What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dismissal Dossier: Everything you were never meant to know about November 1975
In her award-winning biography of Gough Whitlam, Jenny Hocking first revealed the astonishing secret story of the planning, the people - and the collusion - behind the removal of Gough Whitlam.
Now Hocking brings together this hidden history - a mixture of the unknown, the overlooked and the clandestine—to write a political the story you were never meant to know.
Now Hocking brings together this hidden history - a mixture of the unknown, the overlooked and the clandestine—to write a political the story you were never meant to know.
110 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2015
12 people are currently reading
104 people want to read
About the author
Jenny Hocking
16 books10 followersJenny Hocking FASSA is emeritus professor at Monash University and the inaugural distinguished Whitlam fellow with the Whitlam Institute at Western Sydney University. She is the author of three biographies, including the award-winning two-volume biography of Gough Whitlam, Gough Whitlam: A Moment in History (MUP, 2008) and Gough Whitlam: His Time (MUP, 2012). Her latest book is The Dismissal Dossier: The Palace Connection (MUP, 2017).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
October 14, 2025
Not a review per se, but an essay I wrote that critiques this book.
It is fifty years since Australia’s Governor-General sacked a democratically elected Prime Minister and commissioned the Opposition Leader as caretaker Prime Minister on condition of calling an election. This act followed a month-long “supply crisis”, where non-Government senators deferred appropriations bills from the House of Representatives. This had occurred the year prior and was resolved with a double dissolution election. However, with the government running out of money a second time, the Governor-General exercised his reserve powers.
Jenny Hocking is arguably the pre-eminent historian of this period. She has written the definitive two-volume biography of Gough Whitlam, as well as two other books: The Dismissal Dossier and The Palace Letters (each referenced in this article). Her archival research and legal challenges have done much to bring to light the surreptitious actions of key players in this political saga. Her contributions to Australian history are commendable. However, her interpretation of the facts may not be sound.
It is a fact that the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, had advised the Palace that he considered dismissing the Whitlam Government prior to 11 November. It is a fact that Sir John had been advised formally by Chief Justice Garfield Barwick, and informally by Justice Anthony Mason, that sacking Whitlam was within Sir John’s constitutional prerogatives. It is a fact that the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, was privy to Sir John’s deliberations. It is a fact that Gough Whitlam refused to compromise on conditions of a half-Senate election and intended to go to an election without supply.
A brief explanation of the supply–half-Senate election is required. In normal circumstances, it would have been within Whitlam’s constitutional rights to call for one when he did. However, following the deferral of supply, the government did not legally have the money to fund one; a half-Senate election would not have immediately solved the crisis, as new senators, including inaugural territory senators, would have only taken their seats in mid-1976; and even then, there was no guarantee that Labor would gain enough senators to pass supply.
The aforementioned actions, however, are surreptitious because the full extent of them was, in some circumstances, only found out decades later. The Palace Letters were not released in full until Hocking took the Australian Archives to the High Court; Justice Mason’s role was not publicly known until Hocking found archival documents suggesting otherwise—Mason infamously told Hocking he “owed history nothing” when asked to comment on his revelations; and Fraser knew weeks in advance of Sir John’s plans to dismiss Whitlam and appoint Fraser as caretaker PM.
Hocking outlines in The Dismissal Dossier that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK advised their PM of a possible instance of dual advice from Australian premiers and the PM about issuing writs in a half-Senate election, placing the Queen in an unacceptable position in a constitutional monarchy. She frames this as part of a British-enabled ‘coup’, designed to prevent the Queen from being bound by Whitlam’s advice, including his constitutional power to usurp the states in appointing senators. The FCO acted, she argues, to protect the Crown at Whitlam’s expense.
Hocking argues that the Palace Letters reveal a secret collaboration between Sir John and the Palace that undermined Australian sovereignty. The letters, released after her High Court challenge, show Kerr informing the Queen’s private secretary about his plans to dismiss Whitlam—without Whitlam’s knowledge. Hocking claims Kerr sought reassurance from the Palace before acting, violating the constitutional principle of vice-regal independence. She views this covert communication and the Palace’s tacit support as a conspiracy that compromised Australia’s democracy.
