Talk:Harold Holt

Inquest

The 2005 Age article talks of an inquest yet to be held, so presumably it wasn't held in 2003 as the SMH story implies. Pete 11:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kick him when he's down

I've removed the following:

In terms of party politics, the most significant feature is that it marked the beginning of an unprecedented period of internal turmoil for the Liberals and a rapid decline in the party's electoral fortunes. For twenty-two years, from its founding in 1944 to his retirement in 1966, the Liberal Party had had only one leader – Robert Menzies. After his retirement, the party had three leaders in the six years between 1966 and 1972; in December 1972 the Coalition's 23-year hold on power ended with a resounding electoral loss to the ALP under Gough Whitlam."

This editorialising is irrelevant to Holt's career. It implies that he was responsible for the woes of the Liberal Party after his death. How careless of him to die.

The transition of power from Menzies to Holt was without any conflict. No general election loss, no partyroom brawl - an event almost unique in Australian political history. During his tenure, he was well-liked and respected. The voters overwhelmingly approved his government at the only election he faced as Prime Minister. For Wikipedia to say that "the most significant feature" of his time was to spark turmoil and decline is misleading and mischevious. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, after chuckling at your delightfully inflammatory heading (are you related to Miranda Devine?) I'm restoring that paragraph, with a minor edit.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion and I think you are enforcing your own prejudices here. I had no intention of misleading or being mischievous, and I do not think that this paragraph is guilty of any such thing. You have evidently failed to register that it is an observation about the general significance of Holt's tenure as leader in terms of party politics from then on.

I simply stated that Holt's Prime Minister-ship marked the beginning of a period of unprecedented turmoil for the Libs and the Coalition, and I maintain that the events undeniably support this assertion. The Coalition ruled virtually unchallenged for over 20 years under Menzies, but after his retirement they had three leaders in six years and they were roundly defeated in the 1972 election, largely because of the internal strife that flared up after Holt's unexpected death. (I personally think it's quite likely Holt would have been toppled before then, had he survived, but that's just my view.) As the article states, the key problem was that there was no effective line of succession behind Holt, and when McEwen unexpectedly took McMahon out of the running, it threw the party's plans into disarray, forcing them to select the "wild card" candidate Gorton, who had nothing like the support that Holt enjoyed when he took over.

Your complaint about Holt's accession is frankly silly. Of course he took over unopposed -- he was Menzies' chosen successor and it had been effectively set in stone for years -- how could it have been otherwise? Anyway, this exact point is clearly stated in just these terms elsewhere in the article, so what are you grizzling about?

Let's also remember that the 1966 election was held less than a year after Holt took over, and while that's slightly outside the traditional "honeymoon period" it was still *before* the major controversies of 1967, which did significantly dent Holt's profile ... and let's not forget that the Coalition got their arses kicked in the subsequent Senate election.

IMO I did not imply or suggest that Holt was "personally" responsible for any of this (whatever that means?) -- but in fact as PM and party leader, isn't he *supposed* to be responsible for everything that happens under his leadership? However, as I mention in the article, there *is* a significant 'personality' aspect to this question, and it can be supported with reference to commentators such as Tom Frame and Alan Reid. Both opined that Holt's "niceness" was increasingly perceived as weakness by his party colleagues, and there was clearly a growing concern within the Libs that Holt was not willing to make tough decisions (c.f. his controversial decision not to sack Nixon over the VIP planes affair). He also came under increasing pressure in parliament after Whitlam became ALP leader (and there can surely be little doubt that Whitlam was a far superior parliamentary performer, whatever you think of his politics); allied to this, Holt was starting to make serious mistakes during 1967 -- e.g. his foolish interruption of St John's maiden speech, which was widely seen as a serious breach of parliamentary protocol -- and the subsequent embarrassing reversal of Holt's decision not to have another inquiry into the Voyager affair.

Although it's outside the scope of the particular paragraph in question, Holt's "personal issues" did have a great bearing on his career as PM. His health, canvassed elsewhere in the article, is a very significant matter. There was evidently growing concern within the party about it and this is supported by the known facts about his illness and injuries, and his use of opiates and other strong painkillers. Take a look at Holt's briefcase, which is on display in the foyer at the National Archives in Canberra -- the pill bottles and foil packets of painkillers are still in there, for all to see. I suggest to you that there would be a major crisis today if it was revealed that Kevin Rudd was chronically ill, that he was taking large doses of morphine and codeine and that he had suffered collapses and two near-drowning incidents -- in Holt's case this was all obviously "hushed up" at the time, but how long could this have gone on if, for example, he collapsed in parliament or suffered a heart attack, as some of his colleagues evidently feared might happen?

To conclude, I maintain that Holt's unexpected death and the lack of an effective succession unquestionably triggered the damaging 1967 leadership crisis which (however briefly) also threatened a split in the Coalition, and the internal dissent (alongside the growing opposition to the war) contributed greatly to the subsequent decline in the Coalition's electoral fortunes and their ultimate defeat by the ALP in 1972.

- Dunks (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now really long, far longer than the media attention he ever got at the time. I vaguely remember HH, but remember Ming really well. Holt was just a passing fad with a mouth full of expensive capped teeth.220.240.228.205 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

RE-appearance in a eastern American state 'on holiday' ?

I've seen a documentary produced by a Australian agency, ASIO, I think it was, in which the KIDNAPPING, of Holt, was portrayed in a very different light, so while in other places, there might not be mentions of what was uncovered in the processes in/before that documentary, whatever it was called,.. the name escapes me... for me, the RE-APPEARANCE, of him in a eastern united states state, with a then "for the cameras" happy family shot & explination, with a suddenly happy wife, when in Australian papers and in a press release on the radio?tv? she had made an appeal, was distressed, etc,.. didn't KNOW, where he was,..

was then all of a sudden seemingly forgotten about / didn't happen, and we were up in arms over here, about the obviousness of the 'miraculous' re-appearance and discrepancies of especially her, 'memory'.

Utter rubbish, either way, whether only claim, or not, but when the 'explination' was given, for diplomatic purposes,

"we had no doubt at the time". ( one of the interviewed in the documentary )

sorry I can't remember the name.

REW Vurrath (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Utter rubbish.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

End of term date

Holt's term ended not on the day of his death, but on 19 December. I made an edit to reflect this but it was reverted by Ivar the Boneful. At first glance, it might seem obvious that Holt's term ended on 17 December, but it isn't. Holt was missing on 17-18 December and was still recognized as Prime Minister of Australia. His government, the Second Holt Ministry, also remained in office. It was only on 19 December when Holt was legally declared dead in absentia, which made the PM's office vacant and allowed John McEwen to become prime minister. As a result, Holt's term ended on 19 December. Johndavies837 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

He was declared dead on 19 December, but he wasn't declared to have died on 19 December. He died on 17 December, as per multiple official investigations. His term ended with his death, as dead people can't be prime minister. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. At the time, he was not known with certainty to be dead, as there was no body (and there still isn't). He was missing, that's all. But common sense suggested he was probably dead, and political imperatives could not wait, so on 19 December, not a moment before, he was officially declared "presumed dead". This declaration - not his actual death, whenever it happened - was what caused a vacancy in the prime ministership to occur. That's why his ministry did not conclude till 19 December, and why a new PM could not be sworn in till then.

It was only in 2005 that the Victorian Coroner officially ruled that he did in fact die on 17 December. Prior to then, Victorian law prohibited a finding of death in cases where there was not a body. But that's all sort of irrelevant in retrospect, as the political machinery that caused Holt's government to be terminated on 19 December 1967 operated in 1967, not in 2005. And the date of the termination of his ministry cannot be changed retrospectively. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a source which states when his term ended?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous claim to make. Dead people cannot be prime minister, his term ended upon his death on 17 December. When his ministry ended is an entirely different matter. The fact that McEwen chose to wait two days before being sworn in does not mean that we throw basic logic out the window. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe that this requires a reference, but here we go anyway: "Apart from dismissal, Prime Ministers have ceased to hold office as a result of death, etc. [...] following the presumed death of Prime Minister Holt on 17 December 1967, the Liberal Party chose Senator Gorton as its leader on 10 January 1968". House of Representatives Practice, 7th Edition, Australian Parliamentary Library. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

And HERE is the relevant page from the Parliamentary Handbook showing Holt's commission as PM remained in force till 19 December, on which date it ended and McEwen was sworn in as PM.

That reference from H of R Practice fails completely to mention the premiership of John McEwen, so it can hardly be taken as authoritative in its detail. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The difference between the death of Holt and those of Lyons and Curtin was that the precise dates (even the precise moments) of Lyons' and Curtin's deaths were known, and of course their commissions were terminated as soon as the governor-general was advised they had died. Holt's was not like that at all. He was declared "presumed dead" on 19 December (on which date his commission was withdrawn), and officially remained "presumed dead" for the next 37 years, until 2005, at which point his status changed from "presumed dead" to "legally dead". When the 2005 Coroner determined that he had in fact died on 17 December, that was just setting in legal stone what everybody (apart from loopy conspiracy theorists) had always believed ever since he went missing. But none of this alters the fact that he remained legally Prime Minister until 19 December 1967, which all decent references will show, as must Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The precise moment of Holt's death is known, give or take a few minutes. The fact there was some uncertainty for two days does not change the fact of his time of death. Yes, people may have believed or hoped that he was still alive, but they were mistaken, as he was dead and had thus ceased to hold political office. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ivar the Boneful: The problem is that you're changing history with facts which weren't known yet. When Holt was missing, the government continued to call him "Prime Minister," the news media continued to call him "Prime Minister," and Holt's government remained in office. This continued until 19 December, when Holt was presumed to have died and his premiership officially came to an end. This is not a normal death in office when the death is immediately known.

I have found multiple official sources:

- The National Archives of Australia says: "Australia's 17th Prime Minister, Harold Holt was in office from 26 January 1966 to 19 December 1967, when he was officially pronounced dead after drowning at sea." Source

- On the "fast facts" page for Holt on the website of the National Archives, it says both his premiership and his term as member of parliament ended on 19 December. Source

- In a 2005 book in association with the National Archives, it says on page 332 that Holt was PM and Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party until 19 December. Source

- On the website of the Museum of Australian Democracy, it says Holt died on 17 December, but his term as prime minister ended on 19 December. Source

This should confirm without a doubt that Holt's term ended on 19 December.

Johndavies837 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We go with the sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We pick and choose the sources that imply a logical impossibility and ignore all the other ones that back up the universal standard that dead people can't hold political office? It's not Schrodinger's prime minister and it's not North Korea with its Eternal President, he died on 17 December and that's when he ceased to be prime minister. If we're going to make the extraordinary claim that a dead person held political office for two days, then we need a source that specifically says that that was the case. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The NAA guide to Harold Holt's archives states: "At 10pm on 18 December 1967, after an extensive search, the Governor General, Lord Casey announced he would terminate Holt’s commission as Prime Minister". Here's a source that does actually state Holt was prime minister after he died: according to this interview, Attorney-General Nigel Bowen "advised the governor-general that if the body of the prime minister was recovered then his commission would be determined by his death [...] Holt was presumed to have died but technically he was still the prime minister. [...] At 10pm the governor-general Lord Casey announced he would terminate Holt's commission as prime minister.". But I think we should follow Bowen's initial advice that ministerial commission terminates upon death and list 17 December (i.e. Lord Casey's termination of commission was unnecessary as Holt was in fact already dead). I wouldn't object to a footnote explaining the situation, but per those sources the date would have to be 18 December. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Again you're reinventing history. Casey made that oral statement late on the night of 18 December. But his formal termination of commission document was not promulgated until the next morning, 19 December. That is the date on which Holt ceased to hold his office. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ivar the Boneful: I'm confused about your request for sources. My earlier reply included 4 sources, 3 of which are government websites. They show Holt died on 17 December, but his term in office ended on 19 December. Even your own link to the NAA guide backs this up: on page 5 it says Holt's term ended on 19 December when he was declared dead. Your second link, to ABC, acknowledges that even though Holt is presumed to have died, he was missing and technically still prime minister. So we now have 6 sources.

Furthermore, you misrepresented what Attorney General Bowen said. He didn't say Holt's term would be terminated retroactively. He simply discussed a number of possibilities on how to proceed: if Holt's body was found, his death would be confirmed and his commission would be terminated. Another possibility was Holt being found alive. But in the worst case scenario, the leadership crisis would continue, so Bowen's conclusion was that it was up to the Governor-General to make a decision on Holt's commission.

Governor-General Lord Casey announced at 10 p.m. on 18 December that he would terminate Holt's commission and McEwen would become prime minister, but this was a public announcement and the phrasing suggests the formal act had not yet taken place. Considering it was late at night, it's reasonable to assume it happened after midnight or the next morning. But we don't have to assume, because we have multiple sources which confirm Holt's commission ended on 19 December.

A dead person is not supposed to be prime minister, but that doesn't mean their commission is terminated retroactively. I imagine doing so could create legal issues, because anything done by Holt's representatives on 17-18 December could potentially be challenged as illegitimate. A dead officeholder is also not without precedent. For example, U.S. House Majority Leader Hale Boggs is presumed to have died in a plane crash in October 1972, but not only did he win re-election in November, he remained in office as Majority Leader and Congressman for more than 2.5 months. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Holt was Schrodinger's prime minister, and Comet Hale–Bopp was in conjunction with Higgs boson.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

As there have been no new comments for nearly 2 weeks and everyone except one person agreed, I have gone ahead and changed the date. There's a footnote which includes a link to the National Archives. Johndavies837 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

TBH, it does read a bit unusual. For two days, a dead person was prime minister of Australia? GoodDay (talk)

Married with Presbyterian forms.

The phrase "married with Presbyterian forms" needs clarification, I think. I couldn't find out what it means using Google. And the link doesn't contain anything relevant. Polar Apposite (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

agree it needs clarification, and have appended just such a tag to the claim in the article. Hope that helps. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I take it as meaning the service was formally Presbyterian.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It means he was married at a Presbyterian ceremony. Not an uncommon phrasing. ITBF (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether it is an uncommon phrasing is irrelevant, IMAO. Anyway, I would dispute that it is not an uncommon phrasing. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)