Fraser’s election vindicated Kerr dismissal of Whitlam

Whatever feelings John Kerr may have had over his dismissal of Gough Whitlam, he certainly had no alternative but to uphold constitutional law as it applied to the blocking of supply (“The Dismissal: 50 years on”, 8-9/11).

Many people continue to assert that by terminating a legitimately elected government, Kerr stood at odds with the political determinations of the Australian people. What these critics fail to understand or simply don’t want to know is that Kerr did exactly what he was bound to do by the constitution.

Frank Reade, Macquarie, ACT

There’s a lot being written about the Dismissal but Gough Whitlam could have seriously undermined John Kerr’s game plan immediately after his dismissal but failed. He was taken completely by surprise; he didn’t think fast enough and failed to involve his inner cabinet colleagues soon enough. Malcolm Fraser on the other hand, after being appointed caretaker PM, immediately called his cabinet so all his key party members could commence working out strategies.

Fraser also involved the leader of the Senate so that supply was approved after the lunch adjournment. The rest is history.

Jeffrey Cox, North Boambee Valley, NSW

Gough Whitlam was rightly dismissed in 1975.

He had been denied supply by the Senate and critical funding was about to run out. He was attempting to borrow money from overseas to govern without parliament. If it is suggested supply should not be blocked, Whitlam attempted this from opposition in 1969. He refused to advise a double-dissolution election so the governor-general was entitled to dismiss him and appoint a prime minister who would advise an election, which is what occurred.

Andrew Stewart Morrison, Fairlight, NSW

Chris Uhlmann’s summary of Whitlam is close to the bone, for Australians of a certain age would remember where they were when they heard about Whitlam’s dismissal (“Whitlam’s long shadow still looms”, 8-9/11).

I was shopping in the general store in Keith, a small rural town in the southeast of South Australia. The radio broadcast in the store stopped its pop songs and the chatter began to spread with incredulity and excitement.

Keith had suffered, with its hospital being penalised for not joining the new Medibank. Budget-conscious farmers were aghast at the profligate spending and Khemlani affair. House prices had skyrocketed beyond our entry price and union demands were stopping work beyond all productive efficiency expectations.

Never mind Scott Morrison’s several ministries, Whitlam’s term had begun as a two-person governing system with Lance Barnard, holding 27 ministries between them.

Rosemary McGrath, Kensington, SA

Paul Kelly provided a comprehensive summary of the events leading up to the Dismissal, but arguably didn’t arrive at the correct conclusions, as evidenced by the headline, “Who really won?”.

The answer, which he didn’t draw out, is, of course, the people of Australia. Australians saw the dysfunctional and chaotic Gough Whitlam government for what it was, and were happy to be given the opportunity to toss it out.

They cared little about the tactics of the Coalition or the Machiavellian antics of John Kerr. They clearly just wanted someone to resolve the impasse and give them what they wanted – an election and a quick return to Christmas and summer holidays.

Kym MacMillan, O’Malley, ACT

I lived through the Dismissal and even today still ask the same question I did back then. If Labor voters were so enraged by what John Kerr did, why didn’t they simply return Gough Whitlam with an increased majority at the December 1975 elections? The fact Malcolm Fraser won showed people wanted a change of government.

John Clark, Moss Vale, NSW

The great irony of Gough Whitlam’s dismissal was that Gough had nominated John Kerr as governor-general.

Whitlam assumed that Kerr was “in the bag” but Kerr assumed an independent role and put the welfare of Australia before that of politicians. It’s a shame that history hasn’t been kinder to him.

Geoff Walker, Mallabula, NSW