Constitutional scholar Anne Twomey challenges several of Jenny Hocking’s interpretations of the Palace Letters. She argues that the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, was acting within his constitutional authority in communicating directly with the Queen, and that there was no obligation to inform the Prime Minister of such correspondence. Twomey emphasises that the idea of dismissal had been publicly and privately discussed well before it occurred, including by Whitlam himself and his advisers.
Contrary to Hocking’s suggestion that the Palace guided Kerr, Twomey finds that the Queen and her advisers consistently deferred to Kerr’s own judgement, reflecting his legal expertise and position as an independent constitutional actor. The Palace maintained a stance of constitutional caution, consistent with the principle of “masterly inactivity”, seeking to avoid entanglement in domestic political matters. There is no evidence, Twomey notes, that the Queen advised, encouraged, or supported Whitlam’s dismissal.
Thanks to Hocking, the Palace Letters are publicly available. I have since read them, and Twomey’s interpretation seems correct. I think that the discrepancy between Twomey’s and Hocking’s conclusions stems from the latter’s pro-republican biases, and the normative view that Australia should have its own, accountable head of state. By virtue of constitutionally granted reserve powers of the Governor-General, the act of Whitlam’s dismissal was done in the name of the Crown: an antipodean and antiquated institution.
Anne Twomey examined the Palace Letters through a constitutional lens, highlighting that the dismissal was legally valid. Unlike Hocking, who focuses on political impropriety, Twomey notes that once supply was blocked and Whitlam refused to call an election, Sir John was within his constitutional rights to act. The reserve powers, though rarely used, are embedded in the Constitution for exceptional cases. Still, legality does not equate to prudence—Twomey and others have argued that Sir John intervened too early in what remained a developing political crisis.
G. S. Reid, former Governor of WA and a distinguished scholar of Australian politics, asserted that the supply crisis had not yet run its course when Sir John exercised his vice-regal powers. The trinitarian struggle between the Executive, the House, and the Senate has been a defining feature of responsible government since Federation. Sir John adopted an absolutist lens in assessing budgetary proposals, focusing solely on whether they had the Senate’s support. However, he overlooked the fact that the Senate had not yet played its ultimate card: the rejection of the Appropriation Bills.
“The politics of responsibility are a matter for resolution between the houses in full view of the electoral audience. No party majority in the Senate has ever risked rejection of an appropriation bill.” Sir John erroneously reasoned that “if a Prime Minister ‘cannot get supply,’ he must resign and advise an election.” By intervening on this mistaken premise, Sir John unsettled the trinitarian equilibrium of responsible government and absolved the Opposition of accountability by sparing the Senate from deciding whether to keep deferring or ultimately reject supply once exhausted.
Sir John acted within the bounds of the law but violated the conventions of Australian responsible government. Separately, he withheld key information and misrepresented whom he had informed and when, creating a distorted account of events. Fraser similarly concealed what he knew and when, further compounding public misinformation. By restricting access to crucial information during a controversial election, both men undermined the mechanisms of political accountability, and prevented the electorate from fairly assessing the parliament’s conduct.
What particularly angered many Australians was the Governor-General’s legal authority to act on behalf of the Queen in dismissing an elected Prime Minister. The dismissal thus fuelled the Australian republican movement, which ultimately failed at the 1999 referendum when republicans could not agree on a preferred model, and many opted to retain the constitutional monarchy instead. As a result, the reserve powers afforded to the Governor-General remain, and our head of state continues to reside in the UK.
Whitlam was in power for only three years, yet his long-overdue reforms continue to underpin modern Australia. His notable achievements include abolishing the White Australia Policy; returning land to Aboriginal people; introducing free higher education; ending conscription and abolishing the death penalty; establishing universal healthcare through Medicare; instituting equal pay for equal work and no-fault divorce; becoming the first Western leader to visit China; and doubling arts funding. Whitlam stands as one of the great figures in Australian history.
Support Callum’s Column by subscribing and sharing – it’s free! https://callumscolumn.substack.com/
It is fifty years since Australia’s Governor-General sacked a democratically elected Prime Minister and commissioned the Opposition Leader as caretaker Prime Minister on condition of calling an election. This act followed a month-long “supply crisis”, where non-Government senators deferred appropriations bills from the House of Representatives. This had occurred the year prior and was resolved with a double dissolution election. However, with the government running out of money a second time, the Governor-General exercised his reserve powers.
