LESSONS FROM THE PALACE LETTERS
In November 1977, then-Governor General Sir John Kerr made an intoxicated appearance at the Melbourne Cup; one month later he announced his retirement as the Queen’s representative. For Kerr, it seemed he had finally succumbed to the burden of a decision he made two years earlier – the sacking of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. For forty-five years, the controversial decision that saw a democratically elected government sacked was scrutinised but lacking the exact details that instigated the event – that was until Tuesday. It was on this day that the National Archives made public a collection of correspondence known as the “Palace Letters”, that detailed the exchanges between Queen Elizabeth II and Sir John Kerr regarding the dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam. The letters express that it was Kerr who made the decision to dissolve Whitlam’s leadership thus dismissing any evidence or suggestion of collusion by the Queen. An answer had been given to both Republicans and Monarchists yet evoked new questions of the political culture that personifies and challenges Australia. With the release of the “Palace Letters”, the moment is not only getting a resurgence but also introducing a generation who had not witnessed the event. For those not present to the period, the significance of the letters between Crown and representative risk lacking scrutiny without proper context. In considering the context of the time and the legacy of Kerr’s decision one may find reassurance of the systems and people that govern Australia with the constitutional crisis serving as a case study of what sort of leadership the nation needs.
In the lead up to the release of the Palace Letters, the question that persisted was did Buckingham Palace have direct involvement in the Whitlam-Labor government dismissal – that is did the Queen, herself, and her advisers give permission for Kerr to sack Whitlam? This was the contention promoted by Jenny Hocking, emeritus Professor at Monash University and Whitlam historian who fought to have the letters made public which was granted by the High Court in May. Speaking to Today, Hocking asserted that the 211 letters and 1,200 pages of documents provide new insights to the constitutional crisis and a plot of “royal secrecy” in Australia. Hocking’s endeavour to allow public access to these documents is commendable because it will allow discussion to move beyond assumption of involvement of the Crown perceived as unscrupulous. However, it can be argued that a greater agenda is at play with the release of these documents which could be a renewed debate of the Republican question. While the Palace letters are now in public possession, the debate surrounding Australia’s continued links to the Monarchy is also a public issue that cannot be treated as a political or historical reckoning. Hocking is a member of the National Committee of the Australian Republican Movement and while acknowledging that the letters do not confirm direct involvement of the Queen in Whitlam’s dismissal, she nevertheless argued that they could provide a case for Australia to be an autonomous nation beyond the Commonwealth realm. However, this does not take into consideration the challenges that Australia could face in this transition and the Republican movement has already presented a series of failures that reinforce the hesitancy of Australian voters to leave the Commonwealth.
Australia’s Republican Movement gained traction under Paul Keating’s government when in 1993, he established the Republican Advisory Committee to address the Republican question more formally. The Republican question was put forth for a Referendum in 1999 after the Howard government set up a Constitutional Convention in 1996 to further consider public interest. During the referendum, the “Yes” campaign was helmed by Malcolm Turnbull while the “No” campaign was lead by Kerry Jones of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM), a role he took over from Tony Abbott in 1994 when the latter entered Federal politics. Of the 12.4 million who voted in the referendum, the “No’ campaign emerged victorious with 55% of the vote. The failures of Australia’s Republican movement, at least in the context of the 1999 referendum, can be understood in three hypotheses according to Helen Irving, a constitutional scholar and Republican advocate. Irving contended that the main factors of failure stemmed from insufficient voter knowledge, lack of cross-party support and notions of “elitist” appeal. However, one key factor of failure is often ignored which is posed as a question – how willing is Australia to sever its ties with Britain? In addition to the prospective challenges posed for an Australian Republic, reflection is also required in our understanding of the historical events that culminated in the end of Whitlam’s tenure as Prime Minister.
Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister in 1972 and as leader of the Labor party, his victory saw an end to a period of continuous Liberal leadership that had lasted 23 years. The Whitlam government paved the way for a number of policy changes and social reforms that solidified a positive legacy for Whitlam – elimination of military conscription, withdrawal of armed forces from Vietnam, the removal of discriminatory criteria imposed by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, advocacy for indigenous rights and an end to tertiary education fees. However, trouble began brewing a year after the election given that the opposition held the majority of the Senate while Labor held the House of Representatives which lead to legislation or the passage of bills being blocked by the Liberals. This split lead to a double dissolution but an election in 1974 saw Whitlam re-elected for a second term. The blocking of legislation meant that money supply to the government was disrupted yet this stemmed from Whitlam’s costly agenda that was heightened in the wake of the recession of 1974 and the impact of the 1973 oil crisis. This event proves significant in the constitutional crisis of 1975 as it sowed its seeds. Furthermore, the acts of Minister for Minerals and Energy Rex Connor and Treasurer Jim Cairns exposed unconstitutional conduct that makes Kerr’s decision to proceed in sacking the Whitlam government significant even just in hindsight. It began as a financial scandal when it was revealed that Connor and Cairns were seeking to borrow billions of dollars from Middle Eastern countries that had amassed a loan pool from the rise of oil prices from the crisis of 1973. The deals were done through an agency run by a London-based Pakistani banker called Tirath Khemlani and it was his involvement which lead to the scandal being dubbed the “Khemlani Affair”. The purpose of the loans, estimated to be at around $4 billion, were mainly to allow Connor to fund his energy initiatives which included the construction of a national pipeline grid and ports for coal exportation. This revelation of the Labor government proved scandalous because not only were the loans going to cause massive debt (the loan was to expire in twenty years and incur 9% interest – including 2.5% for Khemlani as commission) but it was also unconstitutional as it by-passed protocol of the Australian treasury. When word got to the Opposition in May 1975, Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser questioned Whitlam of the loans to which Whitlam said that the loans council had not been advised nor had approved. He even revoked Connor’s authority to seek loans but nevertheless he maintained contact with Khemlani while denying any interactions since the scandal broke. However, this was to cause the Whitlam government further embarrassment when Khemlani presented evidence of communication between himself and Connor which effectively shook the integrity of Labor’s leadership. Furthermore, as the opposition maintained a majority of Senate seats, Fraser was able to help block budget legislation and call for an early election. The Government was in crisis and the nation had to rest on a higher power.
The problem with Jenny Hocking’s assertion that the Queen had direct influence in the dismissal of Whitlam is that it lacks reason. It could only suggest that Her Majesty had ill-feeling toward Whitlam and had something to gain from his demise in which there is no evidence for. Although Whitlam was sacked allowing a Fraser-Liberal caretaker government, he still had an opportunity to reaffirm his influence given that a general election proceeded afterwards. Unfortunately, the landslide victory of the Liberals showed that public redemption was too late for Whitlam yet, ironically, it was Kerr who bore the brunt of public contempt in his decision to challenge government. In hindsight, one could argue that Kerr did have the interests of the Australian people in mind and their right to political and economic transparency. Furthermore, it begs the question of whether or not Australia truly has the clout to be a Republic while asserting that the Monarchy serves as an agent of intervention. Australia frequently encounters an often conflicting position when questioning its national identity. The historical and cultural influences that frame it are themselves tied to our dispositions particularly in the split between Republicans and Monarchists. If not Republicans, Whitlam proponents would interpret these letters rather cynically and will not redeem a man whose job is to show allegiance to the Queen while the Queen herself must remain a neutral head of state. However, the dismissal of the Whitlam government was neither a conspiracy or spontaneous event but the outcome of a series interactions and decisions that culminated into a historical moment. It was not that Whitlam was doomed by Kerr or the Crown but from his own ambitions and those who sought to achieve them at whatever cost. For Kerr, the letters present a man in conflict over a fateful decision to remove a charismatic and radical leader from his role that would lead to a public reckoning.
