Summary
With that, we’ll be closing the blog. Thanks for reading along as we trawled through this historic release of the palace letters.
In summary:
- On the day he dismissed Gough Whitlam, the then governor general, Sir John Kerr, wrote to the Queen’s private secretary that he had done so “without informing the palace in advance”.
- Kerr wrote on 11 November 1975: “I decided to take the step I took without informing the palace in advance ... I was of the opinion it was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance.”
- But other letters, from as early as July, show that Kerr had discussed the possibility of dismissing Whitlam for months.
- In a letter sent to the Queen’s then private secretary, Martin Charteris, on 3 July, Kerr enclosed a clipping from the Canberra Times that raised the possibility of his dismissing Whitlam.
- Kerr wrote that he had “no intention of acting in the way suggested”, but the newspaper was “a responsible, high quality paper”. “The editorial may be of general interest as background,” he wrote.
- A week before the dismissal, Charteris wrote to Kerr (on 4 November) advising him that: “It is often argued that such [reserve] powers no longer exist. I do not believe this to be true. I think those powers do exist.”
- The letters also confirmed that Kerr had discussed the possibility of dismissal with Prince Charles.
- The historian Prof Jenny Hocking, whose court case led to the release of the letters, said it was “scandalous” for the governor general to take legal advice from the Queen’s private secretary over the attorney general.
- She also said “the head of a constitutional monarchy must at all times remain politically neutral”, but the letters showed Kerr and the palace engaging “at a very political level”.
- Hocking said: “These are not appropriate conversations to be having between the governor general and a member of the royal family ... This is quite scandalous when he advises the governor general on the nature and the powers and the potential use of the reserve powers. The reserve powers is one of the most contentious areas in Australian political legal and constitutional structures because it is highly contested.”
- Kerr also told the palace on 20 November that he did not warn Whitlam of his intention to dismiss him, in case Whitlam moved to revoke his commission as governor general before that could happen.
- In his last letter to the palace before the dismissal, Kerr wrote that Whitlam told him the “only way” a House election could occur “would be if I dismissed him”.
- After his dismissal, Whitlam called Buckingham Palace as a “private citizen” and asked to be reinstated as PM, in a phone call picked up at 4.15am (GMT).
- The letters also revealed that Whitlam’s successor as PM, Malcolm Fraser, used intelligence agencies in 1976 to help counter protests against Kerr.
- Fraser also wanted Prince Charles to become Australia’s governor general, but the Queen opposed it because Charles was not yet married.
- The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said that the level of “suggestive comments” from Charteris was surprising, and called for an Australian head of state.
- “Kerr was seeking advice from Buckingham Palace,” the former republican movement leader said. “So he was seeking advice from people, from courtiers at Buckingham Palace, who would not be constitutionally able to sit in our own parliament.”
- The Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, also said the letters demonstrated the need for an Australian head of state.
- Earlier, the National Archives website crashed from unexpected demand after the release of the letters.
Read our news story on the letters here:
And continue combing through all 1,200 pages of the palace letters here:
Updated
Some incredible detail here in a letter from Sir John Guise, the first governor general of Papua New Guinea.
These letters were included by Kerr in his correspondence with the palace, as he described “a strange quality about Sir John Guise’s activities”.
According to Kerr a man claiming to be a “supporter” of his, who he says, “really should not have done it” wrote to Guise telling him off for his refusal to stay with Kerr in Government House.
The letter, from Chris Diprose from Hobart said: “I am appalled at the recent report in Australian newspapers that your visit to Australia has been cancelled. The reason ... is reportedly stated in the press as being that you have refused to stay with the governor general.
“It is somewhat of an insult to Sir John,” Diprose wrote.
Guise replied: “Thank you for your unwanted and paternalistic letter. You have no right whatsoever to dictate to me your ill-informed statements ... I have every confidence and trust in the Commonwealth Government led by [Malcolm] Fraser.
“Who are you to lecture me? I am very much a man and a leader, much older than you are and I have been in the forefront in the battle to win freedom for my homeland.
“Keep to your business of making money and don’t ever write and preach to me again. Any further letters from you will be burnt by my Honourable Domestic Servant!”
'Any further letters from you will be burnt by my Honourable Domestic Servant!': the Governor-General of Papua New Guinea responds to a letter, 1976. (From the Kerr Palace letters released by @naagovau.) pic.twitter.com/XKgOjg2fRa
— Jeremy Travers (@jeremytravers) July 14, 2020
Updated
The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, speaking now on the ABC, says he is surprised at how active the role of Martin Charteris, the Queen’s private secretary, was during the constitutional crisis.
