Lot's Wife Edition 4

Lot’s Wife • Edition Four
The Crown Wins, But Does It Save
the Governor-General?
Words by Claire Peter-Budge
PRO-MONARCHY
For forty-five years, the controversial decision that saw a democratically elected
government sacked was scrutinised, but commentators lacked the exact details that
instigated the event – until very recently. On Tuesday 14 July, 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. With the release of the “Palace Letters”, this moment is
not only getting a resurgence but also being introduced to a generation who had not
witnessed the event. For those not present to the period, the significance of the letters
between the Crown and its representative risk being considered 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 whether
Buckingham Palace had direct involvement in the Whitlam-Labor government
dismissal – that is, did the Queen and her advisers give permission for Kerr to sack
Whitlam? This was the contention promoted by Jenny Hocking, the emeritus professor
at Monash University and Whitlam historian who fought to have the letters made
public; this 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 assumptions of unscrupulous involvement by the Crown. However,
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.
Moreover, it can be argued that a greater agenda is at play with the release of these
documents: a renewed debate of the Republic question. Indeed, Hocking is a member
of the National Committee of the Australian Republican Movement, and has argued
the letters provide a case for Australia to be an autonomous nation beyond the
Commonwealth realm. However, this political goal does not take into consideration the
challenges that Australia could face in such a 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
for 1998 to further consider the public interest. During the referendum, the “Yes”
campaign was helmed by Malcolm Turnbull while the “No” campaign was led 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 – 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 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 Senate while Labor held the House
of Representatives, with the passage of bills being blocked by the Liberals. This split
resulted in a double dissolution of the Parliament in 1974 with Whitlam re-elected for
a second term, but still without a Senate majority. The blocking of legislation meant
that money supply to the government was disrupted, yet this disruption 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 sack 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 led 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.
Although Whitlam was sacked, allowing a Fraser-Liberal caretaker government to take
over, 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 the 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 Her
Majesty 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
of 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.
13