An elite boys’ club conspired unconstitutionally to sack an Australian prime minister in ways that secretly involved the Crown — and were it not for the tenacity of one woman decades later, the public would never learn the true story.
Is this what happened in 1975? Given the extraordinary steps taken to suppress letters between the governor-general and the then queen and future king, it’s difficult to draw other conclusions.
These documents would come to be known as the Palace Letters, and the quest for their release has meant difficult and expensive work across many years by an Australian historian, Emeritus Professor Jenny Hocking.
Already the subject of numerous books by Hocking, The Search for the Palace Letters is a new documentary by Film Art Media that premiered on ABC TV and iview last Monday.
It’s compelling viewing.
The documentary follows Hocking’s journey of loss after loss, culminating in triumph only once her case had reached its final possible forum, the High Court of Australia.
We’re also shown the lengths to which the National Archives of Australia went to suppress some documents that had, in fact, once been freely available because “no one asked” — but the moment someone did ask, access was barred. Hocking tells us she was also warned that her own access to the archives might be revoked.
After the High Court gave the release order on May 29, 2020, the documentary shows the then National Archives director-general reneging on an agreement with Hocking to make a joint statement. Instead — and after a delay of six weeks — he released them with a highly selective presentation of one or two letters of the hundreds released, in what Hocking calls “a textbook case of controlling the narrative”. One media outlet went on to claim falsely that Hocking’s arguments were “completely demolished” by the release of the letters. Hocking herself had only learned of the archives’ media conference from a journalist.
What the letters in fact show is that former governor-general Sir John Kerr was receiving oral and written advice — without the knowledge or consent of the prime minister — from the then High Court judge Sir Anthony Mason, then chief justice and former Liberal Party politician Sir Garfield Barwick, then private secretary to the queen Sir Martin Charteris, and also, from the Prince of Wales himself — today, King Charles — with whom Kerr had met personally and discussed the dismissal just months before.
And surely, given the national outrage and public censure that followed the events of November 1975, Kerr would have been chastened in this behaviour? Astoundingly not: we learn in the documentary that he attempted the very next year to draw on his perceived reserve powers to unseat an Australian prime minister once again — this time, Malcolm Fraser. Only this time, the Palace Letters show that nobody was willing to entertain a correspondence with him on the notion, instead moving quickly to shut it down.
To insist that these letters were private or “personal correspondence”, which had been a chief line of argument against Hocking, beggars belief, as does the prohibition against the letters’ release until the deaths of all relevant protagonists.
Endorsing such protocols is the very definition of privilege. Documents of obvious public interest and democratic value had been suppressed not for 30 years in line with Commonwealth records, and not on any specific legislative or constitutional basis, but simply to protect their authors from dishonour — thus treating the authors as individual men, not as authorised representatives of public institutions responsible to their citizens.
Of the key protagonists, all are now deceased except King Charles and Sir Anthony Mason. Now 98 years old, Mason released a detailed statement in 2012 maintaining he has “always considered that Sir John [Kerr] acted consistently with his duty except in so far as he had a duty to warn the prime minister of his intended action and he did not do so.”
Equally compelling is the documentary’s feminist narrative. Hocking reveals that her mother had been the barrister representing Eddie Mabo. It’s a deeply moving moment as we come to appreciate the national service of both mother and daughter: Barbara Hocking, helping to expose the lie of terra nullius, and then Jenny Hocking, helping to expose the lie of a constitutionally justified dismissal. Each woman’s work has the power to transform our understanding of what legitimates the exercise of power and the rule of law in Australia.
We also see in The Search for the Palace Letters the astute roles of high court judges Virginia Bell and former chief justice Susan Kiefel, who each make valuable and timely interventions during the trial in the High Court.
The contents of the Palace Letters aren’t simply matters of curiosity or “fascination”, as Hocking herself puts it in the documentary. These are matters of the most pressing national interest.
As Australians, we need to look very carefully at the documents and conventions that underpin our democracy.
The visit this November of King Charles will remind all Australians that, in law, we are subjects of the British Crown. While a former Australian citizen is now queen of Denmark by marriage, currently the only way to become Australia’s head of state is to be a member of the United Kingdom’s royal family.
Given parliamentarians and governors-general swear allegiance to the monarch and not to the people, how misguided were Kerr’s actions? Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull tells us in The Search for the Palace Letters that Kerr’s correspondence was “not just irksome but humiliating. He was behaving like a colonial governor, not like the de facto head of state of Australia.” And yet, on his reading of the letter of the constitution, and on the advice that the Palace Letters record, Kerr felt entirely justified in taking that colonial action.
