What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dismissal: In the Queen's Name
There is no more dramatic event in our political history than the dismissal. This book is the definitive story, filled with fresh documents, revelations and new interviews that change our understanding of this event. It is also a brilliant forensic analysis of the ruthless, proud and stubborn main players – Malcolm Fraser, Gough Whitlam and Sir John Kerr. As keys to our understanding, Kelly and Bramston examine four central aspects of the the real attitude of Buckingham Palace towards Kerr; whether Kerr tipped Fraser off about his plan; Kerr's deception of Whitlam; and Kerr's dealings with former High Court judges Sir Garfield Barwick and Sir Anthony Mason. In the gripping story that follows, the ambitions and flaws of Whitlam, Fraser and Kerr are laid bare as never before. Drawing on a range of new sources, some of which have never before been made public – including hundreds of pages from Kerr's archives – this remarkable account is dispassionate in its analysis, vivid in its narrative and brutal in its conclusions. It exposes the true motivations, the extent of the deceit and the scale of the collusion. 'It was a premeditated and an elaborate deception.' Paul Keating
364 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 1, 2015
18 people are currently reading
143 people want to read
About the author
Paul Kelly
15 books15 followersAustralian political journalist who is currently editor-at-large at The Australian and was previously its editor-in-chief. He has written numerous books on Australian politics and political history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
December 18, 2025
The Dismissal is the most controversial political event in Australian history. The Governor-General (Sir John Kerr) sacked an elected prime minister (Gough Whitlam) and commissioned the opposition leader (Malcolm Fraser) to become the new prime minister. Put briefly, and therefore unavoidably lacking nuance, this event occurred because the Opposition had deferred, not rejected, supply in the Senate in an attempt to force an election due to perceived government fiscal profligacy; the government was about to run out of money; neither Whitlam nor Fraser was willing to compromise; and Kerr believed it was his duty to act on his constitutionally imbued powers to resolve the deadlock.
The authors of this book meticulously detail competing accounts, scrutinise the evidence, and analyse the men involved to provide an authoritative history of this momentous event. This is done through analysis of newly examined primary sources, secondary sources, and interviews with key actors of the day. Kerr was paranoid, obsessive, calculating, and recklessly misunderstood his role as Governor-General. Whitlam was politically naïve. Fraser was Machiavellian—a conservative who unironically smashed parliamentary conventions. The arrogance of High Court justices Sir Anthony Mason and Sir Garfield Barwick are also outlined. It was a perfect confluence of ego and politics that undermined Australia’s political system.
It has been fifty years since the Dismissal. Although the memory of this event in the broader Australian public is receding, its political legacy endures. The Senate can still defer or block supply, but it dares not do so. The Governor-General still wields constitutionally enshrined reserve powers, but they dare not act on them. High Court justices can still advise Governor-Generals, but they dare not do so. Those in support of a republic point to this instance as the prime case study for instituting a restrained Australian head of state. In other words, all the structures, laws, and conventions remain in place for another constitutional crisis to occur. Whether people will continue not to act upon them is another question.
I have also written a more detailed analysis of these events, which can be found here: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/p/...
The authors of this book meticulously detail competing accounts, scrutinise the evidence, and analyse the men involved to provide an authoritative history of this momentous event. This is done through analysis of newly examined primary sources, secondary sources, and interviews with key actors of the day. Kerr was paranoid, obsessive, calculating, and recklessly misunderstood his role as Governor-General. Whitlam was politically naïve. Fraser was Machiavellian—a conservative who unironically smashed parliamentary conventions. The arrogance of High Court justices Sir Anthony Mason and Sir Garfield Barwick are also outlined. It was a perfect confluence of ego and politics that undermined Australia’s political system.
It has been fifty years since the Dismissal. Although the memory of this event in the broader Australian public is receding, its political legacy endures. The Senate can still defer or block supply, but it dares not do so. The Governor-General still wields constitutionally enshrined reserve powers, but they dare not act on them. High Court justices can still advise Governor-Generals, but they dare not do so. Those in support of a republic point to this instance as the prime case study for instituting a restrained Australian head of state. In other words, all the structures, laws, and conventions remain in place for another constitutional crisis to occur. Whether people will continue not to act upon them is another question.
I have also written a more detailed analysis of these events, which can be found here: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/p/...
January 22, 2017
The dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr is the most dramatic political event in Australia’s political history. Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston utilise previously unknown sources in re-examining the situation, especially analysing the tactics, motivations, and personalities of Gough Whitlam, John Kerr and Malcolm Fraser in attempting to shed further (new) light to understand the events.
While some of the key moments have been known, Kelly and Bramston examine the attitudes of Buckingham Palace towards Kerr, the personalities of Whitlam, Kerr, and Fraser and how their interplay brought about the dismissal, Kerr’s mindset going into the Governor-General position and his dealings with Whitlam, Fraser, Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick and Justice Sir Anthony Mason. In doing so, they use archived materials, previous interviews with many affected parties, new interviews with those in related positions (e.g. Prime Ministers and Chief Justices) and correspondence between relevant parties. Whitlam, Kerr, and Fraser are all criticised for their part in the dismissal.
This is a most fascinating book. The events of the dismissal still impact political and legal issues today, and this book adds much to an understanding of what happened. Conclusively determining someone’s mindset at a particular point of time is difficult at the best of times, and there is no doubt that this book’s attempt to understand the events of the past cannot be perfect. This most thought provoking book is a fine addition to the literature of this most important moment.
While some of the key moments have been known, Kelly and Bramston examine the attitudes of Buckingham Palace towards Kerr, the personalities of Whitlam, Kerr, and Fraser and how their interplay brought about the dismissal, Kerr’s mindset going into the Governor-General position and his dealings with Whitlam, Fraser, Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick and Justice Sir Anthony Mason. In doing so, they use archived materials, previous interviews with many affected parties, new interviews with those in related positions (e.g. Prime Ministers and Chief Justices) and correspondence between relevant parties. Whitlam, Kerr, and Fraser are all criticised for their part in the dismissal.
This is a most fascinating book. The events of the dismissal still impact political and legal issues today, and this book adds much to an understanding of what happened. Conclusively determining someone’s mindset at a particular point of time is difficult at the best of times, and there is no doubt that this book’s attempt to understand the events of the past cannot be perfect. This most thought provoking book is a fine addition to the literature of this most important moment.
December 28, 2016
The dismissal of the Whitlam ALP government by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr on 11 November 1975 was the most dramatic event in Australian political history. The events surrounding the dismissal involved three of the most egotistical and stubborn men: Gough Whitlam, John Kerr and Malcolm Fraser. This book is a new account that draws on new sources, some of which were not previously available. The conclusion is damning of all three of the main players, but most especially of Kerr who defied convention in his actions. But it was also Whitlam's refusal to see the danger and act accordingly that was equally his undoing.
By 1977, the Queen had a deep distrust and dislike of Kerr and wanted him to resign, which he duly did on 8 December 1977.
Kerr tipped off Malcolm Fraser on the morning of 11 November that he was going to dismiss Whitlam as PM and set conditions on Fraser assuming the caretaker PM role.
Kerr kept his actions secret from Whitlam in the belief that Whitlam would dismiss him if he learnt of Kerr's thinking. Most observers agree that this was an act of deception that was counter to the convention that the Governor-General should act on the advice of the Prime Minister. And Whitlam and the ALP were entirely deceived into thinking that Kerr was onside with them. In turn, Kerr refused to counsel or warn Whitlam before acting to dismiss him.
Kerr sought advice from the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, a former minister in the Menzies Liberal government, and Sir Anthony Mason, another judge on the High Court. That advice tarnished the High Court, and subsequent Chief Justices have resolved to ensure that such an event does not recur in order to maintain the separation of powers of the different arms of government.
Whitlam never saw Kerr as a serious political player, believing that he lacked courage, strength and temperament for politics. Whitlam believed that the Governor-General was no more than a rubber stamp - a fatal misunderstanding of the man.
Whitlam tried to convince Kerr that the regal reserve powers were obsolete. But Kerr believed they still existed thanks to his mentors: H.V. (Doc) Evatt and Garfield Barwick; who believed likewise.
Malcolm Fraser was the person responsible for the constitutional crisis by engineering the Senate to block Supply, the money bills that helped pay for the running of government business. He believed that the Whitlam government was reckless, and like many on the conservative side he believed that the Liberals were "born to rule". His tactic was to use the Senate to force the government into another election - something that had never been used before. Whitlam felt that this contravened the principle that the government was elected by the people in the House of Representatives.
Fraser knew that Kerr feared that Whitlam would dismiss him, and so used this knowledge to encourage Kerr to act first.
11 November 1975 was the last date that an election to be held before the end of that year could be called. Both Whitlam and Kerr knew this. Whitlam wanted to call a half-senate election in order to break the impasse in the senate. However, Kerr knew that without the supply bills being passed the government would run out of money before a half-senate election. So Kerr favoured a full election and extracted a promise from Fraser that he would pass supply and hold a full election. Whitlam was confident of his position and oblivious of the alternatives that Kerr and Fraser had in mind.
Following the dismissal, Whitlam failed to inform his senators, as a result the supply bills were passed in the Senate thus denying Labor the chance of thwarting Fraser's agreement to pass the money bills and potentially unravel Kerr's agreement with Fraser. This was another tactical blunder on Whitlam's part.
The British, especially the High Commissioner in Canberra, were completely taken by surprise by the dismissal. They believed that Kerr had acted prematurely and could have let events run several weeks longer before action, if any, needed to be taken.
There is an oft repeated conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in the dismissal of the Whitlam government because of a threat to the operation of the joint intelligence base at Pine Gap that occurred in parallel with the events surrounding the dismissal. Kerr refuted this, claiming that he acted without foreign intervention. There is no evidence that the CIA were involved, despite repeated claims. The political events of the day completely explain the situation.
Subsequent Labor leaders believe that Fraser was the real villain of the dismissal because of the blocking of the supply bills contrary to convention. Kerr was Fraser's unwitting agent. However, the events of the dismissal transformed the ALP so that it addressed the weaknesses of the Whitlam years as was evidenced by the Hawke-Keating years in government - the longest period of Labor government.
A couple of extracts from the last few chapters summarise the saga:
- "The legacy of the dismissal and the quest for vindication haunted Kerr for the rest of his life."
- "The moral ... is that Whitlam was his government's greatest strength and its greatest weakness."
I’m surprised that this account was not more damning of Whitlam than it was. Especially as the authors work for the Australian newspaper, part of the Murdoch empire and unashamed enemies of Labor. It appears to be a fairly balanced story that uses the facts gleaned from many sources, including words of many of the politicians from both sides and some journalists who lived through the saga. As it is a dry read, I give it 3 stars.
By 1977, the Queen had a deep distrust and dislike of Kerr and wanted him to resign, which he duly did on 8 December 1977.
Kerr tipped off Malcolm Fraser on the morning of 11 November that he was going to dismiss Whitlam as PM and set conditions on Fraser assuming the caretaker PM role.
Kerr kept his actions secret from Whitlam in the belief that Whitlam would dismiss him if he learnt of Kerr's thinking. Most observers agree that this was an act of deception that was counter to the convention that the Governor-General should act on the advice of the Prime Minister. And Whitlam and the ALP were entirely deceived into thinking that Kerr was onside with them. In turn, Kerr refused to counsel or warn Whitlam before acting to dismiss him.
Kerr sought advice from the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, a former minister in the Menzies Liberal government, and Sir Anthony Mason, another judge on the High Court. That advice tarnished the High Court, and subsequent Chief Justices have resolved to ensure that such an event does not recur in order to maintain the separation of powers of the different arms of government.
Whitlam never saw Kerr as a serious political player, believing that he lacked courage, strength and temperament for politics. Whitlam believed that the Governor-General was no more than a rubber stamp - a fatal misunderstanding of the man.
Whitlam tried to convince Kerr that the regal reserve powers were obsolete. But Kerr believed they still existed thanks to his mentors: H.V. (Doc) Evatt and Garfield Barwick; who believed likewise.
Malcolm Fraser was the person responsible for the constitutional crisis by engineering the Senate to block Supply, the money bills that helped pay for the running of government business. He believed that the Whitlam government was reckless, and like many on the conservative side he believed that the Liberals were "born to rule". His tactic was to use the Senate to force the government into another election - something that had never been used before. Whitlam felt that this contravened the principle that the government was elected by the people in the House of Representatives.
Fraser knew that Kerr feared that Whitlam would dismiss him, and so used this knowledge to encourage Kerr to act first.
11 November 1975 was the last date that an election to be held before the end of that year could be called. Both Whitlam and Kerr knew this. Whitlam wanted to call a half-senate election in order to break the impasse in the senate. However, Kerr knew that without the supply bills being passed the government would run out of money before a half-senate election. So Kerr favoured a full election and extracted a promise from Fraser that he would pass supply and hold a full election. Whitlam was confident of his position and oblivious of the alternatives that Kerr and Fraser had in mind.
Following the dismissal, Whitlam failed to inform his senators, as a result the supply bills were passed in the Senate thus denying Labor the chance of thwarting Fraser's agreement to pass the money bills and potentially unravel Kerr's agreement with Fraser. This was another tactical blunder on Whitlam's part.
The British, especially the High Commissioner in Canberra, were completely taken by surprise by the dismissal. They believed that Kerr had acted prematurely and could have let events run several weeks longer before action, if any, needed to be taken.
There is an oft repeated conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in the dismissal of the Whitlam government because of a threat to the operation of the joint intelligence base at Pine Gap that occurred in parallel with the events surrounding the dismissal. Kerr refuted this, claiming that he acted without foreign intervention. There is no evidence that the CIA were involved, despite repeated claims. The political events of the day completely explain the situation.
Subsequent Labor leaders believe that Fraser was the real villain of the dismissal because of the blocking of the supply bills contrary to convention. Kerr was Fraser's unwitting agent. However, the events of the dismissal transformed the ALP so that it addressed the weaknesses of the Whitlam years as was evidenced by the Hawke-Keating years in government - the longest period of Labor government.
A couple of extracts from the last few chapters summarise the saga:
- "The legacy of the dismissal and the quest for vindication haunted Kerr for the rest of his life."
- "The moral ... is that Whitlam was his government's greatest strength and its greatest weakness."
I’m surprised that this account was not more damning of Whitlam than it was. Especially as the authors work for the Australian newspaper, part of the Murdoch empire and unashamed enemies of Labor. It appears to be a fairly balanced story that uses the facts gleaned from many sources, including words of many of the politicians from both sides and some journalists who lived through the saga. As it is a dry read, I give it 3 stars.
March 7, 2023
Much better books out there on the subject
May 30, 2016
Whitlam, Fraser & Kerr. Names writ large on the pages of Australia's political history. The Dismissal presents the story of three powerful personalities whose unbending attitudes brought about Australia's greatest constitutional crisis. Although too young at the time (I was 8 years old in 1975) to follow what was going on, I still remember the ferver of Whitlam and the way the Dismissal remained in the Nation's consciousness and the continuing ridicule of Sir John Kerr. A great read for anyone interested in this period of Australia's political history.
May 27, 2019
Unfortunately I am finding it difficult to finish this book. It lacks coherency and as some reviewers have said it is too episodic and does not focus on the events as a narrative or story but more on individuals and their failings. For example Part Three : The Prelude and the first section is "Kerr's Journey: Dreaming of Menzies" - really? The prelude is much broader than that and involves a whole host of complex and interconnecting ambitions and events, of all the players not just Kerr. - these were all playing out even before 1975. I suspect this is the result of each author writing about what they are most familiar with without taking the time to weave these topics into a choherent narrative or story.
The other criticism would be that the book chapters appears out of logical order, Part One is "The Legacy Forty Years Later" and reads like a prologue. Therefore here you are reading about things that you are assumed to be familiar with, such as the outcomes and the mistakes the players made which appears rather odd and places a burden on the reader to try and understand the point and the conclusions are before having read the book.
This book is a massive disappointment and the story of the "The Dismissal" deserves better treatment as both a history and a towering story.
The other criticism would be that the book chapters appears out of logical order, Part One is "The Legacy Forty Years Later" and reads like a prologue. Therefore here you are reading about things that you are assumed to be familiar with, such as the outcomes and the mistakes the players made which appears rather odd and places a burden on the reader to try and understand the point and the conclusions are before having read the book.
This book is a massive disappointment and the story of the "The Dismissal" deserves better treatment as both a history and a towering story.
November 13, 2018
Somewhat too episodic. In the grand sweep and drama of Australian politics the dismissal is the centre piece. Kelly and Branston do not do justi e to the weight of the subject; antecedents or subsequently.
December 15, 2018
I have studied the dismissal quite a bit. This was a good, in-depth walk through the events, with coherent theories on who knew what when and who did what. A good book for anyone interested in Australian politics or the Westminster form of government.
August 13, 2023
The Dismissal is admittedly slow to start, and extremely comprehensive to the point that anyone not inclined to Kelly's style of writing, or that interested in the titular subject, will be in for a rough ride here. Having done the once unthinkable and, over the last few years, developed an actual interest in Australia's politics, I thoroughly enjoyed Kelly's Triumph and Demise, which took a critical, microscopic look at the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd administration, and the often morally questionable Liberal shenanigans surrounding it.
This book, his follow-up, is very similar in style and tone, with Kelly's signature political bias, which I happen to largely share - that is, a fairly balanced, right-of-centre stance which spurns both the bombastic idealism of the far Left, and the bigoted, hysterical excesses of the Right. Here, he examines the notorious (though curiously rarely talked about among younger generations) dismissal of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by his traitorous Govenor-General, John Kerr, over one of Australia's biggest constitutional crises to date.
I never knew much at all about this subject, except just enough to make me mildly curious to look into it one day. I read in another book (I cannot remember which one) that Kerr was forever haunted by his momentous decision and suffered acute depression for the rest of his life, being on of the most despised political figures in Australian history, thrown under the bus as he was even by those he benefited, primarily the opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser, whom he commissioned as Australia's new prime minister minutes after sacking Whitlam.
Not knowing what the full story was, I figured Whitlam was just some great progressive leader who sacred the powers that be, back in the Mother Country, and they decided enough was enough - a view which was, at best, very simplistic, and at worst, entirely mistaken. One of this book's few flaws is that it really doesn't look much into Whitlam politics prior to the Senate's contentious denial of supply, which put both Houses of Parliament at a stalemate and risked sending the country into chaos until Whitlam was either dismissed, resigned, or agreed to call an election which he knew would result in his defeat.
Kelly takes a quite critical view of all three major players - Kerr, Whitlam, and Fraser - all of whom were intrinsic to the crisis and its resultant controversies. Nominally, Kerr is branded with the ultimate blame, yet Kelly and co-writer Bramston go to quite great lengths to humanize Kerr, making clear that through Whitlam's bullying, obtuseness and intimidation, and Fraser's clever manipulations, he was pushed into a corner where evoking the mythic reserve powers was his only viable option. The most potent condemnation against Kerr hardly lies in what he did, but rather in the manner by which he did it. He seems to have been a bit of a coward in the face of Whitlam's giant personality, and preferred, figurative speaking, to remove him with a knife in the dark when changing direction was too late, rather than confront him with the warning that dismissal was on the table if he did not call an election, though this would have placed the governor-general in an awkward and precarious position.
Whitlam does not garner that much sympathy from his presentation in this book. Largely, he seems to have had his fate coming from a long way off, and by belittling and disrespecting Kerr, he ought not to have been surprised when his underestimation of the man blew up in his face.
Fraser, on the other hand, seems merely to have been an opportunist, and something of a brutish politician himself, bringing the government to a standstill by unprecedentedly denying supply through the Senate, which effectively meant (and it took me an embarrassing while to figure it out) that one half of the parliament would not pass Whitlam's republican-coloured policies, unless he agreed to call an election which would surely end his unpopular reign as Australia's leader. So long as Whitlam remained resolute, effectively playing chicken with the opposition, supply would not be provided and thus the government would not receive funding for the running of its many services. Both Whitlam and Fraser were seemingly willing to break the political system and see the country devolve into chaos for the sake partisan gains.
Kerr was the only man with the power to step in and break the stalemate. And while he was a cunning and embittered man, and very much misled Whitlam into staying on his course to destruction, it was hard for me not to sympathise with him for the most part.
But what am I doing, giving away the story? Though, of course, it is history, and remembered by at least the majority of older generations of Australians living today. All I can say, in conclusion, is that if you are interested in this aspect of Australia's political history, this book cannot be recommended highly enough by me. It's another triumph by one of Australia's best living political journalists. It's a shame, really, that he is often associated with Sky News, which conversely is partisan conservative politics at its trashiest.
This book, his follow-up, is very similar in style and tone, with Kelly's signature political bias, which I happen to largely share - that is, a fairly balanced, right-of-centre stance which spurns both the bombastic idealism of the far Left, and the bigoted, hysterical excesses of the Right. Here, he examines the notorious (though curiously rarely talked about among younger generations) dismissal of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by his traitorous Govenor-General, John Kerr, over one of Australia's biggest constitutional crises to date.
I never knew much at all about this subject, except just enough to make me mildly curious to look into it one day. I read in another book (I cannot remember which one) that Kerr was forever haunted by his momentous decision and suffered acute depression for the rest of his life, being on of the most despised political figures in Australian history, thrown under the bus as he was even by those he benefited, primarily the opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser, whom he commissioned as Australia's new prime minister minutes after sacking Whitlam.
Not knowing what the full story was, I figured Whitlam was just some great progressive leader who sacred the powers that be, back in the Mother Country, and they decided enough was enough - a view which was, at best, very simplistic, and at worst, entirely mistaken. One of this book's few flaws is that it really doesn't look much into Whitlam politics prior to the Senate's contentious denial of supply, which put both Houses of Parliament at a stalemate and risked sending the country into chaos until Whitlam was either dismissed, resigned, or agreed to call an election which he knew would result in his defeat.
Kelly takes a quite critical view of all three major players - Kerr, Whitlam, and Fraser - all of whom were intrinsic to the crisis and its resultant controversies. Nominally, Kerr is branded with the ultimate blame, yet Kelly and co-writer Bramston go to quite great lengths to humanize Kerr, making clear that through Whitlam's bullying, obtuseness and intimidation, and Fraser's clever manipulations, he was pushed into a corner where evoking the mythic reserve powers was his only viable option. The most potent condemnation against Kerr hardly lies in what he did, but rather in the manner by which he did it. He seems to have been a bit of a coward in the face of Whitlam's giant personality, and preferred, figurative speaking, to remove him with a knife in the dark when changing direction was too late, rather than confront him with the warning that dismissal was on the table if he did not call an election, though this would have placed the governor-general in an awkward and precarious position.
Whitlam does not garner that much sympathy from his presentation in this book. Largely, he seems to have had his fate coming from a long way off, and by belittling and disrespecting Kerr, he ought not to have been surprised when his underestimation of the man blew up in his face.
Fraser, on the other hand, seems merely to have been an opportunist, and something of a brutish politician himself, bringing the government to a standstill by unprecedentedly denying supply through the Senate, which effectively meant (and it took me an embarrassing while to figure it out) that one half of the parliament would not pass Whitlam's republican-coloured policies, unless he agreed to call an election which would surely end his unpopular reign as Australia's leader. So long as Whitlam remained resolute, effectively playing chicken with the opposition, supply would not be provided and thus the government would not receive funding for the running of its many services. Both Whitlam and Fraser were seemingly willing to break the political system and see the country devolve into chaos for the sake partisan gains.
Kerr was the only man with the power to step in and break the stalemate. And while he was a cunning and embittered man, and very much misled Whitlam into staying on his course to destruction, it was hard for me not to sympathise with him for the most part.
But what am I doing, giving away the story? Though, of course, it is history, and remembered by at least the majority of older generations of Australians living today. All I can say, in conclusion, is that if you are interested in this aspect of Australia's political history, this book cannot be recommended highly enough by me. It's another triumph by one of Australia's best living political journalists. It's a shame, really, that he is often associated with Sky News, which conversely is partisan conservative politics at its trashiest.
August 28, 2022
Like the dismissal itself, this book is shambolic. Incredible research, very poor storytelling.
January 18, 2026
“Well may we say god save the Queen, because nothing will save the governor general”
July 15, 2024
This is a fantastic book that lays out events during 1975 in Australia with some very good profiles of the main players. The best part is the detailed profiles of the men in question give the reader an insight into why things that happened during those couple of months, happen. One gets a sense it was a perfect storm and a clash of personalities like no other, led to the dismissal of Whitlam. Fraser comes out not looking very good and Governor General Kerr as someone who was not fit for the job. But Whitlam and his govt do not escape blame as to the way they handled things and missed opportunities to salvage the situation. Non partisan institutions like the High Court who should have stood back until they were approached, interfered which reduced confidence in them. The authors have done a fantastic job bringing in all perspectives with extensive research into the archives.
October 8, 2024
Good read of the dismissal event.
Gives all sides of the argument.
Of all the surviving personalities who were present at the time I think, Paul Keating seems most damaged by the whole affair. It sounds like he has been unable to let go of what occurred, which comes across as sad. In his typical fashion he plays the man with viscous disparaging remarks. Others seemed to have made peace.
Book does seem to laboriously keep pressing the same points time and time again.
Gives all sides of the argument.
Of all the surviving personalities who were present at the time I think, Paul Keating seems most damaged by the whole affair. It sounds like he has been unable to let go of what occurred, which comes across as sad. In his typical fashion he plays the man with viscous disparaging remarks. Others seemed to have made peace.
Book does seem to laboriously keep pressing the same points time and time again.
December 30, 2016
A thought provoking, balanced and intelligent discussion of the constitutional crisis that should be read by anyone with even the slightest interest in Australian history and politics.
July 17, 2016
A bit dry and very repetitive!
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews