Putting to rest wild ghosts and myths of the Dismissal

Australia’s 18th governor-general, Sir John Kerr, was proud and vain, a dangerous schemer who put himself at the centre of the single most dramatic event in our political history. The long-secret letters between Buckingham Palace and Kerr reveal he did not give the Queen advance notice of his decision to dismiss Gough Whitlam on November 11, 1975. The palace letters, made public on Tuesday by the National Archives of Australia, show a man who was busy, indiscreet and over the top in his communications with Sir Martin Charteris, the private secretary to the sovereign. The 212 missives, over 3½ years, provide a clear window into one troubled soul and a tumultuous episode, one that still divides. That the public was denied this material for so long is itself a scandal, a reminder timely disclosure is the only antidote to myth and false conspiracy theories.

As Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston observed five years ago when their book, The Dismissal: In the Queen’s Name, was published, the events of 1975 see historical reality and myth in a complex interaction. Each generation reinterprets its meaning. Kelly and Bramston noted three astonishing myths about the constitutional and political crisis: that the Dismissal was really a conspiracy driven from the US by the CIA; that the Queen and Buckingham Palace were “in the know” and Kerr’s co-agents in the Dismissal; and that Whitlam was actually going to prevail on November 11 and had his triumph stolen from him by Kerr. By the 40th anniversary, the authors concluded the available evidence was the CIA wasn’t responsible, the palace didn’t know and Whitlam was not the thwarted victor on November 11.

Yet the ghosts would not rest, in part due to Whitlam’s biographer, Jenny Hocking, and the abiding rage of the Whitlamites, who came of age in the 1960s and for whom Gough was, still is, a saviour. His star power and passion even seeped into the next generation, sweating in the Oils mosh, too young to witness a tough Gough hitting the rough but knowing “Uncle Sam and John were quite enough”. Professor Hocking propagated the view palace officials gave “an unqualified green light to Kerr’s dismissal of Whitlam”. She argued the Queen was “aware” Kerr was considering dismissal and did not dissuade him. This explosive view contradicted the accounts of Kerr and palace officials; Whitlam never claimed the Queen was a party to the putsch.

The evidence was as small as the claim was big. Professor Hocking’s dogged search for more, seeking to gain access to the palace letters, went to the High Court. Lower courts deemed the letters were personal and confidential. In May, the High Court ruled the letters were commonwealth records. Now that we have them, there is no smoking gun, no flicker of green light. “I decided to take the step I took without informing the Palace in advance … it was better for Her Majesty not to know,” Kerr wrote to Charteris on November 11. Kerr said that under the Constitution, the responsibility was his but he had a duty to inform the Queen immediately. In reply, the palace thanked Kerr for keeping the Queen out of the decision-making in the crisis. A week after the event, Kerr told the palace the reason he didn’t give Whitlam warning was because he wanted to protect the monarchy in Australia. As Kelly notes after the release of the letters, the plot was hatched at Yarralumla, not in London: “The Australian public and the republic cause are not enhanced by the creation of false conspiracy stories about the palace.”

Only Labor diehards could find intellectual vindication or solace in the odd flourishes from Kerr in the letters, his bonhomie and gossip, amid the foul air of obsequiousness. But there are important and detailed exchanges between Kerr and the palace about options to resolve the parliamentary deadlock over supply, the reserve powers, dissolving the parliament and the possibility of dismissal. A week before the denouement, Charteris told Kerr that while the reserve powers of the crown “have not been used for many years”, he had no doubt they existed. The Queen’s private secretary also issued a vital warning: the powers should be used only as a last resort. The history is now clearer but may never be settled. Our democracy was sent to the brink by Kerr, yet no lives were lost and the system recovered. Still, the lesson of 1975 endures: our institutions and constitutional powers must not be pushed towards breaking point.