Jenny Hocking is arguably the pre-eminent historian of this period. She has written the definitive two-volume biography of Gough Whitlam, as well as two other books: The Dismissal Dossier and The Palace Letters (each referenced in this article). Her archival research and legal challenges have done much to bring to light the surreptitious actions of key players in this political saga. Her contributions to Australian history are commendable. However, her interpretation of the facts may not be sound.
It is a fact that the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, had advised the Palace that he considered dismissing the Whitlam Government prior to 11 November. It is a fact that Sir John had been advised formally by Chief Justice Garfield Barwick, and informally by Justice Anthony Mason, that sacking Whitlam was within Sir John’s constitutional prerogatives. It is a fact that the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, was privy to Sir John’s deliberations. It is a fact that Gough Whitlam refused to compromise on conditions of a half-Senate election and intended to go to an election without supply.
A brief explanation of the supply–half-Senate election is required. In normal circumstances, it would have been within Whitlam’s constitutional rights to call for one when he did. However, following the deferral of supply, the government did not legally have the money to fund one; a half-Senate election would not have immediately solved the crisis, as new senators, including inaugural territory senators, would have only taken their seats in mid-1976; and even then, there was no guarantee that Labor would gain enough senators to pass supply.
The aforementioned actions, however, are surreptitious because the full extent of them was, in some circumstances, only found out decades later. The Palace Letters were not released in full until Hocking took the Australian Archives to the High Court; Justice Mason’s role was not publicly known until Hocking found archival documents suggesting otherwise—Mason infamously told Hocking he “owed history nothing” when asked to comment on his revelations; and Fraser knew weeks in advance of Sir John’s plans to dismiss Whitlam and appoint Fraser as caretaker PM.
Hocking outlines in The Dismissal Dossier that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK advised their PM of a possible instance of dual advice from Australian premiers and the PM about issuing writs in a half-Senate election, placing the Queen in an unacceptable position in a constitutional monarchy. She frames this as part of a British-enabled ‘coup’, designed to prevent the Queen from being bound by Whitlam’s advice, including his constitutional power to usurp the states in appointing senators. The FCO acted, she argues, to protect the Crown at Whitlam’s expense.
Hocking argues that the Palace Letters reveal a secret collaboration between Sir John and the Palace that undermined Australian sovereignty. The letters, released after her High Court challenge, show Kerr informing the Queen’s private secretary about his plans to dismiss Whitlam—without Whitlam’s knowledge. Hocking claims Kerr sought reassurance from the Palace before acting, violating the constitutional principle of vice-regal independence. She views this covert communication and the Palace’s tacit support as a conspiracy that compromised Australia’s democracy.
Constitutional scholar Anne Twomey challenges several of Jenny Hocking’s interpretations of the Palace Letters. She argues that the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, was acting within his constitutional authority in communicating directly with the Queen, and that there was no obligation to inform the Prime Minister of such correspondence. Twomey emphasises that the idea of dismissal had been publicly and privately discussed well before it occurred, including by Whitlam himself and his advisers.
Contrary to Hocking’s suggestion that the Palace guided Kerr, Twomey finds that the Queen and her advisers consistently deferred to Kerr’s own judgement, reflecting his legal expertise and position as an independent constitutional actor. The Palace maintained a stance of constitutional caution, consistent with the principle of “masterly inactivity”, seeking to avoid entanglement in domestic political matters. There is no evidence, Twomey notes, that the Queen advised, encouraged, or supported Whitlam’s dismissal.
Thanks to Hocking, the Palace Letters are publicly available. I have since read them, and Twomey’s interpretation seems correct. I think that the discrepancy between Twomey’s and Hocking’s conclusions stems from the latter’s pro-republican biases, and the normative view that Australia should have its own, accountable head of state. By virtue of constitutionally granted reserve powers of the Governor-General, the act of Whitlam’s dismissal was done in the name of the Crown: an antipodean and antiquated institution.
Anne Twomey examined the Palace Letters through a constitutional lens, highlighting that the dismissal was legally valid. Unlike Hocking, who focuses on political impropriety, Twomey notes that once supply was blocked and Whitlam refused to call an election, Sir John was within his constitutional rights to act. The reserve powers, though rarely used, are embedded in the Constitution for exceptional cases. Still, legality does not equate to prudence—Twomey and others have argued that Sir John intervened too early in what remained a developing political crisis.
G. S. Reid, former Governor of WA and a distinguished scholar of Australian politics, asserted that the supply crisis had not yet run its course when Sir John exercised his vice-regal powers. The trinitarian struggle between the Executive, the House, and the Senate has been a defining feature of responsible government since Federation. Sir John adopted an absolutist lens in assessing budgetary proposals, focusing solely on whether they had the Senate’s support. However, he overlooked the fact that the Senate had not yet played its ultimate card: the rejection of the Appropriation Bills.
“The politics of responsibility are a matter for resolution between the houses in full view of the electoral audience. No party majority in the Senate has ever risked rejection of an appropriation bill.” Sir John erroneously reasoned that “if a Prime Minister ‘cannot get supply,’ he must resign and advise an election.” By intervening on this mistaken premise, Sir John unsettled the trinitarian equilibrium of responsible government and absolved the Opposition of accountability by sparing the Senate from deciding whether to keep deferring or ultimately reject supply once exhausted.
Sir John acted within the bounds of the law but violated the conventions of Australian responsible government. Separately, he withheld key information and misrepresented whom he had informed and when, creating a distorted account of events. Fraser similarly concealed what he knew and when, further compounding public misinformation. By restricting access to crucial information during a controversial election, both men undermined the mechanisms of political accountability, and prevented the electorate from fairly assessing the parliament’s conduct.
What particularly angered many Australians was the Governor-General’s legal authority to act on behalf of the Queen in dismissing an elected Prime Minister. The dismissal thus fuelled the Australian republican movement, which ultimately failed at the 1999 referendum when republicans could not agree on a preferred model, and many opted to retain the constitutional monarchy instead. As a result, the reserve powers afforded to the Governor-General remain, and our head of state continues to reside in the UK.
Whitlam was in power for only three years, yet his long-overdue reforms continue to underpin modern Australia. His notable achievements include abolishing the White Australia Policy; returning land to Aboriginal people; introducing free higher education; ending conscription and abolishing the death penalty; establishing universal healthcare through Medicare; instituting equal pay for equal work and no-fault divorce; becoming the first Western leader to visit China; and doubling arts funding. Whitlam stands as one of the great figures in Australian history.
Support Callum’s Column by subscribing and sharing – it’s free! https://callumscolumn.substack.com/
November 1, 2017
If you value our history, if you value democracy and if you love this country read this short, compelling, well written, easy to read and excellent book about Australia's greatest political scandal. With just over 100 pages, it takes a few hours to read... but what an education.
July 30, 2020
Interesting reading this book mere weeks after the 'Palace Letters' were released. While I found the style of this book a little dry at times, there is no doubt that the story is almost unbelievable. Except for how true it is. I've always been so confused by how a sitting Prime Minister could be dismissed in such a way. This book does a lot to describe the behind-closed-doors machinations that led to the crisis, but is also at pains to lay out why the 'official' reasons offered do not add up. And I must say, I'm left with a huge sense of 'what was the point'...
December 15, 2017
The revelations in this book are gob-smacking. The involvement of the royal family, justices of the high court, Liberal politicians and more are documented and the evidence carefully dissected. This book exposes the lies and deception which occurred at the time and have remained unchallenged to this day. Sir John Kerr was only one of many in the conspiracy to overturn a legal Australian government.
June 30, 2022
I've seen the clip of Gough Whitlam's "Well may we say" speech many times, and knew the basic facts of his dismissal as prime minister but never really understood the event. It always seemed very complicated. This book is a short, accessible summary and has left me a bit stunned by how dodgy it all was, and how little Australians really know about it.
July 2, 2018
* I would like to thank NetGalley and the publisher for the opportunity to review this book. *
In The Dismissal Dossier, Jenny Hocking exposes some of the background machinations lurking behind one of the most contentious events in Australian history; the unilateral dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr.
It's hard to read this without becoming outraged and sickened at the way cynical power-seekers subverted Australia's democracy. These people, in many cases, were able to fly under the radar for decades, and almost none of them have paid any price for participating in what was essentially an utterly illegal coup. If that sounds condemnatory and partisan, I can only suggest that Hocking's evidence leaves no other conclusion open to a receptive reader.
What is especially distressing is the role of the English royals and their household in this affair. Hocking has been valiantly trying to obtain access to documents known as the "palace letters", that Kerr wrote to the Queen advising her of his intentions. This has been stymied in the Australian courts (no surprise when you consider two of the conspirators were High Court judges) and can only be revealed after 2027, with the assent of the English monarch. Given that the evidence suggests that Prince Charles was a key player with Kerr, the chances of that occurring are zero, and Australians will be denied access to our own history forever.
As well as illuminating the past, this book serves as a sharp reminder to Australians that royal weddings and cute babies should not obscure the compelling evidence that the English royals interfered in our democracy and subverted our Constitution. One cannot read this book and not conclude that Australia has to become a Republic.
In The Dismissal Dossier, Jenny Hocking exposes some of the background machinations lurking behind one of the most contentious events in Australian history; the unilateral dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr.
It's hard to read this without becoming outraged and sickened at the way cynical power-seekers subverted Australia's democracy. These people, in many cases, were able to fly under the radar for decades, and almost none of them have paid any price for participating in what was essentially an utterly illegal coup. If that sounds condemnatory and partisan, I can only suggest that Hocking's evidence leaves no other conclusion open to a receptive reader.
What is especially distressing is the role of the English royals and their household in this affair. Hocking has been valiantly trying to obtain access to documents known as the "palace letters", that Kerr wrote to the Queen advising her of his intentions. This has been stymied in the Australian courts (no surprise when you consider two of the conspirators were High Court judges) and can only be revealed after 2027, with the assent of the English monarch. Given that the evidence suggests that Prince Charles was a key player with Kerr, the chances of that occurring are zero, and Australians will be denied access to our own history forever.
As well as illuminating the past, this book serves as a sharp reminder to Australians that royal weddings and cute babies should not obscure the compelling evidence that the English royals interfered in our democracy and subverted our Constitution. One cannot read this book and not conclude that Australia has to become a Republic.
August 16, 2019
And, after reading Jenny Hocking's small book The Dismissal Dossier: Everything You Were Never Meant to Know About November 1975, I'd have to add that not only were people just stunned by the dismissal of the Whitlam government, they were lied to as well. It has taken over forty years for the truth to trickle out, through vendettas, scribbled notes in archives, interviews, and re-evaluations. The story isn't over yet: Jenny Hocking, who wrote the celebrated two-part biography of Gough Whitlam, is still pursuing 'The Palace Letters' between the Queen and her secretaries and Australia's then-Governor General Sir John Kerr, which have been designated 'personal and private' by Buckingham Palace, and thus out of the reach of Australians.
.... Reading this book reminds me why we should maintain the pressure for a republic, and why Hocking's own persistence and assiduity has been so important. That's why this book is so important. It's only short, but it draws the threads together. It re-kindles the rage. Read it.
For my complete review see: https://residentjudge.com/2019/08/16/...
.... Reading this book reminds me why we should maintain the pressure for a republic, and why Hocking's own persistence and assiduity has been so important. That's why this book is so important. It's only short, but it draws the threads together. It re-kindles the rage. Read it.
For my complete review see: https://residentjudge.com/2019/08/16/...
October 13, 2018
This is the definitive work on The Dismissal, and product of some outstanding historical research from our finest historian. Ms Hocking unpicks all the myths and shibboleths that have been constructed around the coup d'état that was November 1975, to reveal what was suspected all along: that Kerr colluded with others, including Anthony Mason, Malcolm Fraser and the Palace. The third addition is compelling as it reveals what was happening in the UK. When Professor Hocking wins her court case to access Kerr's correspondence with the Palace, we will hopefully see a fourth and equally compelling edition.
December 27, 2017
WHAT A RIVETING READ!
This is a must-read book for anyone interested in modern Australian history. Clearly a great deal of research has been done and is presented in a clear and unambiguous matter if not sometimes labouring over some points.
What's amazing is how "the Crown" and two High Court judges could Cary off such a coupe d'état on an elected government and get away with it. Some papers will not be released until 2027 and then only on the agreement of a foreign head of state!
This really is a great read.
Regards,
Peter
This is a must-read book for anyone interested in modern Australian history. Clearly a great deal of research has been done and is presented in a clear and unambiguous matter if not sometimes labouring over some points.
What's amazing is how "the Crown" and two High Court judges could Cary off such a coupe d'état on an elected government and get away with it. Some papers will not be released until 2027 and then only on the agreement of a foreign head of state!
