Australian WI: Don Dunstan As Prime Minister

WI Don Dunstan, the ALP Premier of South Australia through some of the 1960's and most of the 1970's was instead the Prime Minister of Australia.

Was inspired to do this ATL by the WI on Jim Cairns as PM. Dunstan strikes me as someone who had the personal unconventionality and idiosyncratic image of Cairns (albeit in very different ways) but the electoral pragmatism of Gough Whitlam.

I'm not sure how plausible it is to swap somone over to federal politics in an ATL, considering that I don't believe Dunstan showed any inclination to in OTL?

Also does any know for certain what faction he was aligned with? I have read that he would by current terms be considered Soft-Left, but he certainly seems to have had a lot more commonsense than some other left-wing figures of the term (ie Jim Cairns, etc).

How would Australia in the 1970's differ with Dunstan as PM? Would he be more electorally successful than Whitlam was?
 
Dunstan never publicly expressed any interest in going to Canberra.
But I think he had _some_ ambitions in that arena, as I'm pretty certain both Bill Hayden and Clyde Cameron sounded him out about the possibility of him taking the leadership of the federal ALP after the Dismissal, and politicians just don't ask those kinds of questions to the genuinely uninterested. (For instance, Whitlam made a similar offer to Hawke.)
But the leadership wasn't Hayden's or Cameron's to offer; and anyway SA Labor held office only because of the support of an Independent member, making such a deal pretty unfeasible, even for the popular 'Don baby'.
Here's a much earlier POD than either the rise or fall of Whitlam: Cyril Chambers goes with his friends into the ALP(Anti-Communist) during the Split, prompting the energetic young MHA for Norwood, only two years a State parliamentarian and not quite certain whether he can ever satisfy his ambitions in that sphere, to decide to run for the federal seat of Adelaide.
So Don Dunstan ends up in Canberra only two years after Gough Whitlam arrives.
I have no idea how things would have gone from then on in (perhaps Dunstan's career is actually scuttled by the rumours surrounding his personal life? Or perhaps he ends up rolling Whitlam in a crash-or-crash-though partyroom ballot?)
 
I have no idea how things would have gone from then on in

Anyway, Don was born in 1926, so even if he enters the HoR by the time he's thirty (which is not that unusual) there's no way he's a leadership contender before about 1966/67...

...the year of the landslide repudiation of Calwell and the rise of Whitlam to federal Opposition leader. Then two years later Gough calls the partyroom spill in order to assert his authority over the ALP--except he probably thinks twice if a more viable candidate of the Left exists in the form of Dunstan.

However, Dunstan was not a creature of the hard Left forces who hated Gough the most (the Victorians on the federal executive), so he might not choose to be a Gough-foil, and instead acts as a Whitlamite-Leftwinger.

The real difference in a Don-goes-to-Canberra-'55 timeline begins to happen in 1970, when SA Labor tries to get back into power after Steele Hall scraps the electoral gerrymander.

The problems I alluded to above from OTL wouldn't exist if Dunstan was a caucus veteran at the time of a federal Labor defeat during the seventies--but there still exists the problem that Don was not the kind of 'moderniser' that the other ALP types who came of age after WWII tended to be. His great passion in the area of economic policy in SA was an attempt to create a pilot scheme to introduce European-style 'industrial democracy', a form of corporatism some in the New Left paid lip service to about bringing to this country, but one which ultimately could only ever be a non-starter.

I think Don ends up as failed successor to a Whitlam, then becomes a disillusioned predecessor to a Hawke. That sounds even worse than what Hayden's tenure is remembered for.

(Of interest?: I read Dunstan's autobiography years ago while the man was still alive, so I can't believe I didn't notice either the following question or its answer at the time.
Looking at his wiki page and other references available online (unfortunately not his ADB entry) something weird jumps out at me.
There's no description of his parents beyond their social status and the fact they had Don in Fiji. I know he writes about his father in the memoir but can't for the life of me recall what he had to say about his mother.
What's up with that?
If I had the time I'd check an old-tree source, or find a podcast of this interview with historian Stuart Reid held by the National Library--

Dunstan, former Premier of South Australia in the late 1960s & 1970s recalls his childhood in Suva, Fiji where he was born in 1926. He speaks about his parents, who were from South Australia living at the time of his birth in Fiji; his father's family background and work as a book keeper with the Adelaide Steamship Company; his father's promotion to a Branch Manager of Henry Marks & Co (a firm of general merchants) in Mabowa, Fiji; his mother's family background and her influence on his social upbringing in Fiji; social life and customs in Fiji in the early 19th century; his school years in Adelaide, S. Aust. in the 1930s.

I know he was bisexual, but was Dunstan also multiracial? Is that why I can't google the names of his parents? I'd appreciate if any AHer knows the answer to this question.)
 
Last edited:
Anyway, Don was born in 1926, so even if he enters the HoR by the time he's thirty (which is not that unusual) there's no way he's a leadership contender before about 1966/67...

