Image copyright
fake pictures
Queen with then Governor General Sir John Kerr in 1977
The Queen was not informed in advance of the 1975 firing of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, according to newly published letters.
The Whitlam government was removed by the Queen’s representative at the time, Governor General Sir John Kerr, and replaced by an opposition party.
It is considered the most controversial event in Australian political history.
The letters, published after a court battle, show that Sir John wrote that it was “better that His Majesty did not know.”
However, they also reveal that Sir John, an Australian who was a judge before becoming governor-general, had argued with Buckingham Palace whether he had the constitutional authority to remove Whitlam.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state. Before the layoff, many Australians had little idea that their representative had so much power.
Since then, historians have questioned what the palace knew about the impeachment of Whitlam, a progressive whose reforms divided Australia after two decades of conservative rule.
- Obituary: Gough Whitlam
- Five ways Whitlam switched to Australia
More than 200 letters sealed in the National Archives were published Tuesday for the first time.
In May, the High Court of Australia ruled that they were accessible in the national interest following a challenge by historian Prof Jenny Hocking.
What happened to Gough Whitlam?
Whitlam and his Labor Party came to power in 1972, implementing policies that many celebrated, but became less popular amid a troubled economy.
On November 11, 1975, he was fired on the grounds that he had failed to get parliament to approve the expenses, and then he refused to call elections.
Image copyright
fake pictures
Gough Whitlam was furious at his dismissal in 1975
The Governor General argued that he had the authority to do this under the powers implicit in the constitution.
But this “reserve power” to remove an elected prime minister has since been debated by legal experts. The roles of the Queen and the Governor-General are largely symbolic in Australia.
The dismissal was an unprecedented move that shocked Australia and raised questions about its political independence from the UK.
Some saw it as a “constitutional coup” and an overreach of the “royal prerogative”, prompting protests and calls to become a republic.
But others celebrated Mr. Whitlam’s departure. In an election held shortly thereafter, voters overwhelmingly elected the provisional government of Malcolm Fraser’s center-right Liberal Party.
What is in the letters?
They were written between Sir John and Buckingham Palace between 1974 and 1977, and include press clippings of Australian events.
Although the Queen was not warned of the dismissal itself, approximately a week earlier, her private secretary, Martin Charteris, is considering the possibility of dissolving parliament.
In a letter dated November 4, he tells Sir John that such powers are a “last resort and then only for constitutional, not political, reasons.”
Other details on the 1,200 document pages include:
- Sir John claimed he wanted to avoid a possible “race to the Palace” that could cause Whitlam to call for the removal of the Governor-General, something he said would put the Queen in an “impossible position.”
- Lord Charteris tells Sir John that he has acted “not only with constitutional propriety, but also with admirable consideration for His Majesty’s position”
- Sir John wrote in 1976 that “there would inevitably be discussion of the constitutional amendment” in Australia, but that it would be “only on the left wing” and that the majority “want it to remain as it is.”
Why is it important to release them?
Historians say they finally fill the gaps on one of Australia’s most crucial events.
“They get to the heart of Australia’s constitutional independence,” said Professor Mark McKenna of the University of Sydney.
Image copyright
EPA
Director-General of the National Archives of Australia David Fricker presented the documents on Tuesday
Whitlam and his supporters consistently claimed that he was the victim of a conspiracy between Sir John and Fraser to remove him from office.
However, there were no formal charges of interference directed at Buckingham Palace.
The public was denied access to the letters because they were considered “personal” correspondence and were subject to a real embargo.
Professor Hocking launched a court case in 2016 to overturn that status, arguing that the letters were critical historical records. He said his access should not be restricted by the rules of a foreign power.
The publication of the letters was “an excellent result for transparency and history,” he told the BBC.
There are many interesting aspects of the “Palace Letters”.
The Secret A historian’s quest for letters to be made public. The fact that he made a decision by the Superior Court to release them, after a Federal Court rejected the request.
All of this raised suspicions about what the palace knew. The letters answer the most pressing question about the monarch’s involvement: We now know that his representative made the decision.
While there is no bomb reveal, it is a remarkable insight into an almost daily and detailed correspondence between Sir John, the Queen, and his secretary during a time of high tension in Australian politics.
This was not only between Whitlam and Fraser, but also between the Prime Minister and the Governor General himself.
It is also a look at almost a tug of the war of power. The letters remind us that while the Queen’s representative was considering her position and powers to dissolve Parliament and remove Mr. Whitlam, the Prime Minister was considering going to the Queen to request the removal of the Governor-General.
When Gough Whitlam was fired, there was great anger at what many people saw as the palace representative flexing his powers over Australian politics.
There were calls for the country to be a republic at the time. It is unclear whether the newly released documents will revive those sentiments.
