worked to reduce the number of industrial disputes for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Many attribute the department's employment of wage indexation policies as a contributing factor to the 1975 economic recession.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rydon, Joan (1 May 1974). "Prices and incomes referendum 1973: The pattern off failure". Politics. 9 (1): 22–30. doi:10.1080/00323267408401432. ISSN   0032-3268 – via Taylor and Francis Online.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Paul, J. B. (1974). "Political Review". The Australian Quarterly. 46 (1): 116–128. doi:10.2307/20634620. JSTOR   20634620 – via JSTOR.
  3. 1 2 Handbook of the 44th Parliament (2014) "Part 5 - Referendums and Plebiscites - Referendum results". Parliamentary Library of Australia.
  4. 1 2 Warby, Michael (1994). From there to back again? Australian inflation and unemployment 1964 to 1993. Background paper. Australia. Canberra: Dept. of the Parliamentary Library.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Keir, Warren. (2009). Voter Behaviour and Constitutional Change in Australia Since 1967 (PhD). Queensland University of Technology.
  6. 1 2 3 Snedden, Billy., & Whitlam, Gough. (1973, 6 December). Gough Whitlam and Billy Snedden debate Prices and Incomes Referendum proposals at the National Press Club on 6 December 1973 [sound recording]. Retrieved from https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-222380752/listen
  7. ↑ National Archives of Australia. "Gough Whitlam: timeline". Retrieved 29 May 2021 from, https://www.naa.gov.au/explore-collection/australias-prime-ministers/gough-whitlam/timeline
  8. 1 2 Kirby, Miachael (2016). "Whitlam as Internationalist: A Centenary Reflection". Melbourne University Law Review. 39: 850–894 – via ProQuest.
  9. 1 2 3 "Remembering Gough Whitlam: the man who gave Double J life". ABC. 21 October 2014. Retrieved 23 May 2021.
  10. ↑ "Gough Whitlam: Five ways he changed Australia". BBC News. 21 October 2014. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  11. 1 2 3 Bolt, Andrew (22 October 2014). "Gough Whitlam's failures as Australia's Prime Minister obscured by the myth says Andrew Bolt". Herald Sun. Retrieved 27 May 2021.
  12. ↑ Hocking, Jenny (2018). "'A transforming sentiment in this country': The Whitlam government and Indigenous self-determination". Australian Journal of Public Administration. 77 (S1): S5–S12. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12353 .
  13. ↑ "Constitutional reform: Fact Sheet - Historical Lessons for a Successful Referendum | Australian Human Rights Commission". humanrights.gov.au. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  14. 1 2 Bennett, Scott (23 June 2003). "The Politics of Constitutional Amendment". Parliament of Australia. Archived from the original on 7 April 2012.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. (1997). Constitutional Change: Select sources on constitutional change in Australia 1901-1997.
  16. ↑ Solomon, David (26 September 1973). "Incomes, prices poll this year". Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995). p. 1. Retrieved 16 May 2021.
  17. 1 2 3 4 "The Australian Economy". The Australian Economic Review. 6 (3): 4–20. 1973. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8462.1973.tb00176.x. ISSN   0004-9018.
  18. 1 2 Miles, Richard (1998). "Australia's constitutional referendum: A shield, not a sword". Representation. 35 (4): 237–246. doi:10.1080/00344899808523045. ISSN   0034-4893.
  19. 1 2 "Whitlam Institute Healthcare & Social Security". Whitlam Institute. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  20. 1 2 3 4 Robertson, Alec (11 December 1973). "Referendum Post-Mortem". Tribune. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  21. 1 2 3 "70 Years of Inflation in Australia | Australian Bureau of Statistics". www.abs.gov.au. 31 October 2018. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  22. 1 2 Fenna, Alan (2013). "The Economic Policy Agenda in Australia, 1962-2012: The Economic Policy Agenda in Australia, 1962-2012". Australian Journal of Public Administration. 72 (2): 89–102. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12020.
  23. 1 2 Stevens, Glenn (1992). "Inflation and Disinflation in Australia: 1950–91". Reserve Bank of Australia. Archived from the original on 19 April 2016. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  24. ↑ Stevens, Glenn (2003). "Inflation Targeting: A Decade of Australian Experience". Reserve Bank of Australia. Archived from the original on 13 March 2011. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  25. ↑ "The year the economy went 'bung'". The Age. 1 January 2005. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
  26. ↑ Boxall, Anne-marie; Perche, Diana; Forsyth, Hannah; Lowe, Ian; Caust, Jo; Mendelssohn, Joanna; McKenzie, Margaret; Beeson, Mark; Holden, Richard (21 October 2014). "Gough Whitlam's life and legacy: experts respond". The Conversation. Retrieved 29 May 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.