The 1975 dismissal: setting the record straight.

• Author: Smith, David (American novelist)
• Pages: 10(15)

Probably no event in Australia's political history has received as much coverage in the media and in the history books as has the dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, on 11 November 1975. And certainly no event in Australia's political history has received so much inaccurate and misleading coverage. As for Mr. Whitlam himself, there has grown up around him almost an entire industry devoted to polishing his image and turning him into a legend in his own lifetime. As we approach yet another anniversary of that day, it's time we had a look at the basis of that legendary image.

Whitlam and others have described the events of 11 November 1975 as a coup, but it was nothing of the kind. A coup is defined as a violent or illegal change of government, but the events of that day were neither violent nor illegal. The change of government was in accordance with the letter, the conventions and the spirit of the Australian Constitution, and no one knows that better than Whitlam himself. The Whitlam Government was removed from office as the Governor-General and the Prime Minister sat on opposite sides of the Governor-General's desk in the study at Government House, Canberra, and by Sir John Kerr handing Whitlam a letter. The Governor-General then escorted Whitlam to the door of the room, told him that he could win the election that lay ahead, and wished him good luck. They shook hands. A few moments later, the Fraser Government came into office as the Governor-General and the Leader of the Opposition stood on opposite sides of the Governor-General's desk, and by Fraser holding a bible in his hand and taking the oath of office as Prime Minister. No sign of illegality, and certainly no sign of violence, in any of that.

The Governor-General's parting remark to Whitlam that he might win the election was no empty gesture. At that stage a Whitlam win was a real possibility, and the Governor-General wanted to ensure that, should that occur, Whitlam would have available to him the advantage of being able to hold a joint sitting of both Houses of the Parliament, just as he had done after the 1974 double dissolution. In addition to the Appropriation Bills, the Senate had failed to pass twentyone other Bills of the Whitlam Government, and the Governor-General had insisted that Fraser should list them all in the dissolution Proclamation. That was unprecedented, but it was done in fairness to Whitlam so that, should he win the election, he would be able to use the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution to hold a joint sitting to pass all of his Government's blocked legislation. Once again no evidence of a coup.

With nothing more than some signatures on a few pieces of paper, a Prime Minister was removed, another was installed, and the issue was immediately referred to the Australian people in a national election for both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. One month later the people delivered their verdict, and it was a decisive verdict. The Fraser Caretaker Government was returned in a landslide. The Governor-General's actions were vindicated.

Some of the events of that November day also provided an interesting commentary on more recent events in Australian politics. In what passes these days for debate on the monarchy/ republic issue, it is often claimed that Australia must free itself from the monarchy. But it was Whitlam who telephoned Buckingham Palace on 11 November 1975 after his removal from office by the Australian Governor-General. It was the Australian Labor Party that had the Speaker of the House of Representatives write to the Queen to ask her to over-rule the Governor-General, to halt the democratic election process which had already been set in train under Australian law, and to restore Whitlam to office as Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker was reminded by Buckingham Palace that the Australian Constitution placed all constitutional matters squarely in the hands of the Governor-General in Canberra, and that the Queen had no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with that Constitution. That, surely, put an end to any claims that Australia's sovereignty, independence and national identity were centred on London. It also tells us something about the intellectual dishonesty of those who profess to want Australia's constitutional affairs to be entirely in Australian hands, which they clearly are under our present Constitution and system of government, yet immediately appeal to the Monarch in Britain as soon as a decision taken in Australia by an Australian Governor-General goes against them.

The late Philip Graham, former publisher of Newsweek and The Washington Post, said that good journalism should aim to be "the first rough draft of history". On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson, a former United States President, once said that "A man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." When one looks at much of the reporting of the dismissal and the events surrounding it, one would have to conclude that Jefferson was closer to the mark than Graham.

So let me now go back to 1975 and look at what falsehoods and errors the future historian, searching through that first rough draft of history, might find in the contemporary accounts of those days. I begin with Malcolm Fraser's early arrival at Government House on that fateful day in November 1975, before, and not after, Gough Whitlam, as the Governor-General had instructed. That was due to a simple error by someone on Fraser's staff, and had nothing to do with Government House, but it was presented as the beginning of a Vice-Regal conspiracy.

It was alleged that Fraser was closeted in a room at Government House with the blinds drawn. This clearly was the figment of a vivid journalistic imagination on the part of someone who was not there, for Fraser waited with me in a room next to the State Entrance, a room which at that time was used as a waiting room for visitors who had arrived early, and the blinds were certainly not drawn. Why would they be? And indeed, there was no one outside trying to look in.

It was alleged that Fraser's car was hidden round the back, out of sight. It was not. His car dropped him off at the State Entrance, and then drove around to one of the three "front of house" parking areas used by visitors. The driver chose one which gave him a clear view of the State Entrance, so he could see when to drive forward to pick up his passenger. Unfortunately, that put the car on the inside curve of that part of the main drive which leads to the Private Entrance.

It is one of the traditional courtesies extended to a Prime Minister at Government House that he comes and goes via the Private Entrance, so called because it is used by the Governor-General and his family, rather than via the State Entrance, which is used by all other callers on the Governor-General. The duty Aide-de-Camp had been told to expect the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and their estimated times of arrival, but nothing more. He knew from experience that the Prime Minister's convoy, consisting of the Prime Minister's car and the police security car which followed it, always travelled very fast, even within the grounds of Government House. He could see that Fraser's car, having arrived out of sequence, was now parked where it posed, at best, an inconvenience, and at worst, a serious hazard, to the Prime Minister's car as it swept around the bend.

The Aide-de-Camp used his own judgment, made a decision in the interests of safety, and asked the driver to move his car to the parking area outside the Official Secretary's office, and right next to the State Entrance. The car was not hidden around the back, but was in fact moved even closer to the front of the building, and was in full view. In deciding to move the car, Aide-de-Camp did not consult either the Governor-General or the Official Secretary, nor did...