This really is a great read.
Regards,
Peter
May 4, 2019
An important book to understanding this pivotal moment in Australian history. This book details the extradorinary and subversive involvement of the UK in Australian domestic politics and goes some way to explaining why we have not achieved a republic as yet.
June 5, 2019
A book all Australians should read so they do not let history repeat itself.
July 5, 2019
Vital reading for Australian political history.
December 6, 2019
I grew up with more awareness of Russian politics than Australian politics largely because of my persecuted Estonian father who emigrated to Australia in the late 40s. That was enough to send me into political oblivion for most of my life.
I have vague memories of the notorious Whitlam Dismissal in 1975 but didn't take much notice because I was too busy being a teenager.
Since reading Jenny Hocking's book, however, I feel sad for Mr Whitlam because his vibrant vision for Australia was killed off so blatantly - and illegally.
The Palace also played a pivotal role in this notorious scandal and betrayed all Australians in the process. Another book about the Dismissal alleges that the CIA was involved in orchestrating this gross miscarriage of democracy. (Perhaps it's time for Australia to grow up and declare itself an independent Republic.)
I'm now pondering how Australia would look today if Gough Whitlam was given the support he deserved to transform Australia into a flourishing democracy instead of a Corpocratic coal mine. An intriguing screenplay concept?
I have vague memories of the notorious Whitlam Dismissal in 1975 but didn't take much notice because I was too busy being a teenager.
Since reading Jenny Hocking's book, however, I feel sad for Mr Whitlam because his vibrant vision for Australia was killed off so blatantly - and illegally.
The Palace also played a pivotal role in this notorious scandal and betrayed all Australians in the process. Another book about the Dismissal alleges that the CIA was involved in orchestrating this gross miscarriage of democracy. (Perhaps it's time for Australia to grow up and declare itself an independent Republic.)
I'm now pondering how Australia would look today if Gough Whitlam was given the support he deserved to transform Australia into a flourishing democracy instead of a Corpocratic coal mine. An intriguing screenplay concept?
Read
October 22, 2024The treasonous behavior of Fraser and Kerr is breathtaking. The behavior of the queen is a great reason why we should be a republic.
September 21, 2019
For me, one of the remarkable aspects of reading The Dismissal Dossier, Everything You Were Never Meant to Know about November 1975 is that the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 seems to generate so little interest. The book isn't written for people like me who lived through the hours of November 11th with increasing shock and dismay, it's written for people who weren't paying attention at the time, or have come to adulthood in the ensuing years. I can't comprehend why people don't realise how much it matters for our democracy...
I'm not going to revisit the historical events of the day, because Wikipedia provides a readily available account and because the timeline of events is actually secondary to what matters. My father was one of those outraged by the Palace's role in these events, and he wrote to the Queen and in due course received the usual mealy-mouthed denial that the Queen had any responsibility for it. What matters is that this denial and all the others are shameless lies, and Jenny Hocking lays the deception bare in the first chapter 'What did the Palace Know?' The Palace knew what was going to happen beforehand, had provided advice beforehand, and went on to shower Kerr with honours after the event. So much for the oft-quoted assertion that the Queen is always neutral in matters of domestic politics. She wasn't neutral then — and she isn't neutral now because she is still refusing to release archival material that is obviously detrimental to the fantasy of Palace neutrality.
[Jenny Hocking took the case to the High Court to force the Palace to release the papers, and failed. You can read the judgement here, but the nuts and bolts of it is that the correspondence is not the property of the Commonwealth and therefore there is no authority to release them under the Archives Act. The Palace can embargo their release indefinitely...]
I was glued to the radio on November 11th 1975, and I remember the short-lived moment of relief when Whitlam returned to the House of Representatives after Kerr had dismissed him and the House carried a motion of No Confidence in Kerr's stooge Malcolm Fraser. I thought that everything would be resolved then... the Senate had passed Supply and it's the House of Reps that forms government in democracies like ours. But in the chapter 'Sir John Kerr's Second Dismissal' Hocking makes it explicit: from this moment on, this moment that I remember so vividly, Whitlam should have been restored to office.
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2019/09/07/t...
I'm not going to revisit the historical events of the day, because Wikipedia provides a readily available account and because the timeline of events is actually secondary to what matters. My father was one of those outraged by the Palace's role in these events, and he wrote to the Queen and in due course received the usual mealy-mouthed denial that the Queen had any responsibility for it. What matters is that this denial and all the others are shameless lies, and Jenny Hocking lays the deception bare in the first chapter 'What did the Palace Know?' The Palace knew what was going to happen beforehand, had provided advice beforehand, and went on to shower Kerr with honours after the event. So much for the oft-quoted assertion that the Queen is always neutral in matters of domestic politics. She wasn't neutral then — and she isn't neutral now because she is still refusing to release archival material that is obviously detrimental to the fantasy of Palace neutrality.
[Jenny Hocking took the case to the High Court to force the Palace to release the papers, and failed. You can read the judgement here, but the nuts and bolts of it is that the correspondence is not the property of the Commonwealth and therefore there is no authority to release them under the Archives Act. The Palace can embargo their release indefinitely...]
I was glued to the radio on November 11th 1975, and I remember the short-lived moment of relief when Whitlam returned to the House of Representatives after Kerr had dismissed him and the House carried a motion of No Confidence in Kerr's stooge Malcolm Fraser. I thought that everything would be resolved then... the Senate had passed Supply and it's the House of Reps that forms government in democracies like ours. But in the chapter 'Sir John Kerr's Second Dismissal' Hocking makes it explicit: from this moment on, this moment that I remember so vividly, Whitlam should have been restored to office.
To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2019/09/07/t...
December 7, 2015
‘The dismissal of the Whitlam government on 11 November 1975 by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr has always been as much about myth as reality.’
Forty years ago, Sir John Kerr dismissed the democratically elected Labor government led by Gough Whitlam. Like so many others at the time, I couldn’t believe it. Like many others since, I’ve wondered about why Sir John Kerr made this choice. It always seemed to me that there were other options available. Time has moved on, governments have come and gone, and many of the key participants are now dead.
How can there possible be any new information of any importance in relation to the dismissal?
In this book, Professor Jenny Hocking draws on Sir John Kerr’s private papers held in the National Archives. In those papers she found that Sir John had been secretly meeting with the then High Court Justice Sir Anthony Mason.
‘How is it possible that something as significant as this—lengthy secret interactions between the Governor-General and a High Court judge at such a critical time—could have remained secret for thirty-seven years?’
Sir John Kerr had also been meeting with Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick and with Malcolm Fraser. Sir John had not informed Gough Whitlam of these meetings, and he had not sought these meetings through the proper channels.
For many, the dismissal is ancient history. For many, the actions the Whitlam government had taken (the infamous loans affair) more than justified his dismissal. Does it make a difference, knowing that Sir John Kerr had kept the palace informed? That the loans affair had been passed by the Executive Council Meeting of 14 December 1974, authorised by Sir John Kerr? Was it a bad government that Sir John Kerr was trying to dismiss, or was he trying to cover up his own role in the loans affair?
One of the most interesting aspects of Professor Hocking’s book is re-considering Sir John Kerr’s motivation. Whose interests did he have at heart really? Surely, the half-senate election proposed by Gough Whitlam would have been a sound constitutional way of breaking the deadlock?
For me, reading this account answers some questions and raises others. I’d never believed that Sir John Kerr should have dismissed Gough Whitlam, but when Labor was not returned to government in December 1975, I figured that the majority of the voters thought otherwise.
If you have any interest in the dismissal, Professor Hocking’s book is well worth reading.
Note: My thanks to NetGalley and Melbourne University Publishing for the opportunity to read this book.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
Forty years ago, Sir John Kerr dismissed the democratically elected Labor government led by Gough Whitlam. Like so many others at the time, I couldn’t believe it. Like many others since, I’ve wondered about why Sir John Kerr made this choice. It always seemed to me that there were other options available. Time has moved on, governments have come and gone, and many of the key participants are now dead.
How can there possible be any new information of any importance in relation to the dismissal?
In this book, Professor Jenny Hocking draws on Sir John Kerr’s private papers held in the National Archives. In those papers she found that Sir John had been secretly meeting with the then High Court Justice Sir Anthony Mason.
‘How is it possible that something as significant as this—lengthy secret interactions between the Governor-General and a High Court judge at such a critical time—could have remained secret for thirty-seven years?’