We all owe Hocking a debt of gratitude for persevering with what should never have been one woman’s responsibility to achieve: one of the most significant developments in Australian constitutional history. Watching The Search for the Palace Letters is a necessity for all Australians — and then, read the Palace Letters, and make up your own mind.
The 1975 coup demonstrates clearly why we must rid the nation of this colonial dependence on a foreign monarch. Letters hidden for years from us the sovereign people is not acceptable in a democracy.
The performance of the so-called public servants in this case also disgusting.
It does not demonstrate that at all, and this ‘colonial dependence’ is in your imagination.
We have the Westminster system and so long as there is a HoS who appoints the PM it presumably follows that the HoS can remove the PM. The only way to really prevent this is to get rid of the Westminster system altogether and combine the office of head of the executive with the office of the HoS — for example, an executive President.
The events of 1975 were an aberration, and the bigger lesson is just how little the Australian Crown and its representative the GG interferes with Australian government and the PM. The position of the Crown is so remote and fragile it is very properly reluctant to stick its oar in. It is very likely that replacing the current arrangement would greatly increase the probability of another dismissal. Let’s say, for example, that we go republican, in the sense of keeping all the parliamentary arrangements while replacing the monarch with an elected HoS. We will then have somebody who is directly elected by the citizens as president, and a PM who, just like now is not elected, and is only appointed by the president. How much more likely is it that the president, feeling the full strength, legitimacy and authority of being the elected representative of the people, would from time to time choose to get rid of any PM who was not agreeable to the president?
Simple solution to that – get the Parlt to appoint the HoS, same as happens now, rather than elect one. And make the position purely ceremonial with no “reserve powers”.
Yes, that’s more or less what John Howard offered the nation in the 1999 referendum, because he too was aware of the implications. It’s not clear to me why so many republican-minded Australians think they must elect the proposed HoS. Do they really want the president’s legitimacy to overshadow the PM, and what do they expect to follow from that? And how can they support that while fulminating against the current arrangement for its allegedly excessive power and influence? ‘Colonial dependence’, ha ha.
That was what Howard wanted because he couldn’t bear the thought of an independent control greater than his own.
No idea where you got this from
An unelected Monarch, in office by birthright and living as far away as it is possible to be, can dismiss a duly elected Government?
Charles, and his mother before him, is completely unable to act in a similar way in the UK.
As I relate in another comment, Tom Lewis and Joh B-P smashed precedent to tilt the Senate numbers.
Cleaver Bunton foiled Lewis by declaring he would not vote to block supply and B-P made a mockery of the Parliament with his appointment of Field.
You are sort making my point: an unelected Monarch, in office by birthright and living as far away as it is possible to be, is extremely unlikely to dismiss a duly elected Government. The monarch played a very small part in the events of 1975 (though that is still a part). Changing this very weak and barely legitimate HoS for one with more legitimacy is never going to reduce the chance of another dismissal. It will almost certainly have the opposite result.
King Charles most certainly has the power to act in the same way in the UK; that’s beyond dispute (it was much discussed at the time of Brexit). He never would, but that’s because he wouldn’t feel that he had to, since he can’t be summarily dismissed. He could discuss the matter with the PM and indicate which way he was thinking, maybe leading to some sort of compromise. (So could an elected president.) But Kerr felt (rightly or wrongly) that he couldn’t reveal his hand to Whitlam because Whitlam would immediately have had him sacked.
Rattie,
Your argument falls down on the convention that the GG takes advice SOLELY from the PM. Kerr took advice many times even before the Budget hold up from a number of people who also should have known better. Kerr, Chartarist, Barwick and Mason knew the convention but encouraged Kerr to continue.
My argument does not fall down, because pointing to what Kerr should have done does not change one bit what he did; and I am arguing that 1975 was an aberration because I agree with you – Kerr should not have done it. The reason this is no argument for changing the current constitutional arrangement is that the most popular republican alternative would replace the monarch and GG with somebody in a position and with legitimacy where they could far more easily justify carrying out a dismissal. There are surely good arguments for a republic, but the idea it would protect us from another dismissal is entirely wrong. On the other hand, perhaps we should see advantages in a HoS who defies or even dismisses the PM when their views differ. Do you remember all the howls of outrage against the GG after it was revealed he blithely and without question went along with Morrison’s crazy demands to secretly take over multiple ministries? The GG should have been applauded by everyone who condemns Kerr and thinks the GG’s job is simply to do whatever the PM wants.
I think you’re correct that a president is potentially more destabilising than the current status quo.
What is clear to me is that it is the owners of the media that have the most power to influence political outcomes.