“I expected that Sir Martin would be simply replying in a fairly taciturn way, thanking him for his update and not making any comment ... But in fact as we’ve just seen ... Charteris was making fairly suggestive comments and suggestions and observations.
“Sir John Kerr was discussing in the most intimate way the confidential considerations he was making in the course of this constitutional crisis in Australia, as it developed,” he says.
Turnbull, a former leader of the Australian republic campaign, says the letters demonstrate the need for an Australian head of state.
“Kerr was seeking advice from Buckingham Palace. So he was seeking advice from people, from courtiers at Buckingham Palace, who would not be constitutionally able to sit in our own parliament.
“Do we regard the United Kingdom as a foreign country? Well, there’s no question we do ... Now, Buckingham Palace, the Queen, her courtiers, the whole institution, there is a British institution.
“We would not be comfortable with the Australian governor general discussing constitutional issues with Donald Trump or, you know, the emperor of Japan.”
Updated
The chair of the Australian Republican Movement has said he is “gobsmacked” by the letters and it revealed an “undemocratic power structure that should offend all Australians”.
“Unelected English officials ... know what is going to happen before anyone in the Whitlam government does,” said the journalist and author Peter FizSimons. “This is not about whether you like the Queen personally or if you think the Whitlam government was a good one ... 45 years later, we still have democratically elected Australian leaders reporting in to unelected English people.
“The latest poll says we have about 62% of the people with us for a republic – a post-war high. Let’s get on with it.”
Statement from ARM Chair regarding the #PalaceLetters pic.twitter.com/gazLpqWQdn
— Peter FitzSimons (@Peter_Fitz) July 14, 2020
Updated
The correspondence makes it abundantly clear that the Queen was following the growing crisis in Australia intently, and paying close attention to the dispatches sent to her by John Kerr.
On 27 October 1975, just a couple of weeks before the dismissal, the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, wrote to Kerr telling him the Queen was reading his letters about the situation with close attention.
In those letters, Kerr canvasses the option of dissolving the parliament and removing the Whitlam government. Charteris writes that he hopes “the mere act of writing these letters, for the Queen’s information, is of help to you in formulating your ideas as the situation develops”.
“In your letter of 20th October you question whether the material you are sending on the crisis is too detailed. I can assure you that it is not. The Queen is absorbing it with interest and is very grateful to you for taking so much trouble to keep her informed.”
In a letter four days earlier, Charteris says: “Your letter of 17th October has been read with the greatest interest by The Queen, who has you and your difficult problems very much in mind. She is closely following events as they unfold.”
Updated
Queen opposed Prince Charles becoming governor general until he was married
Malcolm Fraser, when prime minister, thought Prince Charles should be appointed Australia’s governor general “at some date”, but the Queen disagreed, according to correspondence.
In a letter from 3 August 1976, the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, told John Kerr that he met with Fraser on two occasions, including a meeting with the Queen on 24 July.
“I did, indeed, discover in Canada that this matter was on the Prime Minister’s mind and that he viewed the appointment of Prince Charles as governor general at some date as a desirable end,” Charteris wrote.
“I think the point we must all bear in mind is that I do not believe the Queen would look with favour on Prince Charles becoming governor general of Australia until such time as he has a settled married life.
“No one will know better than you how important it is for a governor general to have a lady by his side for the performance of his duties. The prospect, therefore, of the Prince of Wales becoming governor general of Australia must remain in the unforseeable future.”
Charles then met his future wife Princess Diana in 1977.
Updated
An interesting reader submission from John Edwards:
I found it interesting that Charteris name-checked Eugene Forsey (handwritten note on the letter of 24 September 1975). Forsey was, at the time, the leading authority in Canada on parliamentary democracy.
Canada was having constitutional discussions on the time, so I’d be interested to know if Forsey was consulted and what his views on the situation were. Canadian premiers have been dismissed before, but none since the early 1900s (and only 5 times in total).
Updated
The Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, wrote in 1976 that an “increasing non-British element in Australia’s ethnic makeup” meant the monarchy would not “remain a reality” without frequent visits from Queen Elizabeth II.
This was in response to a letter from John Kerr about new waves of non-British immigration.
“I have been musing about the monarchy as an institution in our part of the world,” Kerr wrote on 19 December 1976. “In 1947, 98% were of British stock. By the 1971 census only 88% were so derived.
“By far the majority of the non-British are Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavs and Germans,” Kerr wrote. “Our immigrants come from over one hundred countries including, for example, Egypt and Turkey, Lebanon and other Arab countries. Increasingly, but not yet significantly, we have Asians. Most of these, and most who have come from Europe are from republics and are not directly acquainted with monarchy.”
