The Isis-inspired antisemitic Bondi massacre that shocked Australia (and horrified Jews worldwide) deservedly delivered a severe political blow to the Albanese Labor government. The mourners booing the Prime Minister and Tony Burke, his ‘Minister for imaginary equivalent Islamophobia’ (where was anti-Israel Foreign Minister Penny Wong?), reflected widespread recognition that governmental sins of both omission and commission led to these terrorist murders of 15 innocent Australians.

The significance of the loss of trust in the government’s ability to perform its primary duty of keeping Australians safe, in the long run, is moot. But a government, particularly one that depends for all but a handful of seats on the preferences of its political opponents, is always at risk of a major ballot-box revolt.

In this context, the Bondi massacre happened just one day after the 50th anniversary of Labor’s worst-ever election disaster of December 13, 1975, and the biggest-ever majority win of the Coalition, led by Malcolm Fraser, of 55 seats (91 to 36), ending the scandal-prone, incompetent, chaotic Whitlam years.

Labor has ‘maintained the rage’ over the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr on November 11, 1975, which was followed by the election on December 13, to resolve the stand-off created by the Coalition-controlled Senate’s blocking of supply.

It marked the 50th anniversary of its myth-filled dismissal saga with a publicly-funded two-day Whitlam love-in talkfest and dinner in the old Parliament House (now the Museum of Australian Democracy, chaired by old leftist political warhorse and former Hawke press secretary, Barrie Cassidy).

The sanctifying mood, enhanced by Albanese’s promise to build a statue of Gough, was slightly diminished by occasional contributions from disbelievers, such as former prime minister John Howard, and by a forceful speech from Liberal shadow minister Julian Leeser. In multiple quotes from Hansard, Leeser exposed the hypocrisy of Labor crying foul at Fraser blocking supply in the Senate, when Whitlam had unsuccessfully attempted to do so repeatedly in opposition: ‘Our opposition to this budget is no mere formality…. we will vote against the bills here and in the Senate. Our purpose is to destroy this budget and to destroy the government which has sponsored it.’

The usual suspects mouthed the expected assaults on the wicked conspirators who had subverted democracy and put the constitution at risk. But where was the Coalition’s counter? In an indication of the collapse of morale, in line with its dismal vote in May’s federal election, the Liberal party had no wish to remind its dwindling supporters of the heights to which it was once capable of rising. Noting no official celebration of what he described as ‘one of the glory days of Liberal Party history’, the Australian’s astute Paul Kelly wrote that ‘today’s Liberals seem even embarrassed at promoting Fraser’s 50th anniversary’ despite the reality that ‘Fraser did not just defeat Whitlam. He vanquished the Whitlam era and guaranteed that Fraser’s own prime ministership would have a democratic legitimacy’. Kelly laments that while Whitlam is honoured, Fraser’s imprint on history is unjustly forgotten: ‘That tells much about Labor’s control of our history and the Liberal failure to promote its history.’ In fact, the Liberal party deliberately and belatedly rejected my proposal to hold a much-needed, morale-boosting celebration of our greatest election victory as an antidote to both its worst defeat in May and to the Labor love-in on November 1l. It was left to 13 of us (median age 85) to organise our own celebration (with welcome administrative help from Liberal HQ).

One myth arising from the Coalition walloping of Labor in 1975 (which was almost replicated two years later) was the widespread claim that Fraser’s sense of ‘guilt’ at the ‘improper’ nature of his coming to power (blocking supply and ‘conspiring’ with Sir John Kerr to replace Whitlam) resulted in a ‘timidity’ that diminished his prime ministership. According to Kelly (who acknowledges that, at the time, he was enraged by the dismissal), ‘the 1975 crisis that Fraser instigated cast a permanent shadow over his prime ministership’, with his consequential caution resulting in Fraser’s ‘achievements being less than his promise’. The Sydney Institute’s Gerard Henderson asserts that, ‘The Fraser government was adversely affected by the way it came to office’, and Wikipedia joins in reporting that ‘Fraser’s controversial entry to office was a factor in many viewing his government as ‘a lost opportunity for economic reform’. No evidence supports this moralising ‘serves him right’ approach.

Why would a hard-as-nails political killer, with several scalps under his belt (including two Liberal leaders and a Labor PM), suddenly be so troubled by a ‘conscience’ that he resiled from pursuing his objectives with the intensity for which he was renowned?

Pragmatism is the more likely reason. Having used the party room so successfully in political warfare, his respect for its power was reinforced early on when the party room opposed his first legislative attempt to slash Whitlamesque waste by cutting pensioners’ fiscally inconsequential funeral benefit. With many incipient corpses in their ranks, backbenchers revolted. Fraser rejected their objections (no votes are taken in the party room) and the legislation proceeded, only to be beaten in the Senate when six Liberals crossed the floor to vote against it in line with the clear party room view. So, we got the worst of all worlds: exposed as nasty to pensioners and incapable of cutting waste.

The lessons Fraser took to heart were that a majority in the Senate is not the same as controlling it, that a massive majority in the lower house (34 of them newcomers) meant a massive back bench whose (self-assessed) skills could not be rewarded with a ministry and whose potential for dissent called for people management, and that politics is the art of the possible, being right is not enough.

When governments are just plain wrong, as the Bondi massacre has shown Albanese to be on antisemitism, terrorism and out-of-control immigration, it provides a real test of the quality of the opposition. It must hold the government to account, while avoiding the charge of exploiting a tragedy and provide a pathway to recover the Australian way of life that was taken for granted until it was shattered by terrorist bullets and 15 innocent deaths. On this score, the performance so far of the Ley-led Coalition, reinforced by the new and impressive NSW state opposition leader (Bondi’s local Kellie Sloane), suggests it has recovered at least some of its lost mojo.