King Charles’ letter to John Kerr on Whitlam’s dismissal undermines his integrity

Gough Whitlam in 1973.

As King Charles arrives in Australia for his first visit here as our head of state, he is yet to address the grave error of judgment he made in supporting the dismissal of Gough Whitlam’s government in a handwritten letter to John Kerr in March 1976.

“Please don’t lose heart,” Charles wrote to Kerr months after Whitlam’s dismissal in November 1975.

“What you did last year was right and the courageous thing to do – and most Australians seemed to endorse your decision when it came to the point.”

This letter, sent without Queen Elizabeth II’s knowledge or approval, is a statement of support for the dismissal by a member of the royal family.

It is an embarrassment to the monarchy and undermines their non-interventionist stance in political affairs, breaching longstanding protocol and convention.

I discovered the letter in Kerr’s papers in the National Archives and it was revealed in The Australian in October 2020, and in The Truth of the Palace Letters (MUP).

It was not vice-regal correspondence released as a result of the High Court case nor was the letter mentioned at all in Jenny Hocking’s book The Palace Letters (Scribe).

The dismissal of the Whitlam government over the failure to secure supply was a convulsive event that divided Australians.

Labor lost the subsequent December 1975 election but polls never showed support for the dismissal.

Kerr terminated the commission of a prime minister who commanded the confidence of the House of Representatives.

He failed to follow Walter Bagehot’s well-known rights of the sovereign: to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. Rather than counsel or warn, the governor-general ambushed Whitlam with a surprise dismissal.

For Charles to step into this controversy and state an emphatic position, knowing he would one day be our king, showed an extraordinary failure of judgment.

The letter does not demonstrate he or anyone else in the royal family knew of or approved the dismissal in advance.

Charles was distant from events. His mother would never do what he did.

Kerr raised potential use of reserve powers to resolve the crisis with the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris. (Paul Hasluck also raised using reserve powers in vice-regal correspondence.)

Charteris warned Kerr days before he acted that these powers should be used “only” for constitutional and not “political reasons” and only “when there is demonstrably no other course”. Charteris and his deputy, William Heseltine, thought Kerr acted prematurely.

Charles compounded the blunder of writing to Kerr by refusing to address it before becoming king. He rejected a request from The Australian to comment on it and, perhaps, recognise his youthful indiscretion.

The letter undermines his integrity and impartiality as Australia’s head of state.