He adds that he will have his Australia Day address broadcast this year “in six or seven languages over our ‘Ethnic’ Radio”.
Charteris replied: “The point you make about the now large and increasing non-British element in Australia’s ethnic make up is, of course, significant. It is one of the reasons why the monarchy in Australia could not, I believe, long remain a reality without more frequent visits by The Sovereign than was customary in the first half of this century.
“The days when The Sovereign of Australia could remain in London, and still remain acceptable are, I think, long past; new immigrants, changing values ... would all make this impossible, as well, of course as being wholly undesirable.”
The White Australia Policy was only abolished as a policy in 1966 under Harold Holt, and not abolished as legislation until 1973 under Gough Whitlam.
Updated
Palace letters reveal 'scandalous' and 'not appropriate' political discussions, Hocking says
Prof Jenny Hocking, the historian whose legal challenge led to release of these letters, is speaking now.
She says that the letters show an inappropriate “political” discussion between the governor general and the royal family, and that some of the legal advice given by Charteris is “scandalous”.
“The head of a constitutional monarchy must at all times remain politically neutral, and must remain above the politics of the day,” she said. “The really startling thing about these letters is the extent to which the governor general, Sir John Kerr, is communicating with the Queen about exactly those issues, about political matters that are happening in Australia ... and the Queen in response is engaging with that level of conversation at a very political level.
“You could not get more political than the crisis in the Senate that the government faced, and the eventual dismissal without warning of the elected government.”
She also points towards a conversation with Prince Charles we previously summarised for you.
“One thing that jumps out is a conversation reported between the governor general and Prince Charles, in September 1975, where the governor general discusses with Prince Charles his concern for his own position, that he may be recalled from office by the prime minister.
“These are not appropriate conversations to be having between the governor general and a member of the royal family.”
Finally, she refers to letters from Martin Charteris, the Queen’s private secretary, where he said that Kerr had the legal power to dismiss Whitlam. Hocking says that Kerr’s letters reveal he was ignoring the advice of the attorney general and the solicitor general, and instead listening to Charteris.
“This is quite scandalous when he advises the governor general on the nature and the powers and the potential use of the reserve powers,” she says. “The reserve powers is one of the most contentious areas in Australian political legal and constitutional structures because it is highly contested.
“For the Queen’s private secretary to be commenting to the governor general, who was about to exercise those powers, on the existence of those powers is alarming.”
Updated
Fraser used intelligence agencies to counter protests against Kerr
Malcolm Fraser, the Liberal prime minister who replaced Gough Whitlam, used intelligence agencies to help counter protests against John Kerr, the correspondence shows.
On 10 June 1976, Kerr wrote to Buckingham Palace telling them of a protest that had turned ugly in Melbourne.
“There were about 400 demonstrators and the scene was pretty nasty ... The front side of the Rolls was broken with a brick and the flying glass cut the face of my Aide, Flight Lieutenant Fox, who had to have medical attention.”
Kerr said the the prime minister called him when he was back at the hotel to express his concern.
“He has called for an urgent detailed report on the campaign from Asio. I am to see him tonight at 6.00pm after the despatch bag goes, so further comments on his attitude must await a later letter.”
Kerr also spoke of support he had received from a “very rightwing organisation which has taken up my cause – the League of Rights”. He attached an Asio report finding the organisation had antisemitic leanings. Kerr said the organisation was distributing pamphlets in support of him and saying things that were “true enough”.
But Kerr also noted: “Someone in the press, coining a phrase, has said, ‘with friends like these who needs enemies’. Eric Butler who is leader of the organisation is said to be racist and antisemitic but these things are not stressed in his organisation. I enclose an Asio report on his organisation. It is very pro-monarchy.”
Updated
Earlier today the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, said the release of the letters today underlined the need for an Australian republic.
“The actions of the governor general on 11 November to dismiss a government, to put himself above the Australian people, is one that reinforces the need for us to have an Australian head of state, the need for us to stand on our own two feet,” he said.
“The fact that we have waited 45 years for correspondence between the Queen and the palace, and the governor general in Australia, says that there is something very wrong with our structures of government, the fact that someone across the other side of the world was involved and engaged in this process.”
Labor’s Matt Thistlethwaite added: “When Sir John Kerr gave these documents to the National Archives, it was his view that they should be released in the future and the Australian public should know their contents. Yet, in 1991 when he passed, Buckingham Palace intervened and said that those documents should remain secret until 2027 and, then, permission must be granted by Buckingham Palace for the documents to be released.
“Now in modern Australia, that is wrong and the high court determined that the Australian people have the right to know what is in these documents. The uncovering of these documents today highlights the fact that in the future, once we get through the Covid crisis, Australia must begin a mature and serious discussion about our future constitutional arrangements with a view to having a serious discussion about amending our constitution to finally appoint an Australian as our head of state.”
Updated
In June 1976, well after the dismissal, Whitlam and his wife dined with the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris. The next day, Whitlam had an audience with the Queen.
Charteris wrote to Kerr about the experience, saying Whitlam had “at least conceded” that it could possibly be argued that Kerr acted in line with his constitutional duty during the dismissal.
Mr Whitlam was in excellent form and the conversation at dinner range agreeably from Sir Harold Wilson’s resignation honours list to the characters of politicians in this country and in yours!
I had about half-an-hour’s private talk with Mr Whitlam after dinner and he remained sweet and reasonable, spoke warmly of the Queen, and at least conceded that it could be argued that you had acted in accordance with the constitution!
I said that whatever we were asked we would say nothing of what passed between the Queen and him next day, at which he threw up his hands and said the very idea of anyone saying anything about that was totally unacceptable.
The actual audience with the Queen seems to have gone very well, and Her Majesty told me that she had spoken firmly about the use of violence. We must hope that some of this is reflected in the answers Mr Whitlam may give at this press conference today.
Updated
Whitlam called Buckingham Palace as a 'private citizen' and asked to be reinstated as PM
Another revelation from the letters, previously unreleased, is that Gough Whitlam called Buckingham Palace after his dismissal.
“Mr Whitlam telephoned to me at 4.15am (our time) on 11th November,” the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, wrote. “Mr Whitlam prefaced his remarks by saying that he was speaking as a ‘private citizen’... and said that now supply had been passed he should be re-commissioned as prime minister so that he could choose his own time to call an election.”
This is a reference to the fact that, after Whitlam was dismissed by Kerr in an in-person meeting on the day, Labor senators in parliament (who were unaware) introduced and passed a motion for appropriation bills, despite Malcolm Fraser being the new prime minister.
“He spoke calmly and did not ask me to make any approach to the Queen, or indeed to do anything other than the suggestion that I should speak to you to find out what was going on,” Charteris wrote.
Updated
In May 1976, six months after the dismissal, the governor general John Kerr told Buckingham Palace that Gough Whitlam was seeking an audience with the Queen.
He offered no opinion on such a meeting because “it hardly seems proper” for him to offer any advice. But in the next breath, Kerr goes on to accuse Whitlam of running a “nasty” and “malicious” campaign against him, including spreading rumours through books published about the dismissal.
I have not spoken to Mr Whitlam since 11 November. He has conducted quite a nasty campaign against me, both publicly and privately. This may be understandable from his point of view but I have been unable to reply. The campaign, though I have not mentioned this to you, includes a serious smearing by gossip and innuendo and much of this gossip, which could only have come from him and those around him, is reflected, indeed stated as fact, in the ‘quickie’ books so far written by Labor-oriented journalists.
In the same correspondence, Kerr speaks of a trip to Western Australia and tells Martin Charteris that he has fallen out of the news but still encounters “small and scruffy” protests.
“My tactic is to appear regularly, carry out my programme, put up with the demonstrations, which so far have been rather small and scruffy, as can be seen on television, and to wait. The next six months will tell.”
Updated
Kerr wrote that he told Whitlam he “could well win” the election after he dismissed him.
From a letter on 17 November:
When I dismissed Mr Whitlam, I said to him, ‘The polls are going well in your favour. I have held up my decision to the last possible moment. You have campaigned well in the meantime. I think you could well win the election. Good luck.’ I proffered him my hand and he took it.
In his final letter to the palace before he dismissed Whitlam, Kerr wrote that the prime minister told him at a Melbourne Cup reception that the “only way” a House election could occur “would be if I dismissed him”.
He also said that the attorney general explained to him why the government’s latest scheme was legal and constitutional, but he wrote: “It obviously is an unsatisfactory way of carrying on government.
“The crisis is now a very serious one and if both parties and their leaders remain adamant, an important decision one way or the other may have to be made by me this month.”
Kerr's final letter to the palace before he dismissed Whitlam.
— Naaman Zhou (@naamanzhou) July 14, 2020
He claims Whitlam told him at a Melbourne Cup function the "only way" a House election could occur "would be if I dismissed him". https://t.co/GKOIqiXmmT pic.twitter.com/IlIRsnyPPA
Updated
The national archives may still be down – but you can read the whole 1,200 pages on the Guardian Australia site here:
A really critical part of the correspondence shows that the governor general Sir John Kerr believed he may be recalled by the Queen at the request of the prime minister Gough Whitlam. We’ve known of this fear for some time. But it is laid out more comprehensively in the correspondence.
Kerr was clearly keen not to put the Queen in a position where he was trying to dismiss Whitlam while Whitlam was trying to dismiss him. On 20 November 1975, after the dismissal, Kerr wrote:
As you know from earlier letters, on occasions, sometimes jocularly, sometimes less so, but on all occasions with what I considered to be underlying seriousness, he [Whitlam] said that the crisis could end in a race to the Palace.
I could act, if necessary, directly myself under the Constitution. I am sure that he would have known this and the talk about a race to the Palace really constituted another threat.
History will doubtless provide an answer to this question, but I was in a position where, in my opinion, I simply could not risk the outcome for the sake of the monarchy.
If, in the period of say 24 hours, during which he was considering his position, he advised the Queen in the strongest of terms that I should be immediately dismissed, the position would then have been that either I would, in fact, be trying to dismiss him while he was trying to dismiss me — an impossible position for the Queen.
Updated
Kerr raised dismissal on 3 July but said he had 'no intention' to act
In a letter sent to Martin Charteris on 3 July, Sir John Kerr enclosed a clipping from the Canberra Times that raising the possibility of his dismissing Gough Whitlam.
The Times editorial said:
The governor general has certain clear powers to check an elected government. He normally acts on the advice of his ministers but there are occasions when he need not seek or accept that advice. He could, for good and sufficient reasons, revoke the commissions of a prime minister or other ministers.
The good government of Australia, especially at a time of grave economic disruption, is the only thing that counts and the most extreme steps to ensure this must be taken if there is no other way.
To this, Kerr wrote:
I enclose a copy of a leader in today’s Canberra Times, a responsible, high quality paper. I do this because of what it says about the governor general’s powers and possible duty.
I have no intention of course of acting in the way suggested. There is ample room for the democratic processes still to unfold. So far the Canberra Times is the only paper, to my knowledge, to raise this point. The editorial may be of general interest as background.
Updated
I’ve just spoken with David Fricker, while my colleague Laura Murphy-Oates has spoken with the historian Jenny Hocking. Hocking described the feeling of opening the letters for the first time since she launched her court action four years ago.
She said it was a “great day for transparency and for history”:
I felt tremendously excited. This is a really historic moment in terms of the release of secret letters, but from a Queen to the governor general, so it’s a really important day for accessing material that’s going to shed a huge amount of light on just what transpired.
Fricker told me he was happy to be able to finally release the documents. He said the function of the National Archives was to enable public release but he said this had to be done according to the law:
I am happy about [the release] for a number of reasons. One, these documents are of intense interest, without doubt. We’ve never disputed the historic significance of these documents.
Not only are they historically significant, but they’ve inspired a lot of people in Australia to become interested in Australia’s history and I think that’s a good thing. I also hope they will get people thinking about Australia’s constitution, get people thinking about Australia’s democracy, and have people a bit more engaged with how Australia’s system of democracy works.
Updated
I have now received a copy – not from online – of the full palace letters.
On 2 October 1975, Martin Charteris confirms in a letter that Sir John Kerr had discussed with Prince Charles the possibility that Gough Whitlam could ask the Queen to dismiss the governor general before the governor general could dismiss the prime minister.
This was already covered in the initial briefing, but not with the full text.
Charteris wrote:
In all these difficult matters I am sure you are right to keep your options open and not to decide now what you will do in any given circumstances ... I hope you are right in believing that the crisis will probably be avoided and that something will ‘give’.
Prince Charles told me a good deal of his conversation with you and in particular that you had spoken of the possibility of the prime minister advising the Queen to terminate your commission with the object, presumably, of replacing you with somebody more amendable to his wishes.
If such an approach was made you may be sure that the Queen would take most unkindly to it ... but I think it is right that I should make that point that at the end of the road, the Queen would have no option but to follow the advice of the prime minister.
Let us hope none of these unpleasant possibilities come to pass. I believe the more one thinks about them, the less likely they are to happen.
Updated
Prof Jenny Hocking, the historian who applied for access to the letters and took the case to the high court, has said that she asked to present the official release to the media. Rather than the director general of the archives, David Fricker.
I requested exactly that @GMegalogenis
— Prof Jenny Hocking (@palaceletters) July 14, 2020
Updated
National Archives crash due to 'higher than usual traffic'
Who could have predicted this?
Due to higher than usual traffic, RecordSearch is temporarily unavailable. Thank you for your patience as we work to restore the service.
— National Archives of Australia (@naagovau) July 14, 2020
Updated
Technical errors are still plaguing the online release – I am seeing nothing but this error screen:
My palace letters experience. Anyone else? pic.twitter.com/8MEiWlmed6
— Naaman Zhou (@naamanzhou) July 14, 2020
Trying to export the Palace Letters from the National Archives website is going swimmingly pic.twitter.com/IZz4Kn3ZLf
— Jamie Travers (@JamieTravers) July 14, 2020
It brings me no solace to say I predicted this a few hours ago.
Updated
Here’s a quick guide to what’s happening today:
What are the palace letters?
In 1975 the Australian government led by Gough Whitlam was sensationally sacked by the governor general, Sir John Kerr, the Queen’s representative in Australia. The “palace letters” are hundreds of previously secret letters between Kerr and the Queen about the dismissal. Many believe they hold the key to understanding what role the Queen played in Whitlam’s downfall.
Why are they being released now?
The historian Jenny Hocking has mounted a four-year legal battle to have the letters released from the National Archives of Australia, where they have been held as “private” records for decades under embargo by the Queen. In May the high court of Australia finally ordered that the letters were in fact commonwealth records and must be released.
But wait, don’t Australians democratically elect their prime ministers?
Many Australians think they alone have the ability to vote governments in and out but, under the country’s constitution and because Australia is not a republic, ultimate power rests with the governor general as a representative of the Queen. Kerr’s move to force Whitlam’s reforming leftwing government from office, after the conservative opposition had blocked appropriation bills in the upper house of parliament, remains one of the most controversial moments in modern Australian politics.
What’s that famous quote again?
“Well may we say ‘God save the Queen’ because nothing will save the governor general.” – Gough Whitlam, 11 November, 1975.
Updated
The digital versions of the palace letters are loading ... very slowly for me. In that, none of them are loading.
For those with better luck, remember you can submit any tips you spot to this box:
If you’re having trouble using the form, click here. Read terms of service here.
Updated
In a letter after the dismissal, Sir John Kerr wrote that friends had cut ties with him, believing that he had conspired with Malcolm Fraser.
A “very old friend” has “broken off relations with me ... forever”, he wrote.
He also described Whitlam’s reaction as “a very great rage” and writes about his now-famous speech on the steps of Parliament House.
Mr Whitlam’s reaction... great rage” #palaceletters pic.twitter.com/Kt2SdsrDlQ
— Sabra Lane (@SabraLane) July 14, 2020
Updated
And if you spot anything interesting the in the more than 1,200 pages of the palace letters. Let us know! Fill in the box below:
If you’re having trouble using the form, click here. Read terms of service here.
Updated
What we know so far
The full letters have just been released. David Fricker, the director general of the national archives, just took us through a quick briefing of three or four.
It’s important to note that context is crucial, and as Fricker said: “no one document is going to be the single answer to everything”.
There are still 1,200 pages to go through, and three years of letters. But here is what we know so far:
- On 11 November, after he dismissed Whitlam, the governor general, Sir John Kerr, wrote to the Queen’s private secretary that he had done so “without informing the palace in advance”.
- He wrote: “I decided to take the step I took without informing the palace in advance... I was of the opinion it was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance”.
- But, other letters from as early as September showed that Kerr had discussed, with the palace, the legal validity of his dismissing Whitlam for months before the decision.
- In the palace’s reply to Kerr, sent on 17 November, the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, also wrote: “In NOT informing the Queen what you intended to do before doing it, you acted not only with perfect constitutional propriety but also with admirable consideration for Her Majesty’s position”.
- He also joked that if Whitlam won the resulting election, then Whitlam “ought to be extremely grateful” to Kerr.
- Kerr also told the palace that he did not warn Whitlam of his intention to dismiss him, in case Whitlam moved to revoke his commission as governor general before that could happen.
More to come.
Two interesting titbits in this letter from 17 November 1975.
This is the first reply from the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, to John Kerr’s initial letter of 11 November, telling them he had sacked Gough Whitlam. He writes:
I believe that in NOT informing the Queen what you intended to do before doing it, you acted not only with perfect constitutional propriety but also with admirable consideration for Her Majesty’s position.
He also says, jokingly, that if Whitlam is re-elected, he “ought to be extremely grateful to you!”.
Palace reply to Kerr’s letter re dismissal 17 Nov. Notes Whitlam’s 4am call to Charteris asking to be recommissioned as PM. Says Kerr acted with “perfect constitutional propriety” and the Queen was “NOT” informed about the dismissal in advance. #auspol #palaceletters @australian pic.twitter.com/SQyRepNjBw
— Troy Bramston (@TroyBramston) July 14, 2020
Updated
We’re into questions and answers here now. David Fricker is asked whether it was wise to have spent so much money on the high court action. He says:
I have to make decisions according to law. There’s no way I can do anything else.
But Fricker accepts accountability for the way the National Archives handled the release. He said the archives had no choice but to go to court:
It’s the cost of being a public institution, you have to face the people, you have to face the court.
Updated
Key dates
Here are some of the key dates to track when the full letters come out.
The 1975 constitutional crisis began in October, when the then-Liberal controlled Senate blocked appropriation bills – also known as supply – that hamstrung the Whitlam government.
It came to a head on 11 November, when Sir John Kerr dismissed Gough Whitlam in a short meeting at Yarralumla.
The 211 palace letters that are being released today cover a much longer timeframe than that – they span Kerr’s entire term as governor general (15 August 1974 to 5 December 1977).
We’ll be paying close attention to the October-November 1975 letters, but who knows what else will pop up in the others.
A number of scandals had rocked the Whitlam government earlier than October, including the loans affair and the sacking of his deputy Jim Cairns on 2 July. It will be interesting to see Kerr’s reaction to this (if any).
On 16 October Bob Ellicott, who was the previous solicitor general and then a Liberal MP, wrote a legal opinion saying that Kerr had the legal power to dismiss Whitlam if he could not guarantee supply.
But Justice Anthony Mason previously revealed that he had begun discussions with Kerr about what to do from as early as August 1975.
It will also be interesting to look for his reaction to another comment on 16 October, when Whitlam told Kerr that he might recall Kerr’s post as governor general before he could dismiss him (“It could be a question of whether I get to the Queen first for your recall, or whether you get in first with my dismissal,” Whitlam said).
Whitlam has said the comment was a joke but Kerr has said he interpreted it to be a threat.
David Fricker has shown us a letter from 11 November, where Kerr said he had taken that day’s decision to sack Whitlam without informing the palace.
But other letters show that he discussed the legal validity of dismissing Whitlam for months beforehand with the Queen’s private secretary.
Updated
That concludes David Fricker’s briefing – the full letters are out in 30 minutes.
It’s import to note, as he said repeatedly, that context is everything.
We’ve been shown that 11 November letter where Kerr said he took the decision without informing the palace because “it was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance”.
But other letters show that he discussed the legal validity of dismissing Whitlam – for months beforehand – with the Queen’s private secretary.
Fricker is also taking questions.
Updated
John Kerr did not warn Gough Whitlam of his intention to dismiss him, to prevent a situation where Whitlam asked the Queen to dismiss the governor general, another letter reveals.
We’re now seeing a letter from 20 November when Kerr wrote “a much fuller recount of everything” that had happened nine days earlier.
He writes that he did not tell Whitlam in advance of his intention to dismiss him:
If in the period of 24 hours in which he [Whitlam] was considering his position he advised the Queen that I should be immediately dismissed, the position would then have been that either I would be, in fact, trying to dismiss him while he was trying to dismiss me – an impossible position for the Queen.
I simply could not risk the outcome for the sake of the monarchy.
Updated
Kerr dimissed Whitlam 'without informing the palace in advance'
And now we are being shown the letter Sir John Kerr sent to Buckingham Palace on the day of the dismissal, after he had sacked Gough Whitlam. Kerr wrote:
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.
The letter had three attachments: the letter of dismissal he gave to Whitlam on the day, a legal opinion from high court chief justice, Garfield Barwick, and a letter from the opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser, written to Kerr at Kerr’s request.
Updated
On 2 October, Martin Charteris and John Kerr discussed the possibility of Gough Whitlam asking the Queen to dismiss Kerr as governor general. From Charteris to Kerr:
Prince Charles told me a good deal, and you’d spoken of the possibility of the Prime Minister advising the Queen to terminate your commission ... at the end of the road, the Queen – as a constitutional sovereign – would have no option but to follow the advice of her Prime Minister.
David Fricker says this is evidence that Kerr’s own commission had been discussed and he had raised those fears with the palace.
Updated
This from Troy Bramston, who has early access to the letters – which are still not publicly released.