With strong media laws that act against private interests influencing the public for political gain it would be possible to have a president.
But that would be considered restraint of trade in our current neoliberal driven political/commercial climate.
The main threat that ended Whitlams career was that Australia would nationalise more of its resources, providing a role model for the rest of the world, a working democracy with free education and health with cheap power. Corporate interests will always use their power to increase profit and it is media that is the most profound in selling propaganda. A publicly owned media outlet that competes directly with the big 3 is the best check and balance we could ever have. The ABC can and has been fiddled and has no provision to compete in its charter.
Kerr should not have taken advice from Fraser, or from Barwick. And the convention that the G-G only takes advice from the PM holds true only while the PM holds confidence and can guarantee supply. If either test fails to be met then the G-G can find themselves in a situation where they have much more freedom to act on their own advice. This is how the system is designed, so the G-G can step in and break an impasse if required. The bar is high, but it can be cleared.
Kerr sacked an elected PM before there was a vote of confidence in the Parliament. Whitlam would have won a vote of confidence in the Parliament as he had a majority. Whitlam didn’t have a chance to do this as Kerr had already sacked him as PM. Fraser would not have won a confidence vote as he did not have the numbers. The refusal to pass the Supply bill was a confected crisis in order to execute the coup. Kerr discussed dismissing the PM with various players before the supply bills were an issue before the Senate. I find it hard to believe the Queen was not aware of what her private secretary and Charles had been wargaming.
We had a referendum about an Australian head of state, but strangely, has there ever been an articulation of what is the purpose of a head of state? Why do we need one? It’s this mirage like institution which has powers, but most important is supposedly a ‘convention’ that they are never used. Why not do away with the whole idea? Or, since we seem to love Queen Mary of Denmark, perhaps we could create our own Royal Family. But with no powers of any kind. Find some nice woman in a pub somewhere, add a tiara and some dresses, job done.
Saw most of the Doco and was disgusted by the role of David Fricker ( Archives CEO). He seemed to exclude J Hocking and tried to frame the narrative when eventually the letters had to be legally released. No mention of him in this article. Was he under instructions from the previous Govt or running his own race?? Spent well over a $ million on legal costs to thwart the release of the Palace Letters – why?? This needs further investigation.
Fricker was ex-ASIO. Secrecy in the DNA?
Why was an ex spook appointed to that job? Appointed by which gov’t? He is not an historian, should never have been given the job.
Some of us might get a knock on the door from the AFP.
Fricker showed, like Kerr, a willingness to let his political views interfere with his administrative duties. He has destroyed any credibility he had and should resign.
Thank you for that additional information. Yes, he should resign.
It should be noted that Fricker left the position of Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (D-GNAA) in December of 2021.
But a little background; Fricker took up the position of D-GNAA in January 2012. His previous role was Deputy Director-General, Corporate and Strategy with ASIO.
Unfortunately, David couldn’t leave his predilection for secrecy and subterfuge behind him.
In the NAA profile of Fricker, he was lauded for his focus on ‘innovate (sic) methods for the public to engage with the collection, irrespective of location’.
Regrettably, David couldn’t focus on ethical methods for the public to engage with the collection, particularly in respect of their politics.
Because. Well just because. He should be out the door by CoB tomorrow. In fact he should have been gone the moment the High Court ruled.
Living through the entire period of the Whitlam Govt., its elections and ultimate dismissal/overthrow was a hothouse political education so far as I was concerned. The impact of what happened is still of relevance today in our national political life.
I watched the program and, like the author, found it “deeply moving” ” that her mother [Barbara Hocking] had been the barrister representing Eddie Mabo.”
I lived in Canberra on 11 November 1975 and was among those on the lawns of the old Parliament House in the early evening. Heady times – and angering too. The Whitlam government achieved more in three years than all subsequent Australian governments put together.
Last week David Flint had a letter in SMH claiming that we have an Australian Head of State in the Governor General .
But David Flint should know better. The Australian Head of State is King Charles III.
The Governor General is merely his viceroy. ”
From Parliament House’s Infosheet 20 under “Role of the King” it states clearly that King Charles is our Head of State.
“Australia’s head of state is King Charles III. King Charles is also King of the United Kingdom and several other countries which used to be part of the former British Empire”
A letter sent to Mr Flint with the suggestion that he offered an apology for his incorrect statement came back with a rather huffy reply that ACM stands by Flint’s comment with references from a rather extraordinary collections of personally connected “experts” who obviously believe that Parliament House has got it wrong.
Whenever Flint has a letter published in SMH I think “oh hell, what garbage is he parroting now”, pretty sure I’m not the only one.