Release of Palace Papers (Aus)

[GoTfan]

So today, the Palace Papers, correspondence between former Governor-General Sir John Kerr and Martin Charteris, the Queen's Private Secretary from 1972-1977

First, a bit of background.

In 1972, Gough Whitlam's Labor Party won the election, but only possessed a slim majrity in the House and unusually, the Senate was controlled by the Liberal-Country Coalition. Whitlam had been elected on a platform of socail and economic reform, and though the Senate passed some bills, it also blocked others. There wasn't much Whitlam could do about it though.

In 1974, With Billy Snedden's Coalition blocking supply bills in the Senate, Whitlam requested and got permission from the Governor-General at the time, Sir Paul Hasluck, to call a double dissolution. Labor was returned to power, but again, the Coalition held the Senate. After this, it's reported that Whitlam wanted to reappoint Hasluck, as his term was ending in 1974. Hasluck refused, citing his wife's reluctance, so Whitlam proceeded to barrell through additional choices; businessman Ken Myer, Treasurer Frank Crean and Deputy Prime Minister Lance Bardard, who all turned it down. Whitlam was forced to settle for Kerr, who was then Chief Justice of New South Wales.

In December 1974, Whitlam needed additional funds for various development projects being undertaken, and so with Barnard, Treasurer Jim Cairns and Attorney-General Lionel Murphy, signed a a letter of authority for Minerals and Energy Minister Rex Connor to borrow up to US$4 billion. None of the efforts bore fruit, and public support cratered when information about the Loans Affair became known.

That was just one of the scandals that the Whitlam government endured, but I'll be happy to describe the others if so desired by people.

In October 1975, the Coalition deferred the passage of supply in the Senate. Supply had already been passed in the House, but the Coalition stated they would continue to block it until Whitlam called an election for the House. Fed up, Whitlam went to Kerr on the 11th of November intending to seek his permission for a half-Senate election. Kerr instead dismissed Whitlam and installed new Liberal Party Leader Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister. The resulting double dissolution the month after resulted in a landslide for Fraser.

For the last eight years, Professor Jenny Hocking, who's been Whitlam's biographer, has been trying to gain access to the Palace Papers, but has been continuously blocked. Weeks ago, the High Court ruled that access should be public. The papers have contained some pretty shocking stuff, despite the insistence of certain people that they didn't:

• Kerr had raised the possibility of dismissing Whitlam in a letter to Charteris in July, despite writing in November that he had dismissed Whitlam without infrming the Palace
• A week before the dismissal on November 4, Charteris wrote to Kerr stating that "It is often argued that reserve powers no longer exist. I do not believe this to be true. I believe those powers do exist."
• Kerr had discussed possible dismissal of Whitlam with Prince Charles
• Fraser used intelligence agencies to help counter protests against Kerr after becoming PM
• Kerr spoke of support he received from a group called League of Rights, a right-wing racist and anti-Semitic group, and said they were saying things that were "true enough"

In a nutshell, the Governor-General, instead of approaching the Attoney-General for advice, instead talked with the Private Secretary and proceeded to dismiss Whitlam without notifying the Queen or seeking her permission to do so.

[T'Chenka]

This is pretty spicy stuff.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

So instead of the conspiracy theories about the queen colluding with the GG to dump Whitlam, it really was just Kerr getting power-hungry and colluding with Fraser to dismiss the Prime Minister without even informing the Queen of his intentions.

[GoTfan]

So instead of the conspiracy theories about the queen colluding with the GG to dump Whitlam, it really was just Kerr getting power-hungry and colluding with Fraser to dismiss the Prime Minister without even informing the Queen of his intentions.

That, and the fact that Chataris seems to be . . . unusually suggestive in use of the Governor-General's power to dismiss the government.

[CumbrianLefty]

Still a genuinely disgraceful episode.

[Blair]

Basing this on what I read in a travel book but weren't there huge protests afterwards, yet Labor & Whitlam got thrashed in the next election?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Basing this on what I read in a travel book but weren't there huge protests afterwards, yet Labor & Whitlam got thrashed in the next election?

Whitlam tried to turn the election in to a referendum on the dismissal ('maintain your anger and enthusiasm') but things did not work out that way, as his government (for all its undeniable achievements in other fields) had mismanaged the economy pretty badly and was not short of scandals.

[GoTfan]

Basing this on what I read in a travel book but weren't there huge protests afterwards, yet Labor & Whitlam got thrashed in the next election?

Whitlam tried to turn the election in to a referendum on the dismissal ('maintain your anger and enthusiasm') but things did not work out that way, as his government (for all its undeniable achievements in other fields) had mismanaged the economy pretty badly and was not short of scandals.

Indeed. The Loans Affair was just one scandal.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Basing this on what I read in a travel book but weren't there huge protests afterwards, yet Labor & Whitlam got thrashed in the next election?

Regardless of his sweeping social reforms Whitlam was unlucky enough to be elected just in time to deal with the 1973 Oil Shock and the subsequent recession. And his government didn't possess the economic experience needed to cope with 17% Inflation and 11% Interest Rates.

[CumbrianLefty]

Basing this on what I read in a travel book but weren't there huge protests afterwards, yet Labor & Whitlam got thrashed in the next election?

Whitlam tried to turn the election in to a referendum on the dismissal ('maintain your anger and enthusiasm') but things did not work out that way, as his government (for all its undeniable achievements in other fields) had mismanaged the economy pretty badly and was not short of scandals.

It shouldn't be forgotten that his government had been (narrowly) re-elected the previous year.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It shouldn't be forgotten that his government had been (narrowly) re-elected the previous year.

This was an important part of the background to the constitutional coup: ordinarily a government as unpopular as Whitlam's would be one towards the end of its term and facing imminent electoral defeat. Had that been the case, then it is very unlikely that Kerr would have felt the need to act; had that been the case and he still had, then the others involved would certainly have dissuaded him.

[Pulaski]

Still a genuinely disgraceful episode.

Indeed, and one particularly disgraceful aspect is often overlooked - the level of collusion between the federal Liberal Party and state Premiers that enabled the Senate to block supply. Without that, the constitutional crisis would never have been triggered.

In February 1975, Tom Lewis, the Liberal Premier of NSW, filled a Senate seat vacated by a Labor Senator with an independent.

In July, the Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen (*spit*) filled another Senate vacancy caused by the death of a Labor Senator with a low-level anti-Whitlam union official who made it clear he'd help to block supply.

Both of these actions broke with long-standing convention that the party whose seat was vacated gets to pick the person to fill the seat, and swung the Senate from independents holding the balance of power to a clear Coalition majority.

Nothing in these papers really shocked me; we basically already knew Kerr (an insipid, arrogant drunkard) not only failed to consult appropriately, and concealed his intentions, but actively sought out inappropriate guidance, and that the Palace itself was extremely reluctant to be involved at any stage (why the hell we still in theory report to them when even they don't want to be involved is anyone's guess).

Future Prime Minister and eternal acid tongue Paul Keating, himself a junior minister at the time of the dismissal, summed it up perfectly in the debate on Kerr's condolence motion on the occasion of his death. Some would think it inappropriate to admonish someone so harshly in the days after his death. Kerr deserved even worse.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes, the basic right wing view seems to have been that Whitlam's government was illegitimate and had no right to be in power - and thus literally anything was justified in removing it.

Strange how often this mentality crops up innit? But its the left who hate democracy

[(no subject)]

Had the 1972 Whitlam government run its full three year term, it likely would have been defeated in an alt-1975 election. Ditto for a no-Dismissal timeline where the 1974 parliament lasts to the expected 1977 election.

[CumbrianLefty]

Had the 1972 Whitlam government run its full three year term, it likely would have been defeated in an alt-1975 election. Ditto for a no-Dismissal timeline where the 1974 parliament lasts to the expected 1977 election.

Well yes........but what's the relevance to the above?

[(no subject)]

Cleaver Bunton (“mister Albury”) was a decent hard working nonpartisan who shocked Lewis after he appointed him.