#BREAKING John Kerr’s letter to Buckingham Palace notifying them of Gough Whitlam’s dismissal - 11 November 1975. “I decided to take the step I took WITHOUT informing the Palace in advance ... it was better for Her Majesty NOT to know.” #auspol #palaceletters @australian pic.twitter.com/8WfircqxQO
— Troy Bramston (@TroyBramston) July 14, 2020
Kerr discussed reserve powers with Queen as early as September
David Fricker says “no one document is going to be the single answer to everything”, but he points to a few letters that he says hold historical significance.
On 12 September, a few months before the November dismissal, Kerr wrote to the Queen discussing the reserve powers of the governor general – ie, his ability to dismiss the prime minister. He wrote:
My role will need some careful thought.
Martin Charteris, the Queen’s private secretary, replied: “If supply is refused, it also makes it constitutionally proper to grant a dissolution.” Fricker says this was him “quoting back” Kerr to himself.
“Grant at whose request? At the request of the prime minister, of the Queen? Who knows?,” Fricker says. “But it’s discussed.”
Updated
Kerr a 'chatty correspondent', archives director says
And now David Fricker takes us through what the letters will include.
While everyone is focused on the dismissal, he says there is a lot of other material in them. They cover the entirety of his tenure as governor general, from 1974 to 1977:
There’s a few other things going own in Australia through 1974 to 1977. He provided many explanations and analyses of political developments in Australia. He was a very chatty correspondent.
Updated
The director general of the National Archives, David Fricker, is speaking now.
He says the archives released 20,000 records a year but received 40,000 requests a year:
I acknowledge the perseverance and dedication of Prof Jenny Hocking. And I want to say again on public record that, while for the past few years, for good reasons, I think, Jenny and I have been in opposite corners throughout this court case, however, never once have we disagreed on the value of the records or the extent to which they might illuminate the understanding of what is a tumultuous period in Australia’s history.
And from a personal point of view, I hope that, by making these records available to everybody, it will in fact improve Australia’s appreciation of its constitution and of our Australian democracy.
He congratulates Hocking on her success – and also notes that Gough Whitlam established the National Archives.
Updated
I’m in Canberra at the National Archives of Australia for a briefing about the palace letters. The briefing has just kicked off. We’re now hearing some procedural matters. David Fricker, the NAA director general, will give us background and context to the papers, field questions and explain the archives’ response to the high court decision.
Updated
So, how did we get here?
The last of Sir John Kerr’s letters was written in December 1977, when he ended his post as governor general.
In 2005 his papers (not letters), were released to the public under the Archives Act, which revealed, for example, that he had consulted with the high court judge Sir Anthony Mason before the dismissal.
The historian Jenny Hocking applied for the release of his letters to the Queen. The archives told her these were “personal” communications between the Queen and the governor general and not subject to the usual law of releasing commonwealth records after 30 years. Instead, they would be released in 2027, but only then conditional on approval from the Queen’s private secretary.
In 2016 Hocking launched a federal court case challenging this ruling, arguing that the records were official commonwealth records rather than personal. The federal court ruled with the archives.
But in May the high court ruled that the letters are commonwealth records and ordered the archives’ director general to reconsider Hocking’s request. Last week the director general, David Fricker, announced that they would be released today.
Updated
Good morning
Forty-five years ago, on 11 November 1975, prime minister Gough Whitlam drove to Yarralumla, sat down, attempted to call an election, and was dismissed by the governor general, Sir John Kerr.
Later that day Whitlam stood on the steps of Parliament House, told the nation to “maintain your rage”, and uttered the now-iconic line: “Well may we say ‘God save the Queen’ because nothing will save the governor general.”
For the four and a half decades since, a set of 211 letters have sat unread in the National Archives, jealously eyed by historians and political biographers. The correspondence between Kerr and Queen Elizabeth II, some believe, could shed light on the extent of royal involvement and royal knowledge of those heady days of the dismissal.
Prof Jenny Hocking, a historian who has argued there is evidence that the Queen knew of Kerr’s intent to sack Whitlam, had applied to access the letters but was told they would be kept under lock and key until at least 2027, and potentially indefinitely.
That was until Hocking won her case in the high court in May this year. The full letters will be released at 11am today – online and publicly available.
We’ll be reading them for the first time today, just as you are, combing through their 1,200 pages. Dependent, of course, on the website not crashing from demand.
My colleagues Katharine Murphy and Christopher Knaus will be poring through them too, with Chris, thankfully in the National Archives building itself, the letters before him on a USB rather than online.
We’ll bring you all the highlights, the details, and the biggest revelations. The letters will be released at 11am AEST. Stay tuned.
Updated