...the year of the landslide repudiation of Calwell and the rise of Whitlam to federal Opposition leader. Then two years later Gough calls the partyroom spill in order to assert his authority over the ALP--except he probably thinks twice if a more viable candidate of the Left exists in the form of Dunstan.

However, Dunstan was not a creature of the hard Left forces who hated Gough the most (the Victorians on the federal executive), so he might not choose to be a Gough-foil, and instead acts as a Whitlamite-Leftwinger.

The real difference in a Don-goes-to-Canberra-'55 timeline begins to happen in 1970, when SA Labor tries to get back into power after Steele Hall scraps the electoral gerrymander.

The problems I alluded to above from OTL wouldn't exist if Dunstan was a caucus veteran at the time of a federal Labor defeat during the seventies--but there still exists the problem that Don was not the kind of 'moderniser' that the other ALP types who came of age after WWII tended to be. His great passion in the area of economic policy in SA was an attempt to create a pilot scheme to introduce European-style 'industrial democracy', a form of corporatism some in the New Left paid lip service to about bringing to this country, but one which ultimately could only ever be a non-starter.

I think Don ends up as failed successor to a Whitlam, then becomes a disillusioned predecessor to a Hawke. That sounds even worse than what Hayden's tenure is remembered for.

(Of interest?: I read Dunstan's autobiography years ago while the man was still alive, so I can't believe I didn't notice either the following question or its answer at the time.
Looking at his wiki page and other references available online (unfortunately not his ADB entry) something weird jumps out at me.
There's no description of his parents beyond their social status and the fact they had Don in Fiji. I know he writes about his father in the memoir but can't for the life of me recall what he had to say about his mother.
What's up with that?
If I had the time I'd check an old-tree source, or find a podcast of this interview with historian Stuart Reid held by the National Library--



I know he was bisexual, but was Dunstan also multiracial? Is that why I can't google the names of his parents? I'd appreciate if any AHer knows the answer to this question.)

This is very interesting. So I'm assuming you don't believe it is plausible that he could actually be Federal Leader in the late 1960's/early 1970's? Probably correct, but even if Whitlam was Leader of the Opposition for a while, it is possible that he loses the partyroom spill to Dunstan, who I'm sure most of the Left would realise is a far more practical choice that Jim Cairns. I wonder how this would affect the modernisation of the ALP at the time?

I must admit I never new about the industrial democracy project. Obviously if he is Leader after the mid-seventies this becomes implausible. However if he Leader in the early-seventies this could be tried in experimental stages (although I assume given the move to neo-liberal policies later it would be short-lived). There were serious discussions within the British Labour Party at the time about industrial democracy, so I don't believe it implausible that the party could have taken up such policies. I've always wondered why the Left in the 1950's/60's seemed so obsessed about nationalisation, when IMHO more economic control would have been given to the employees via codetermination and it seems to work reasonably well in many European nations (although naturally we have to take into cultural differences I suppose).

If Dunstan was leader in the early 1970's would he be more electorally successful than Whitlam? Despite being more left-wing than Whitlam, he certainly didn't have the crash-or-crash-through mentality and seemed better at cultivating working relationships with the business community. I'm not sure if this is to do with the different nature of state politics and whether this would transfer into federal politics.
 
Ah.

Well, I'm trying to be sensitive here. The rumours that surrounded Dunstan in South Australia weren't fatal to his political career, because a) it's a fairly socially liberal place, especially under him, and b) he was otherwise established and popular. Dunstan's political success -- his government was the closest thing to an Australian Democrats government we'll ever see -- was a very South Australian thing; nowhere else has that same constituency.

But can you imagine how the tabloid press in any other city would deal with a leader like Dunstan? And it's not just that he was bisexual (although that would be a big factor, even if he was closeted at the time); it's the pink shorts thing, it's the long hair and safari suits thing, it's the civil liberties thing. He was too good for Australia.

Also, no, Dunstan wasn't multiracial; his parents were white immigrants to Fiji. His father was a prosperous merchant there, but he had no Fijian ancestry. However, his experiences in Fiji -- seeing the exploitation of the Indian and indigenous Fijian underclasses -- gave him his lifelong hatred of racism.
 
Ah.

Well, I'm trying to be sensitive here. The rumours that surrounded Dunstan in South Australia weren't fatal to his political career, because a) it's a fairly socially liberal place, especially under him, and b) he was otherwise established and popular. Dunstan's political success -- his government was the closest thing to an Australian Democrats government we'll ever see -- was a very South Australian thing; nowhere else has that same constituency.

But can you imagine how the tabloid press in any other city would deal with a leader like Dunstan? And it's not just that he was bisexual (although that would be a big factor, even if he was closeted at the time); it's the pink shorts thing, it's the long hair and safari suits thing, it's the civil liberties thing. He was too good for Australia.

Also, no, Dunstan wasn't multiracial; his parents were white immigrants to Fiji. His father was a prosperous merchant there, but he had no Fijian ancestry. However, his experiences in Fiji -- seeing the exploitation of the Indian and indigenous Fijian underclasses -- gave him his lifelong hatred of racism.

I agree with you that South Australia was far more socially liberal at the time then elsewhere in Australia. However I would also use as a counter-example that the UK in the 1970's had a Conservative Prime Minister of 'ambiguous' sexuality, ie Edward Heath. Futhermore, whereas Dunstan was married, Heath was a lifelong bachelor, which should have led to much further career-ruining conjecture. I'm aware that the UK at this time was somewhat more socially liberal than Australia, but I'm not sure how much more so and whether this would be significant.

I do agree however, that Dunstan's obvious unconventionality (clothing, etc) would be more detrimental to his image than rumours about his sexuality (Heath I gather always had a very conventional appearance, etc).

Also I have read comments on other threads that in 1972 Labor was almost assured a victory, as many believe that McMahon would never have one an election against anyone. So if Dunstan were Federal Leader then I think people would still vote for him regardless of misgivings about his personality.

That said I do sort of agree with the idea (which I have read elsewhere) that state politicians have always tended to be a bit more idiosyncratic than federal politicians (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, is a right-wing example, about the most opposite you could get from Dunstan; but can you imagine him anywhere than Queensland!).
 
I agree with you that South Australia was far more socially liberal at the time then elsewhere in Australia. However I would also use as a counter-example that the UK in the 1970's had a Conservative Prime Minister of 'ambiguous' sexuality, ie Edward Heath. Futhermore, whereas Dunstan was married, Heath was a lifelong bachelor, which should have led to much further career-ruining conjecture. I'm aware that the UK at this time was somewhat more socially liberal than Australia, but I'm not sure how much more so and whether this would be significant.

Well...double-standards. Heath was a Conservative. Dunstan was very liberal. There are certain behaviours our society stigmatises as associated with homosexuality; it would have been a much bigger issue for Dunstan than for Heath.

Also I have read comments on other threads that in 1972 Labor was almost assured a victory, as many believe that McMahon would never have one an election against anyone. So if Dunstan were Federal Leader then I think people would still vote for him regardless of misgivings about his personality.

Ironic, because the same rumours floated about Billy McMahon.

That said I do sort of agree with the idea (which I have read elsewhere) that state politicians have always tended to be a bit more idiosyncratic than federal politicians (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, is a right-wing example, about the most opposite you could get from Dunstan; but can you imagine him anywhere than Queensland!).

Funny you should mention that; I've written three TLs on this board where he becomes Prime Minister...

(Admittedly, one has a TL 150 years ago, one is in a fascist dystopia and one I hope never to see again.) But you're right; state premiers are so much more interesting than the federal lot. I have been rather too dismissive of your ideas: Dunstan would have been a marvellous PM and we're diminished by his loss. But I don't think it would ever happen, sadly.
 
This is very interesting. So I'm assuming you don't believe it is plausible that he could actually be Federal Leader in the late 1960's/early 1970's? Probably correct, but even if Whitlam was Leader of the Opposition for a while, it is possible that he loses the partyroom spill to Dunstan, who I'm sure most of the Left would realise is a far more practical choice that Jim Cairns. I wonder how this would affect the modernisation of the ALP at the time?

If Dunstan was leader in the early 1970's would he be more electorally successful than Whitlam?

Oh, he could have been leader, but his age works against him in federal caucas, so he needs a post-Calwell leader to either die, be expelled, or just plain crash.
As a party reformer he comes around when Clyde Camerons decides to roll the anti-everthing-Left, assuming he isn't already a Leftwing supporter of Gough/Gough's analogue as Hayden and Rex Connor were in OTL.
He would match Gough's dynamism. He wouldn't go out of his way to piss off any section of the electorate--always a plus.
However, in terms of getting a Whitlamite-other-than-Whitlam as leader you could more easily go with Diamond Jim McClelland (who wasn't born a toff, had been both a communist and a grouper, and generally enjoyed the good life) by having him enter parliament much earlier than he did.

I must admit I never new about the industrial democracy project. Obviously if he is Leader after the mid-seventies this becomes implausible. However if he Leader in the early-seventies this could be tried in experimental stages (although I assume given the move to neo-liberal policies later it would be short-lived). There were serious discussions within the British Labour Party at the time about industrial democracy, so I don't believe it implausible that the party could have taken up such policies. I've always wondered why the Left in the 1950's/60's seemed so obsessed about nationalisation, when IMHO more economic control would have been given to the employees via codetermination and it seems to work reasonably well in many European nations (although naturally we have to take into cultural differences I suppose).

I got the impression from his memoirs the poor man was being strung along by his Cabinet and the mandarins when it came to his idea of putting employees on company boards.
Anyway, the very existence of the Industrial Relations Club, and the stability it provided, meant these concepts weren't viable; not to mention that the intellectually sluggish nineteen-sixties ALP (where the Victorian Left thought Gough and the Fabian Society were a trojan horse for the 'fascistic' DLP!) was not fertile ground for this debate, nor any debate for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Top