Sir John Kerr had also been meeting with Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick and with Malcolm Fraser. Sir John had not informed Gough Whitlam of these meetings, and he had not sought these meetings through the proper channels.
For many, the dismissal is ancient history. For many, the actions the Whitlam government had taken (the infamous loans affair) more than justified his dismissal. Does it make a difference, knowing that Sir John Kerr had kept the palace informed? That the loans affair had been passed by the Executive Council Meeting of 14 December 1974, authorised by Sir John Kerr? Was it a bad government that Sir John Kerr was trying to dismiss, or was he trying to cover up his own role in the loans affair?
One of the most interesting aspects of Professor Hocking’s book is re-considering Sir John Kerr’s motivation. Whose interests did he have at heart really? Surely, the half-senate election proposed by Gough Whitlam would have been a sound constitutional way of breaking the deadlock?
For me, reading this account answers some questions and raises others. I’d never believed that Sir John Kerr should have dismissed Gough Whitlam, but when Labor was not returned to government in December 1975, I figured that the majority of the voters thought otherwise.
If you have any interest in the dismissal, Professor Hocking’s book is well worth reading.
Note: My thanks to NetGalley and Melbourne University Publishing for the opportunity to read this book.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
December 17, 2015
(I received a free copy of this book from Net Galley in exchange for an honest review.)
Here is the definitive story of the most divisive episode in Australia's history—the dismissal of Gough Whitlam's government.
In her award-winning biography of Gough Whitlam, Jenny Hocking first revealed the astonishing secret story of the planning, the people—and the collusion—behind the removal of Gough Whitlam.
Now Hocking brings together this hidden history—a mixture of the unknown, the overlooked and the clandestine—to write a political thriller: the story you were never meant to know.
With the 40th anniversary of this landmark (if you can call it that) political decision just recently passed, I have been doing some reading about it (as I was only 3 years old when it happened!)
While I found the content of this book to be extremely interesting, I was even more disappointed by the size of the book - depending on the site you visit, this is book is listed as anywhere between 55 and 85 pages. So, there are times when you are reading a chapter, thinking that you really want to find out more, it stops and you move on to something else.
I have given it 3 stars mainly due to the fascinating account of the Dismissal that is contained in this book...but I am very disappointed that I wasn't given any idea just how short a book it is.
Paul
ARH
Here is the definitive story of the most divisive episode in Australia's history—the dismissal of Gough Whitlam's government.
In her award-winning biography of Gough Whitlam, Jenny Hocking first revealed the astonishing secret story of the planning, the people—and the collusion—behind the removal of Gough Whitlam.
Now Hocking brings together this hidden history—a mixture of the unknown, the overlooked and the clandestine—to write a political thriller: the story you were never meant to know.
With the 40th anniversary of this landmark (if you can call it that) political decision just recently passed, I have been doing some reading about it (as I was only 3 years old when it happened!)
While I found the content of this book to be extremely interesting, I was even more disappointed by the size of the book - depending on the site you visit, this is book is listed as anywhere between 55 and 85 pages. So, there are times when you are reading a chapter, thinking that you really want to find out more, it stops and you move on to something else.
I have given it 3 stars mainly due to the fascinating account of the Dismissal that is contained in this book...but I am very disappointed that I wasn't given any idea just how short a book it is.
Paul
ARH
April 19, 2016
A short and succinct account of the most recent findings about the events of November 1975 when the democratically-elected Australian government was sacked by the Governor- General - the Queen of England's representative in Australia. Hocking brings together recent archival evidence to show that the Governor- General, Sir John Kerr, the leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, and the High Court Justice, Sir Anthony Mason, all lied to get rid of the Labour Government and install the Liberal Coalition. A good read that is highly recommended for those who want to learn the salient facts about these historic events, still relevant as long as Australia retains a foreign head of state.
February 29, 2016
A slim but intriguing book. It appears well-referenced but occasionally the things where you would expect to see that reassuring footnote number, it isn't there. This is sometimes due to referencing style. But not always.
Still a good read: superior journalism (it does get breathless here and there) with considerable cred.
Still a good read: superior journalism (it does get breathless here and there) with considerable cred.
March 22, 2016
Such a compelling, well reasoned and evocatively written hypothesis on the events of 1975.
December 29, 2024
Read for university but damn I’m hooked now
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews