By Tony O’Riley
The Queen was not informed in advance about the 1975 dismissal of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, newly released letters show.
Private correspondence between Buckingham Palace and the governor general of Australia reveal discussion of a “last resort” option to dismiss then prime minister Gough Whitlam, but the Queen was kept in the dark of the final decision, as it “was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance”.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Whitlam’s government was removed by the Queen’s representative at the time, Governor-General Sir John Kerr, and replaced with an opposition party.
The letters, released after a court battle, reveal how Sir John wrote it was “better for Her Majesty not to know”.
However, they also reveal Sir John – an Australian who was a judge before becoming governor-general – had discussed with Buckingham Palace whether he had the constitutional authority to dismiss Whitlam. Australia is a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state. Before the dismissal, many Australians had little idea her representative had such power.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
How much the palace actually knew has long been the subject of much interest by historians. Last May, the High Court of Australia ruled they could be accessed in the national interest following a challenge by historian Prof Jenny Hocking.
Whitlam and his Labor Party came to power in 1972, implementing policies which many celebrated, but he grew less popular amid a troubled economy.
In November 1975, he was sacked for failing to get parliament to approve spending then declined to call an election.The letters were written between Sir John and Buckingham Palace between 1974 and 1977, and include press clippings of Australian events.Though the Queen was not warned of the dismissal itself, about a week beforehand, her private secretary, Martin Charteris, discussed the prospect of dissolving parliament. In a letter dated 4 November, he told Sir John that such powers were a “last resort and then only for Constitutional – and not for political – reasons”.
Sir John asserting that he wanted to prevent a possible “race to the Palace” that could see Whitlam call for the governor-general’s dismissal – something he said would put the Queen in an “impossible position”
Lord Charteris telling Sir John that he had acted “not only with constitutional propriety, but also with admirable consideration for Her Majesty’s position”
Sir John writing in 1976 that there would “inevitably be discussion about constitutional amendment” in Australia – but that it would be “only on the left wing” and that most “want it to remain as it is”.
The letters were deemed “personal” correspondence and subject to a royal embargo, and were prevented from public access. However, Buckingham Palace has never been suspected or accused of interference in the affair.
Prof Hocking launched a court case in 2016 to overturn that status, arguing the letters were critical historical records. She said their access should not be restricted by the rules of a foreign power.
In a statement, Buckingham Palace said the Queen had consistently demonstrated “support for Australia” throughout her reign.
“While the Royal Household believes in the longstanding convention that all conversations between prime ministers, governor-generals and the Queen are private, the release of the letters… confirms that neither Her Majesty nor the Royal Household had any part to play in Kerr’s decision to dismiss Whitlam.”
Vice Regal Hand
A week out from the dismissal in November 1975, Charteris told Kerr that he was “playing the vice-regal hand with skill and wisdom”.
“Your interest in the situation has been demonstrated and so has your impartiality,” Charteris wrote.
He said the fact that Kerr had the powers to dissolve parliament “is recognised but it is also clear that you will only use them in the last resort and then only for Constitutional – and not for political – reasons”.
“To use them is a heavy responsibility and it is only at the very end when there is demonstrably no other course that they should be used,” he wrote.
Charteris also cautioned Kerr that then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser wanted him to believe that the country was in a constitutional crisis, because he believed he would win the ensuing election.
On the day of Whitlam’s dismissal, 11 November 1975, Kerr wrote to the palace. He made it clear that he had not informed the palace directly of his decision.
He did so to protect the Queen.
“I should say I decided to take the step I took without informing the palace in advance because, under the Constitution, the responsibility is mine, and I was of the opinion it was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance, though it is, of course, my duty to tell her immediately,” Kerr wrote.
Charteris later responded:
“If I may say so with the greatest respect, I believe in not informing the Queen of what you intended to do before doing it, you acted not only with Constitutional propriety, but also with admirable consideration for Her Majesty’s position.”
In a statement to the Guardian, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson said the letters showed that the Queen and the royal household had no part in Kerr’s decision. The palace said the Queen had at all times honoured her oath to govern the peoples of Australia “according to their respective laws and customs”.
“The release of the letters by the National Archives Australia confirms that neither Her Majesty nor the Royal Household had any part to play in Kerr’s decision to dismiss Whitlam,” the spokesperson said.
Convention
Palace sources stressed that it is a long standing convention, which the Household still believes and still upholds, that conversations between prime ministers, governors generals and the Queen are private.
They said the letters made it clear that the Queen has always pledged her support for Australia and the Australian constitution and the Australian people, something that they said was made clear by Charteris’s statement that the Queen cannot intervene in the matter.
On 4 November 1975, a week out from the dismissal, Charteris told Kerr that he was “playing the vice-regal hand with skill and wisdom”.
“Your interest in the situation has been demonstrated and so has your impartiality,” Charteris wrote.
He said the fact that Kerr had the powers to dissolve parliament “is recognised but it is also clear that you will only use them in the last resort and then only for Constitutional – and not for political – reasons”.
“To use them is a heavy responsibility and it is only at the very end when there is demonstrably no other course that they should be used,” he wrote.
Charteris also cautioned Kerr that then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser wanted him to believe that the country was in a constitutional crisis, because he believed he would win the ensuing election.
On the day of Whitlam’s dismissal, 11 November 1975, Kerr wrote to the palace. He made it clear that he had not informed the palace directly of his decision.
“I should say I decided to take the step I took without informing the palace in advance because, under the Constitution, the responsibility is mine, and I was of the opinion it was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance, though it is, of course, my duty to tell her immediately,” Kerr wrote.
Charteris later responded:
“If I may say so with the greatest respect, I believe in not informing the Queen of what you intended to do before doing it, you acted not only with Constitutional propriety, but also with admirable consideration for Her Majesty’s position.”
In a statement to the Guardian, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson said the letters showed that the Queen and the royal household had no part in Kerr’s decision. The palace said the Queen had at all times honoured her oath to govern the peoples of Australia “according to their respective laws and customs”.
“The release of the letters by the National Archives Australia confirms that neither Her Majesty nor the Royal Household had any part to play in Kerr’s decision to dismiss Whitlam,” the spokesperson said.
Palace sources stressed that it is a long standing convention, which the Household still believes and still upholds, that conversations between prime ministers, governors generals and the Queen are private.
They said the letters made it clear that the Queen has always pledged her support for Australia and the Australian constitution and the Australian people, something that they said was made clear by Charteris’s statement that the Queen cannot intervene in the matter.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar