Most surprising of the Palace letters shines new light on Whitlam

When I worked in the Commonwealth Parliament, a man used to ring to berate me about various conspiracies. I explained to him that I was too junior to have been initiated into the conspiracies yet. He became very sympathetic, and wished me luck in advancing my career so I could become a conspirator in the future.

I’ve still not received the conspiracy manual, and I begin to despair it may not exist. Certainly, the Kerr-Palace letters haven’t advanced the cause of conspiracy theories. Despite absurd attempts to maintain the secrecy of these letters, they show nothing other than people taking their responsibilities seriously and doing the best they can in difficult circumstances.

The letters are a marvellous slice of Australian history, vividly portraying the political dramas of the day. Kerr was assiduous in keeping the Queen abreast of political developments. The replies from the Palace were less informative – mostly just grateful for the information and concerned for Kerr’s wellbeing.

The letters show the pressures on the governor-general went back well before the opposition actually blocked supply in the Senate on October 16, 1975. Before that, in mid-September, there was an expectation that the new Liberal leader, Malcolm Fraser, would block supply, and plans were being made in response. Whitlam suggested to Kerr that he would ask Kerr to give royal assent to appropriation bills that had only been passed in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Kerr was worried that this would be unconstitutional. Sir Garfield Barwick, in what will no doubt renew controversy about his role, suggested that in such circumstances, Kerr should refuse assent or leave it to the High Court to determine.

It was at this time that Kerr became concerned that Whitlam was considering the prospect of advising the Queen to dismiss him. But this was in the context of Kerr refusing to give royal assent to appropriation bills that had only been passed by one House, rather than dismissal of the Government. It seems that Kerr had been tipped off about this, and his concern was later reinforced by an article in a newspaper that he believed was sourced from the prime minister’s office.

Perhaps the most indiscreet line in the letters is the statement by the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, that the Queen "would take most unkindly to" advice to dismiss the governor-general, but that as a constitutional Sovereign she would have no option but to follow the advice of her prime minister.

Gough Whitlam on the day he was sacked by the governor-general.Credit: NAA

During the crisis, the only advice Kerr received from the Palace was that the exercise of the reserve powers was "a very heavy responsibility and it is only at the very end when there is demonstrably no other course that they should be used".

Kerr had raised his concern with Charteris that however he acted it would affect the standing of the monarchy in Australia. Charteris sensibly replied that Kerr was in an unenviable position but that if Kerr did what the constitution dictated, he could not possibly do the monarchy any unavoidable harm. Throughout the Palace placed stress on behaviour that was constitutional and measured but without ever suggesting what action Kerr should actually take. Charteris rightly took the view that Kerr, as a former judge, had a better understanding of the Australian constitution than anyone at Buckingham Palace. Kerr considered he should not advise the Queen of his proposed actions, so stopped sending letters to the Queen in the days before he acted. The letters make it categorically clear that the Queen had no advanced knowledge.

The most surprising letter is the account of Whitlam’s call to Charteris after the dismissal. Whitlam, in his book, said that after the drama of the day, he "telephoned a good friend in London, Sir Martin Charteris". He said that it "is a fact that the Queen’s representative in Australia had kept the Queen in the same total ignorance of his actions as he had the Prime Minister of Australia". In this, he was correct. But he never said what he told Charteris.

The letters reveal that Charteris was called at 4.15am London time by Whitlam, who explained that he had been dismissed, that supply had since passed and that the House of Representatives had passed a vote of no confidence in Fraser and one of confidence in Whitlam. Whitlam then said that "now Supply had been passed he should be re-commissioned as Prime Minister so that he could choose his own time to call an election". This phone call seems to have occurred before Parliament had been dissolved.

Charteris states that Whitlam didn’t ask him to approach the Queen – just to speak to Kerr. Presumably he wanted the Palace to pressure Kerr to reinstate him as prime minister. So the Kerr-Palace letters, instead of showing that the Palace interfered in the dismissal of the Whitlam government, showed that Whitlam sought palace interference, but didn’t get it. We are an independent country after all.

Anne Twomey is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney.

Get our Morning & Evening Edition newsletters

The most important news, analysis and insights delivered to your inbox at the start and end of each day. Sign up to The Sydney Morning Herald’s newsletter here, to The Age’s newsletter here and Brisbane Times' here.