What do you think?
Rate this book
The Palace Letters: The Queen, The Governor-General, and the Plot to Dismiss Gough Whitlam
A political betrayal.A constitutional crisis.A hidden correspondence.
Gough Whitlam was a progressive prime minister whose reign from 1972 proved tumultuous after 23 years of conservative government in Australia. After a second election victory in May 1974, when a hostile Senate refused to vote on his 1975 budget, the political deadlock that ensued culminated in Whitlam’s unexpected and deeply controversial dismissal by the governor-general, Sir John Kerr.
Kerr was in close touch with the Palace during this period, but, under the cover of being designated as personal, that correspondence was locked away in the National Archives, and embargoed by the Queen — potentially forever. This ruse denied the Australian people access to critical information about one of the most divisive episodes in the nation’s history.
In the face of this, Professor Jenny Hocking embarked on what would become a ten-year campaign and a four-year legal battle to force the Archives to release the letters. In May 2020, despite being opposed by the Archives, Buckingham Palace, and the full resources of the federal government, she won her historic case in the High Court.
The Palace Letters is the ground-breaking account of her indomitable fight. Drawing on material from the Palace letters, Kerr’s archives, and her submissions to the courts, Hocking traces the collusion and deception behind the dismissal, and charts the secret role of High Court judges, the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser, and the Queen’s private secretary in fostering and supporting Kerr’s actions.
Hocking also reveals the obstruction, intrigue, and duplicity she faced during her campaign, raising disturbing questions about the role of the National Archives in fighting access to these historic letters and in enforcing, against Australia’s national interests, royal secrecy over its own documents.
Gough Whitlam was a progressive prime minister whose reign from 1972 proved tumultuous after 23 years of conservative government in Australia. After a second election victory in May 1974, when a hostile Senate refused to vote on his 1975 budget, the political deadlock that ensued culminated in Whitlam’s unexpected and deeply controversial dismissal by the governor-general, Sir John Kerr.
Kerr was in close touch with the Palace during this period, but, under the cover of being designated as personal, that correspondence was locked away in the National Archives, and embargoed by the Queen — potentially forever. This ruse denied the Australian people access to critical information about one of the most divisive episodes in the nation’s history.
In the face of this, Professor Jenny Hocking embarked on what would become a ten-year campaign and a four-year legal battle to force the Archives to release the letters. In May 2020, despite being opposed by the Archives, Buckingham Palace, and the full resources of the federal government, she won her historic case in the High Court.
The Palace Letters is the ground-breaking account of her indomitable fight. Drawing on material from the Palace letters, Kerr’s archives, and her submissions to the courts, Hocking traces the collusion and deception behind the dismissal, and charts the secret role of High Court judges, the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser, and the Queen’s private secretary in fostering and supporting Kerr’s actions.
Hocking also reveals the obstruction, intrigue, and duplicity she faced during her campaign, raising disturbing questions about the role of the National Archives in fighting access to these historic letters and in enforcing, against Australia’s national interests, royal secrecy over its own documents.
288 pages, Paperback
Published May 4, 2021
20 people are currently reading
286 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 - 30 of 44 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 19, 2020
Had to get this book as soon as it came out, and finished it off as quick as I could. And it wasnt difficult to do so. This book, while pure non-fiction, is a fascinating adventure following Prof Hocking's journey to the High Court to finally release Australia's own history: the Palace Letters.
What is found inside the book is an epic tale, showcasing the lengths that the Archives and the Palace went to (with ample support from the conservative LNP government) to bury the dark truth about The Dismissal in 1975. Hocking masterfully debunks all the astounding assertions made by the Archives/Palace about the letters nature, and how even they couldnt keep track of their story. I must say, it was comforting knowing the ending, that the letters ended up being released, because it is startling how many judges could misunderstand the plain arguments outlined by the Hocking legal team.
However, the real bombs start to drop once the letters are released, and the picture is laid out clearly - not only was the Palace aware of Kerr's intention, they were complicit and encouraging. Hocking draws attention to the complete lack of coverage this story got in the wake of the letters, particularly by the Murdoch press, News Corp. It is frustrating on one hand to see just how ridiculously clear this book makes the Palace's invovlement, and Kerr's ardent focus on using powers that he clearly shouldnt have, but on the other hand, all we can do is praise Hocking and her team for ensuring our history came out. Hopefully, when the time comes for another referendum on the Australian Republic, these findings will come to the fore.
Make sure you read this book - everything you thought you knew about the dismissal is about to be shaken. Even if you knew it was fishy, the depths of deceit are unimaginable.
What is found inside the book is an epic tale, showcasing the lengths that the Archives and the Palace went to (with ample support from the conservative LNP government) to bury the dark truth about The Dismissal in 1975. Hocking masterfully debunks all the astounding assertions made by the Archives/Palace about the letters nature, and how even they couldnt keep track of their story. I must say, it was comforting knowing the ending, that the letters ended up being released, because it is startling how many judges could misunderstand the plain arguments outlined by the Hocking legal team.
However, the real bombs start to drop once the letters are released, and the picture is laid out clearly - not only was the Palace aware of Kerr's intention, they were complicit and encouraging. Hocking draws attention to the complete lack of coverage this story got in the wake of the letters, particularly by the Murdoch press, News Corp. It is frustrating on one hand to see just how ridiculously clear this book makes the Palace's invovlement, and Kerr's ardent focus on using powers that he clearly shouldnt have, but on the other hand, all we can do is praise Hocking and her team for ensuring our history came out. Hopefully, when the time comes for another referendum on the Australian Republic, these findings will come to the fore.
Make sure you read this book - everything you thought you knew about the dismissal is about to be shaken. Even if you knew it was fishy, the depths of deceit are unimaginable.
November 3, 2020
I can't think of a stronger recommendation that this book converted me from a lazy "ain't broke, don't fix it" default monarchist to a "this is definitely broke" Republican.
Moves at a good clip, and I enjoyed how it weaved the actual history of the dismissal through the story of the fight to actually discover the history.
Moves at a good clip, and I enjoyed how it weaved the actual history of the dismissal through the story of the fight to actually discover the history.
January 13, 2021
You don’t expect a non-fiction account of legal action to release documents from the National Archives (and the subsequent analysis and interpretation of those letters) to read like a page-turning thriller, but that is exactly how Professor Jenny Hocking has written this compelling non-fiction tale.
It’s a riveting account of the ten-year campaign and four-year legal process to force the National Archives to release the letters exchanged between Buckingham Palace and the Australian Governor General, Sir John Kerr at and around the time of The Dismissal in November 1975. (For non-Australian followers - The GG dismissed the sitting Prime Minister and swore in the opposition leader as PM).
The account of the legal battle moves at a fair pace, with vivid description of the characters involved, and I was totally engrossed. When the Full Federal Court agreed with the National Archives and concluded that the letters were "private or personal records of the Governor-General", I threw down the book in exasperation.
Spoiler alert - despite fierce opposition Hocking eventually won her historic case in May 2020 once it reached the High Court.
Hocking’s analysis and interpretation of ‘the Palace letters’ forms the latter part of the book...and reveals the collusion and deception behind The Dismissal, involving a number of key players.
The book also draws on Hocking’s many years of previous research and is impeccably footnoted and referenced.
It’s rare for me to recommend an historical non-fiction book as a ‘beach read’ - but this one definitely fits the bill. I could see it being made into a TV miniseries or a movie.
It’s a riveting account of the ten-year campaign and four-year legal process to force the National Archives to release the letters exchanged between Buckingham Palace and the Australian Governor General, Sir John Kerr at and around the time of The Dismissal in November 1975. (For non-Australian followers - The GG dismissed the sitting Prime Minister and swore in the opposition leader as PM).
The account of the legal battle moves at a fair pace, with vivid description of the characters involved, and I was totally engrossed. When the Full Federal Court agreed with the National Archives and concluded that the letters were "private or personal records of the Governor-General", I threw down the book in exasperation.
Spoiler alert - despite fierce opposition Hocking eventually won her historic case in May 2020 once it reached the High Court.
Hocking’s analysis and interpretation of ‘the Palace letters’ forms the latter part of the book...and reveals the collusion and deception behind The Dismissal, involving a number of key players.
The book also draws on Hocking’s many years of previous research and is impeccably footnoted and referenced.
It’s rare for me to recommend an historical non-fiction book as a ‘beach read’ - but this one definitely fits the bill. I could see it being made into a TV miniseries or a movie.
October 16, 2021
Never been so angry reading a book oml. Justice for Whitlam
February 5, 2026
Even when discussing the driest legal opinions or archival technicalities, Hocking's excitement at her discoveries and High Court victory bleeds through the pages. The way various archival discoveries influenced the legal playing field was one of the best ways I have seen the public interest of history demonstrated.
Sometimes that excitement led to repetitive and superfluous writing. That being said, Hocking's constant rage and shock at the institutional and royal effort to keep the Palace Letters secret is more than reasonable. As Kerry O'Brien remarked during its 50 year anniversary last year, the more you read, the more it becomes clear the dismissal was a coup.
Sometimes that excitement led to repetitive and superfluous writing. That being said, Hocking's constant rage and shock at the institutional and royal effort to keep the Palace Letters secret is more than reasonable. As Kerry O'Brien remarked during its 50 year anniversary last year, the more you read, the more it becomes clear the dismissal was a coup.
November 13, 2021
Every Australian should read this book.
August 27, 2025
John kerr should've changed his name to wayne
December 9, 2022
This book won’t be for everyone but the issue should be. There’s so much in this book which is really important. Thank you Jenny for your dedication to the task and the personal risks you took. If ever there was a powerful argument for a Republic this is it. I was angry about The Dismissal but I’m even more shocked about the depth of the deception and the attempts, even very recently, to keep it hidden.
October 3, 2022
I loved this book. I admire the author, Jenny Hocking, and her supporters for doggedly fighting the firm to gain access to the palace papers, finally revealing the hidden facts of what went on during, before and after the dismal of Gough Whitlam.
I’m disgusted at the lengths gone to cover up the facts over the last 45 years, by so many parties. Bring on the Australian Republic!
Oh, and my vocabulary improved by at least 10% during the reading of this book!
I’m disgusted at the lengths gone to cover up the facts over the last 45 years, by so many parties. Bring on the Australian Republic!
Oh, and my vocabulary improved by at least 10% during the reading of this book!
September 21, 2023
Fascinating and a great advertisement for the republican movement
January 22, 2024
"The Palace Letters: The Queen, The Governor-General, and the Plot to Dismiss Gough Whitlam" by Professor Jenny Hocking is a groundbreaking work that sheds light on a pivotal moment in Australian political history. Hocking's meticulous research and compelling narrative skillfully unravel the intrigue surrounding the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975, offering readers a captivating exploration of the intersections between monarchy, politics, and constitutional crisis.
One of the book's standout features is Hocking's dedication to unveiling the truth. Her exhaustive research into the Palace Letters, correspondence between the Queen and the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, provides a new and critical perspective on the events leading up to Whitlam's dismissal. Hocking's commitment to uncovering historical truths elevates the book beyond a mere recounting of events, making it an invaluable contribution to the understanding of Australia's political landscape.
Hocking's writing is both accessible and engaging, making complex legal and political details comprehensible for a broad audience. She seamlessly weaves together a narrative that not only captures the gravity of the political crisis but also delves into the personal dynamics between key figures. This balanced approach adds depth to the historical account, humanizing the players involved and highlighting the complex decisions made during a turbulent period.
The book's exploration of the constitutional crisis and the role of the monarchy in Australian politics is particularly insightful. Hocking skillfully navigates the legal complexities, offering readers a clear understanding of the constitutional issues at play. By contextualizing the events within the broader historical and political landscape, she provides readers with a nuanced analysis that goes beyond the surface-level narrative.
Furthermore, "The Palace Letters" stands out for its relevance to contemporary discussions about the role of the monarchy in Australia. Hocking's work encourages readers to reflect on the broader implications of these historical events, prompting important conversations about constitutional reform and Australia's evolving political identity.
In conclusion, Professor Jenny Hocking's "The Palace Letters" is a masterfully researched and engagingly written exploration of a critical chapter in Australian political history. The book's significance lies not only in its revelation of historical truths but also in its contribution to ongoing discussions about constitutional matters and the monarchy's role in shaping the nation's destiny. For those interested in Australian politics, constitutional law, or historical narratives, this book is a must-read that offers both enlightenment and a fresh perspective on a momentous period.
One of the book's standout features is Hocking's dedication to unveiling the truth. Her exhaustive research into the Palace Letters, correspondence between the Queen and the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, provides a new and critical perspective on the events leading up to Whitlam's dismissal. Hocking's commitment to uncovering historical truths elevates the book beyond a mere recounting of events, making it an invaluable contribution to the understanding of Australia's political landscape.
Hocking's writing is both accessible and engaging, making complex legal and political details comprehensible for a broad audience. She seamlessly weaves together a narrative that not only captures the gravity of the political crisis but also delves into the personal dynamics between key figures. This balanced approach adds depth to the historical account, humanizing the players involved and highlighting the complex decisions made during a turbulent period.
The book's exploration of the constitutional crisis and the role of the monarchy in Australian politics is particularly insightful. Hocking skillfully navigates the legal complexities, offering readers a clear understanding of the constitutional issues at play. By contextualizing the events within the broader historical and political landscape, she provides readers with a nuanced analysis that goes beyond the surface-level narrative.
Furthermore, "The Palace Letters" stands out for its relevance to contemporary discussions about the role of the monarchy in Australia. Hocking's work encourages readers to reflect on the broader implications of these historical events, prompting important conversations about constitutional reform and Australia's evolving political identity.
In conclusion, Professor Jenny Hocking's "The Palace Letters" is a masterfully researched and engagingly written exploration of a critical chapter in Australian political history. The book's significance lies not only in its revelation of historical truths but also in its contribution to ongoing discussions about constitutional matters and the monarchy's role in shaping the nation's destiny. For those interested in Australian politics, constitutional law, or historical narratives, this book is a must-read that offers both enlightenment and a fresh perspective on a momentous period.
April 11, 2023
Don't be fooled by the subtitle. This is not about the plot to dismiss Whitlam so much as it is a memoir of Professor Hocking's years-long quest through the Australian law courts to get Elizabeth II's embargo over these important historical documents lifted so that she and other historians can access them and allow Australians (and the rest of us) to know the full story of the greatest constitutional crisis in their history. Those of us who care about history and transparency all owe Professor Hocking a debt and it is a fascinating story of perseverance against a much more powerful opponent.
Later chapters do get into some of the key revelations of the Palace Letters and it is easy to see why the then-Queen and her courtiers wanted them kept secret. I for one had always accepted the official story that this was a purely Australian affair between Kerr and Whitlam, with Queen Elizabeth and her court being taken by surprise upon learning of the dismissal when they awoke to the news. I was reluctant to relinquish that view, but the case Prof. Hocking makes from the letters is simply irrefutable. Sir Martin (later Lord) Charteris, the Queen's Private Secretary and close collaborator, and therefore undoubtedly the Queen as well, were complicit in encouraging Kerr to act as he did. At the very least they were guilty of not directing him to follow the advice of the attorney general and the solicitor general, as he, as the representative of a constitutional monarch, was constitutionally required to do.
If I have a quibble it is that, perhaps inevitably given the ordeal she went through, the line between historian and memoirist becomes a bit too blurred. Professor Hocking's republican position is certainly well-supported, but she allows her republican agenda to intrude in places where it detracts from, rather than illuminates, her findings and her achievement.
Later chapters do get into some of the key revelations of the Palace Letters and it is easy to see why the then-Queen and her courtiers wanted them kept secret. I for one had always accepted the official story that this was a purely Australian affair between Kerr and Whitlam, with Queen Elizabeth and her court being taken by surprise upon learning of the dismissal when they awoke to the news. I was reluctant to relinquish that view, but the case Prof. Hocking makes from the letters is simply irrefutable. Sir Martin (later Lord) Charteris, the Queen's Private Secretary and close collaborator, and therefore undoubtedly the Queen as well, were complicit in encouraging Kerr to act as he did. At the very least they were guilty of not directing him to follow the advice of the attorney general and the solicitor general, as he, as the representative of a constitutional monarch, was constitutionally required to do.
If I have a quibble it is that, perhaps inevitably given the ordeal she went through, the line between historian and memoirist becomes a bit too blurred. Professor Hocking's republican position is certainly well-supported, but she allows her republican agenda to intrude in places where it detracts from, rather than illuminates, her findings and her achievement.
December 2, 2022
Hocking tells a story of great national significance. From the beginning, her pursuit of the palace letters is truly to uncover a turbulent, relatively undiscovered in Australian history. By understanding the event clearly, Australians should be able to examine their colonial identity and how that identity has placed handcuffs on our nation.
Unfortunately, the book begins with a monologue from Malcolm Turnbull - the 29th Australian Prime Minister. In Turnbull fashion the monologue is self-aggrandising and fails to truly acknowledge the immense work of others in the pursuit of the letters. Instead, Turnbull provides a narrative of himself as a saviour.
Nonetheless, the book takes the reader on an excellent journey of discovery as Hocking finally uncovers the Palace Letter. From the journey, Hocking's character is revealed to be marked by perseverance and commitment. Hocking ensures the story does not become self centred by drawing on a variety of different perspectives from a diverse range of multimedia, whether that be legal scholars, political commentators or politicians.
Hocking aptly reveals the characters. She distills them rather artfully to display their sensitivities and concerns.
Despite the apt character development, the book at times can be rather legalistic. While the writing inevitably has to spend time on the legal proceedings, the time spent on such proceedings can be rather dense. Any reference to the legal arguments invokes a sense jitter on the reader. Perhaps, Hocking could have spent greater time on distilling the arguments.
Unfortunately, the book begins with a monologue from Malcolm Turnbull - the 29th Australian Prime Minister. In Turnbull fashion the monologue is self-aggrandising and fails to truly acknowledge the immense work of others in the pursuit of the letters. Instead, Turnbull provides a narrative of himself as a saviour.
Nonetheless, the book takes the reader on an excellent journey of discovery as Hocking finally uncovers the Palace Letter. From the journey, Hocking's character is revealed to be marked by perseverance and commitment. Hocking ensures the story does not become self centred by drawing on a variety of different perspectives from a diverse range of multimedia, whether that be legal scholars, political commentators or politicians.
Hocking aptly reveals the characters. She distills them rather artfully to display their sensitivities and concerns.
Despite the apt character development, the book at times can be rather legalistic. While the writing inevitably has to spend time on the legal proceedings, the time spent on such proceedings can be rather dense. Any reference to the legal arguments invokes a sense jitter on the reader. Perhaps, Hocking could have spent greater time on distilling the arguments.
Read
March 9, 2021Riveting … Vital Australian history.
Nicole Abadee, Sydney Morning Herald
An absorbing legal drama interspersed by accounts of other archival discoveries that spiced her determination to access the Palace Letters.
Paul Strangio, The Age
A courtroom drama with political and historical intrigue, it reads like John Grisham crossed with Dan Brown – but more exciting than either because it all actually happened. This is a fantastic read and an important part of Australian history.
Tristen Brudy, Readings
A thrilling Oz tale of politics and intrigue goes all the way to Buckingham Palace … [A] riveting read.
Jennifer Curtin, The Listener
The Palace Letters … is the groundbreaking result of historian Professor Jenny Hocking’s fight to expose secret letters between the Queen and the Australian Governor-General during the Dismissal of Gough Whitlam in 1975.
Dr Glenn Davies, Sydney Sun
The Palace Letters traced Hocking’s extraordinary efforts to bring to light what could have otherwise remained undisclosed.
Vittoria Bon, Herald Sun
Nicole Abadee, Sydney Morning Herald
An absorbing legal drama interspersed by accounts of other archival discoveries that spiced her determination to access the Palace Letters.
Paul Strangio, The Age
A courtroom drama with political and historical intrigue, it reads like John Grisham crossed with Dan Brown – but more exciting than either because it all actually happened. This is a fantastic read and an important part of Australian history.
Tristen Brudy, Readings
A thrilling Oz tale of politics and intrigue goes all the way to Buckingham Palace … [A] riveting read.
Jennifer Curtin, The Listener
The Palace Letters … is the groundbreaking result of historian Professor Jenny Hocking’s fight to expose secret letters between the Queen and the Australian Governor-General during the Dismissal of Gough Whitlam in 1975.
Dr Glenn Davies, Sydney Sun
The Palace Letters traced Hocking’s extraordinary efforts to bring to light what could have otherwise remained undisclosed.
Vittoria Bon, Herald Sun
October 11, 2021
Not the most engaging read to be honest. I’m a supporter of the Republic and more or less agree with Paul Keating that Kerr should have been arrested for overstepping his role.
In saying that, I didn’t think the letters were all that shocking. Certainty not the bombshell that you might expect, especially given the bureaucratic nightmare Jenny Hocking had to go through to gain access to them.
Nevertheless this is an important book and all credit to everyone who was involved in the research and the court case. Australia should own its history and we need more Aussies like Hocking who stand up for our sovereignty.
In saying that, I didn’t think the letters were all that shocking. Certainty not the bombshell that you might expect, especially given the bureaucratic nightmare Jenny Hocking had to go through to gain access to them.
Nevertheless this is an important book and all credit to everyone who was involved in the research and the court case. Australia should own its history and we need more Aussies like Hocking who stand up for our sovereignty.
November 14, 2023
An intriguing part of Australia's political history that is compelling but I think the author could have removed so much of the repetitive text. I understand her frustration after years of fighting to have the letters made available to the public and admire her determination.
July 16, 2021
A great book but a sad reflection on the patronising attitude of our British forefathers and the establishment of Britain. We need to get out from under this cloud and become a Republic asap.
August 17, 2022
"We were being denied access to our own history about one of the most controversial and polarising episodes in our history. The obvious question was why?"
In 1975 the Governor General of Australia, John Kerr (the Queen's representative in Australia) sacked the Federal government of Australia led by Gough Whitlam and appointed the opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as the new Prime Minister. It sparked outrage at the time and has often been cited as one of the reasons why Australia should become a Republic.
One of the questions that has been asked since then was how much knowledge did the Queen have? Was Kerr acting alone? The answer lies in the Palace letters, a series of letters between Kerr and the Queen's private secretary Sir Martin Charteris. A series of letters that were locked away in the Australian Archives.
The majority of this book follows historian Jenny Hocking's attempts at gaining access to the letters, a straight forward request the eventually ended up at the High Court of Australia. What could have been a fairly tedious book is actually fascinating in the way Hocking lays out the various stumbling blocks, the brief moments of hope, the bizarre justifications from the Archives and seemingly biased federal judges to her final victory at obtaining the letters.
"This was a carefully crafted historical construction, an intervention in the process of history formation itself, through the deliberate withholding of information that would tell us otherwise, and the repeated circulation of a version of events that was known to be false."
I found it fascinating just how much effort the Archives put into keeping these letters secret. It puzzled me, but I now assume they simply wanted to protect the Queen and the major conservative party who gained power thanks to the Dismissal. This is more clear once the Archives were forced to release the letters and in a carefully curated move, selected several letters in a public unveiling, declaring the Queen had no prior knowledge, despite the evidence in many of the remaining 200 plus letters.
The remaining section of the book follows the information contained in the letters, which was a confirmation of years of Hocking's research. The Queen via her private secretary was aware that Kerr was considering sacking the government long before his eventual justification. Kerr feared Whitlam was on the verge of sacking him, so it was always a case of self preservation.
"In these letters ranging from the deferential to the obsequious, Kerr is revealed as insecure, indiscrete, easily led by flattery and expertly played by the seasoned palace courtier, Sir Martin Charteris."
Hocking eviscerates Kerr throughout this book, more often than not simply using his own words from his voluminous letters. He fawns over the Queen, constantly begs for affirmation for his actions, and generally comes across as pompous, vain and self absorbed. He gets played by the Palace, and the Opposition Leader who conspired with Kerr to take government, and somewhat unsurprisingly discarded him once Kerr was no longer of use.
One confusing element is the introduction is written by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. He was (and possibly remains) a prominent voice of the pro-Republic movement, but as Prime Minister did nothing to release the letters, despite it occurring during his brief administration. I assume it is yet another of his attempts to smooth over that period of history, to make him appear a better leader because the one before and after were so terrible. It could also be an attempt by Hocking to reveal even those sympathetic to her plight still fear the backlash of the Monarchists littering the branches of the Australian government.
I'm clearly biased in my reading of this book, but I'm biased in favour of Australians being able to choose their governments and being able to access our own history. Hocking notes in the closing passages of the book that even after the reveal of the Palace letters she uncovered more correspondence between Kerr and Charteris and wonders what else is hidden away in the Archives, safely away from the eyes of the Australian public.
In 1975 the Governor General of Australia, John Kerr (the Queen's representative in Australia) sacked the Federal government of Australia led by Gough Whitlam and appointed the opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as the new Prime Minister. It sparked outrage at the time and has often been cited as one of the reasons why Australia should become a Republic.
One of the questions that has been asked since then was how much knowledge did the Queen have? Was Kerr acting alone? The answer lies in the Palace letters, a series of letters between Kerr and the Queen's private secretary Sir Martin Charteris. A series of letters that were locked away in the Australian Archives.
The majority of this book follows historian Jenny Hocking's attempts at gaining access to the letters, a straight forward request the eventually ended up at the High Court of Australia. What could have been a fairly tedious book is actually fascinating in the way Hocking lays out the various stumbling blocks, the brief moments of hope, the bizarre justifications from the Archives and seemingly biased federal judges to her final victory at obtaining the letters.
"This was a carefully crafted historical construction, an intervention in the process of history formation itself, through the deliberate withholding of information that would tell us otherwise, and the repeated circulation of a version of events that was known to be false."
I found it fascinating just how much effort the Archives put into keeping these letters secret. It puzzled me, but I now assume they simply wanted to protect the Queen and the major conservative party who gained power thanks to the Dismissal. This is more clear once the Archives were forced to release the letters and in a carefully curated move, selected several letters in a public unveiling, declaring the Queen had no prior knowledge, despite the evidence in many of the remaining 200 plus letters.
The remaining section of the book follows the information contained in the letters, which was a confirmation of years of Hocking's research. The Queen via her private secretary was aware that Kerr was considering sacking the government long before his eventual justification. Kerr feared Whitlam was on the verge of sacking him, so it was always a case of self preservation.
"In these letters ranging from the deferential to the obsequious, Kerr is revealed as insecure, indiscrete, easily led by flattery and expertly played by the seasoned palace courtier, Sir Martin Charteris."
Hocking eviscerates Kerr throughout this book, more often than not simply using his own words from his voluminous letters. He fawns over the Queen, constantly begs for affirmation for his actions, and generally comes across as pompous, vain and self absorbed. He gets played by the Palace, and the Opposition Leader who conspired with Kerr to take government, and somewhat unsurprisingly discarded him once Kerr was no longer of use.
One confusing element is the introduction is written by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. He was (and possibly remains) a prominent voice of the pro-Republic movement, but as Prime Minister did nothing to release the letters, despite it occurring during his brief administration. I assume it is yet another of his attempts to smooth over that period of history, to make him appear a better leader because the one before and after were so terrible. It could also be an attempt by Hocking to reveal even those sympathetic to her plight still fear the backlash of the Monarchists littering the branches of the Australian government.
I'm clearly biased in my reading of this book, but I'm biased in favour of Australians being able to choose their governments and being able to access our own history. Hocking notes in the closing passages of the book that even after the reveal of the Palace letters she uncovered more correspondence between Kerr and Charteris and wonders what else is hidden away in the Archives, safely away from the eyes of the Australian public.
January 5, 2021
Jenny Hocking in this book gives the reader (and this should be all Australians) a very, detailed and through description of the involvement of the Queen though her private secretary Sir Martin Charteris, in the dismissal of an elected Australian government. As disturbing as that is, the Queen has also been involved in maintain the embargo on the correspondence between Sir John Kerr, the Australian Governor-General at the time, and Sir Martin Charteris. This included changing the original Instrument of Deposit of Sir John Kerr when his papers where placed in the National Archives from open to closed after he had died, Of course when you read this book you will know why that was done.
Jenny Hocking is an emeritus Professor of History at Monash University and uses her knowledge to give us a clear and concise picture of the events leading up to the Dismissal on Nov 11th 1975 of Gough Whitlam by Sir John Kerr. She weaves her narrative by alternating her long struggle with the National Archives to release these letters with a discussion of the events that preceded The Dismissal. The book is clear, concise and Jenny Hocking does not get bogged down with detail, especially in regard to the legal issues that she faced. The narrative flows well and the book is easy to understand, especially for people who may not be familiar with ether The Dismissal or the Australian system of government.
While the involvement of the Queen in Australian politics is disturbing, what is even more disturbing is the attitude of the Director of the National Archives David Fricker. He was insistent that these very important documents were personal rather than belonging to the Commonwealth. In addition, he allowed changes to Instruments of Deposit that covered these documents both in the original file and a duplicated file. In allowing the Queen to embargo these letters he was going against what was in the best interests of Australia and Australians. The legal cot of the National Archives amounted to over $1,000,000, however with all costs awarded against the National Archives (that is they had to pay Jenny Hocking’s costs) that bill will double. Surely this money would have been better spent in providing the necessary services and staff to ensure that Australians have access to our own records.
For the inmformati0on of those people who are not Australian, The Dismissal is always with capitals. Just so that you know.
I think that this shou8ld be required reading when there is another discussion about Australia becoming a Republic.
Jenny Hocking is an emeritus Professor of History at Monash University and uses her knowledge to give us a clear and concise picture of the events leading up to the Dismissal on Nov 11th 1975 of Gough Whitlam by Sir John Kerr. She weaves her narrative by alternating her long struggle with the National Archives to release these letters with a discussion of the events that preceded The Dismissal. The book is clear, concise and Jenny Hocking does not get bogged down with detail, especially in regard to the legal issues that she faced. The narrative flows well and the book is easy to understand, especially for people who may not be familiar with ether The Dismissal or the Australian system of government.
While the involvement of the Queen in Australian politics is disturbing, what is even more disturbing is the attitude of the Director of the National Archives David Fricker. He was insistent that these very important documents were personal rather than belonging to the Commonwealth. In addition, he allowed changes to Instruments of Deposit that covered these documents both in the original file and a duplicated file. In allowing the Queen to embargo these letters he was going against what was in the best interests of Australia and Australians. The legal cot of the National Archives amounted to over $1,000,000, however with all costs awarded against the National Archives (that is they had to pay Jenny Hocking’s costs) that bill will double. Surely this money would have been better spent in providing the necessary services and staff to ensure that Australians have access to our own records.
For the inmformati0on of those people who are not Australian, The Dismissal is always with capitals. Just so that you know.
I think that this shou8ld be required reading when there is another discussion about Australia becoming a Republic.
October 12, 2022
A gripping courtroom drama, and a salutary antidote to the recent wave of royal sentimentality washing over Australia in the wake of the passing of the Queen. This book makes an irrefutable case that the Queen was complicit in the 1975 dismissal of the Australian Labor government. Her life of service and selfless devotion, about which we have been hearing and reading so much of late, is but one side of the medallion.
A great part of the book tells the story of the struggle by Professor Hocking and numbers of others to bring to light the correspondence, embargoed by the Palace (though this was not at first apparent), between Governor-General Sir John Kerr and Private Secretary to the Queen Sir Martin Charteris in the period leading up to and immediately subsequent to November 11th, 1975, when Kerr sacked Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. In the latter part of the book, the egregious impropriety of the roles played by the Palace, the Governor-General, then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser, Justice Sir Anthony Mason, and other luminaries of the conservative establishment, is laid bare by means of the letters. I can almost forgive Kerr, a fawning royalist with a distorted conception of the function of the office of Governor-General, who deluded himself that he was doing his duty, though his constitutional duty was in fact to heed the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. Mason, a judge of the High Court of Australia, I find it quite impossible to excuse.
I have long tended to the view that constitutional monarchy, though ridiculous in principle, seems to work, and for that reason should be retained. The rub with republicanism is getting agreement on the model. The 1999 Australian republic referendum was doomed from the outset, I believe, because there was no consensus about the model proposed. Having just read this excellent book, I am now persuaded that there is a good case for change, not for the usually advanced glib patriotic reasons but because (as Hocking has convinced me) the blighters just can’t be trusted to honour the rules when it doesn’t suit them. It really should be done, but beware of creating a new locus of real power to replace the usually innocuous cipher that history has bequeathed to us.
The book would be improved by the inclusion of an index.
A great part of the book tells the story of the struggle by Professor Hocking and numbers of others to bring to light the correspondence, embargoed by the Palace (though this was not at first apparent), between Governor-General Sir John Kerr and Private Secretary to the Queen Sir Martin Charteris in the period leading up to and immediately subsequent to November 11th, 1975, when Kerr sacked Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. In the latter part of the book, the egregious impropriety of the roles played by the Palace, the Governor-General, then opposition leader Malcolm Fraser, Justice Sir Anthony Mason, and other luminaries of the conservative establishment, is laid bare by means of the letters. I can almost forgive Kerr, a fawning royalist with a distorted conception of the function of the office of Governor-General, who deluded himself that he was doing his duty, though his constitutional duty was in fact to heed the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. Mason, a judge of the High Court of Australia, I find it quite impossible to excuse.
I have long tended to the view that constitutional monarchy, though ridiculous in principle, seems to work, and for that reason should be retained. The rub with republicanism is getting agreement on the model. The 1999 Australian republic referendum was doomed from the outset, I believe, because there was no consensus about the model proposed. Having just read this excellent book, I am now persuaded that there is a good case for change, not for the usually advanced glib patriotic reasons but because (as Hocking has convinced me) the blighters just can’t be trusted to honour the rules when it doesn’t suit them. It really should be done, but beware of creating a new locus of real power to replace the usually innocuous cipher that history has bequeathed to us.
The book would be improved by the inclusion of an index.
March 31, 2021
When I first heard about his book coming out on the ABC nightly news, I knew I had to read it. When I saw she was giving a talk at Writer's Week, I made it a must see and after Ms Hocking's hour long talk, I bought the book and got it signed. This book should be required reading for every Australian and taught in secondary school history. One would think that a non-fiction book about the legal process of trying to open up files about the Governor General's letters to the Queen over a 10 year period would be rather dry. It is not, Ms Hocking has writen a page turner in the mold of a great thriller.
Government documents are kept at the National Archives, whose function is to preserve them for historical research. Despite the law of the land that requires government documents marked confidential to be released 30 years after the fact, the National Archives fought for 10 years to keep these files and letters locked up at the Queens decision with the backing of the Liberal (conservative) government and they spent millions of dollars in legal fees to do so. As it happens there were 1000's of pages of documents in these files, showing a constant stream of letters between Governor General John Kerr and the Queen's personal secretary, Martin Charteris. As well as notes from meetings with two members of the Australian Supreme Court, Prince Charles and the leader of the opposition Malcolm Fraser. After this book's revelations one hopes there will be another referendum on establishing a Republic; cutting ties with the Royal Family once and for all. And this book should be required reading to be able to vote in such.
Government documents are kept at the National Archives, whose function is to preserve them for historical research. Despite the law of the land that requires government documents marked confidential to be released 30 years after the fact, the National Archives fought for 10 years to keep these files and letters locked up at the Queens decision with the backing of the Liberal (conservative) government and they spent millions of dollars in legal fees to do so. As it happens there were 1000's of pages of documents in these files, showing a constant stream of letters between Governor General John Kerr and the Queen's personal secretary, Martin Charteris. As well as notes from meetings with two members of the Australian Supreme Court, Prince Charles and the leader of the opposition Malcolm Fraser. After this book's revelations one hopes there will be another referendum on establishing a Republic; cutting ties with the Royal Family once and for all. And this book should be required reading to be able to vote in such.
April 7, 2024
The heading is a little misleading—the first 65% of the book is dedicated to Professor Hocking’s attempts in court to open the Palace Letters to the public. In that sense it reads like a memoir, and does not provide a complete history of the dismissal as some may expect. Since I have not read any other works on the dismissal going in, I was a bit disappointed and at times confused. A brief history of the crisis is given in the 2nd half of the book, but it’s not nearly enough.
Hocking’s analysis of the letters is incisive and reasoned, although it is a bit one sided—she believes they prove the Palace’s involvement at every step of the way, that Martin Charteris’s refusal to tell John Kerr that his considering of sacking Gough Whitlam (and some would argue an encouragement to exercise the reserve powers) was an abdication of his duty and a gross display of royal influence in Australian politics. What I think is most damning was when Charteris cited a Canadian senator’s legal analysis that Whitlam could be dismissed thru reserve powers, but said senator somehow had no knowledge that such a thing as a half-Senate election could be called.
There is another book on the same subject arguing the exact opposite as Hocking, and may be worth a read as a counterweight. Hocking’s journey to retrieving the letters was interesting enough, but she appears to be pointing any curious readers to her past book on the dismissal for a more thorough history. From an outside observer, her thoughts are cogent and at the least, not conspiratorial. This book can only serve as a starting point on dismissal info/literature, but it is solid enough.
Hocking’s analysis of the letters is incisive and reasoned, although it is a bit one sided—she believes they prove the Palace’s involvement at every step of the way, that Martin Charteris’s refusal to tell John Kerr that his considering of sacking Gough Whitlam (and some would argue an encouragement to exercise the reserve powers) was an abdication of his duty and a gross display of royal influence in Australian politics. What I think is most damning was when Charteris cited a Canadian senator’s legal analysis that Whitlam could be dismissed thru reserve powers, but said senator somehow had no knowledge that such a thing as a half-Senate election could be called.
There is another book on the same subject arguing the exact opposite as Hocking, and may be worth a read as a counterweight. Hocking’s journey to retrieving the letters was interesting enough, but she appears to be pointing any curious readers to her past book on the dismissal for a more thorough history. From an outside observer, her thoughts are cogent and at the least, not conspiratorial. This book can only serve as a starting point on dismissal info/literature, but it is solid enough.
February 10, 2021
Jenny Hocking has written a two-volume biography of Gough Whitlam, and has been working on the Dismissal for many years. Indeed, if it were not for her persistence, and the generosity of pro-bono legal representation, historians would only have been able to work with retrospective accounts of the leadup to the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government. The real-time documentation leading up to the November 11 1975 events was held at the pleasure of the Queen as 'personal' documents instead of the Commonwealth records that they are. After the National Archives refused Hocking access to the correspondence between Sir John Kerr and the Queen's Private Secretary Sir Martin Charteris after the statutory period had elapsed, she embarked on a ten-year battle to resolve the status and ownership of these documents as part of the historiographical record of Australia. This book is the story of that fight....
While, of course, tales of the archives and courtroom stories will appeal to a particular type of reader, this book itself is very accessible. Who said that historians can't be heroes? If you're tempted to read it, read Hocking's The Dismissal Dossier first (which will probably get you fired up) and then read this book, almost as a type of morality tale, to see the Mighty Fallen and the rewards for persistence and the courage to put yourself on the line - for our right to know our own history.
For my complete review, please visit:
https://residentjudge.com/2021/02/10/...
While, of course, tales of the archives and courtroom stories will appeal to a particular type of reader, this book itself is very accessible. Who said that historians can't be heroes? If you're tempted to read it, read Hocking's The Dismissal Dossier first (which will probably get you fired up) and then read this book, almost as a type of morality tale, to see the Mighty Fallen and the rewards for persistence and the courage to put yourself on the line - for our right to know our own history.
For my complete review, please visit:
https://residentjudge.com/2021/02/10/...
October 4, 2022
The 1975 dismissal of Gough Whitlam's progressive Labor government by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr following communication with Queen Elizabeth's closest advisors is one of the biggest scandals in Australia's political history, not least due to the secrecy in which Kerr's communication with Buckingham Palace in the weeks leading up to the dismissal has been shrouded for decades. This record of the long-running battle to open up the letters from the National Archives by Whitlam's foremost historian is a piece-by-piece examination of the legal process; you'll definitely need to have a general prior knowledge of the history around the dismissal and it reads a little drily, but the final exposition of the infamous letters makes it worth the read. A (still fairly) timely rebuttal to those who argue that the late Elizabeth Windsor remained politically neutral at all times and further strength to the cause for Australia becoming a republic with an Australian head of state.
January 15, 2025
This is an engaging book which has converted me to a passionate Republican. Prior to this book I was fairly indifferent to the question around Head of State and thought it mattered little. This book smashes my lazy attitude.
Also, prior to this book I naively had faith that judges left their opinions, personal values and predispositions at the door and dealt with the facts in front of them. This book suggests to me that in fact this is not always the case. Unrelated to the book but relevant is the growing argument of sourcing our top legal positions from a broader gene pool (or from a wider array of backgrounds and from all walks of life). I have a better understanding of this emerging argument after reading this book (no spoilers).
Overall a 5/5. If you're a little unclear of what happened or unaware of the history, I recommend brushing up on the key events before reading this book.
Also, prior to this book I naively had faith that judges left their opinions, personal values and predispositions at the door and dealt with the facts in front of them. This book suggests to me that in fact this is not always the case. Unrelated to the book but relevant is the growing argument of sourcing our top legal positions from a broader gene pool (or from a wider array of backgrounds and from all walks of life). I have a better understanding of this emerging argument after reading this book (no spoilers).
Overall a 5/5. If you're a little unclear of what happened or unaware of the history, I recommend brushing up on the key events before reading this book.
March 17, 2022
Very good book on the Dismissal of Gough Whitlam in 1975. It shows that the Palace did know that the Dismissal was likely to happen. It also shows that the Palace gave Kerr biased advice. It shows Sir Martin Charteris had delusions of grandeur to match Kerr's. I'm guessing the Queen would have told them to take a powder and have a good lie down if she knew what was going on.
One hopes that Governor Generals no longer write to the Palace. One hopes that minor functionaries in the Palace know that they don't have a say in democracies on the other side of the world.
Whitlam was a goose to appoint Kerr. Kerr destroyed himself in the process and all anyone remembers about Fraser is how he came to the Prime Ministership deceitfully only to disown his own party in later life.
One hopes that Governor Generals no longer write to the Palace. One hopes that minor functionaries in the Palace know that they don't have a say in democracies on the other side of the world.
Whitlam was a goose to appoint Kerr. Kerr destroyed himself in the process and all anyone remembers about Fraser is how he came to the Prime Ministership deceitfully only to disown his own party in later life.
November 19, 2021
Thoroughly reinforces the duplicity and arrogant pride of Kerr, the dead hand of the monarchy and the sheer brazen unlawfulness of Mason.
Professor Hocking has detailed a shameful history; the chicanery of Kerr, the mendacity of Charteris and then the active obstructionism of the National Archives. How is the position of the various Federal court justices tenable when their decision is overturned 6 - 1 in the High Court?
Yet for the buffoon at the centre of this, one has to constantly wonder why Whitlam appointed an unstable self aggrandising pompous twat to a role so clearly beyond his capabilities.
Professor Hocking has detailed a shameful history; the chicanery of Kerr, the mendacity of Charteris and then the active obstructionism of the National Archives. How is the position of the various Federal court justices tenable when their decision is overturned 6 - 1 in the High Court?
Yet for the buffoon at the centre of this, one has to constantly wonder why Whitlam appointed an unstable self aggrandising pompous twat to a role so clearly beyond his capabilities.
November 24, 2024
Two thrillingly byzantine constitutional law thrillers in one: the story of the National Archives' reluctant release of titular letters, including subsequent appeals process, and, for the first time, the true story of Sir John Kerr's headlong plunge into gurning ignominy, spurred on by a terminal case of sycophantic monarchism.
Hocking somehow manages to keep the reader abreast of every detailed legal argument, rebuttal and setback in each of the separate stages of the Letter's forced captivity, all the while deploying decades-worth of ripple-effect & aftermath to bestow nuance, texture, and import upon a book that could've, in the wrong hands, been drier than an El Niño summer.
Hocking somehow manages to keep the reader abreast of every detailed legal argument, rebuttal and setback in each of the separate stages of the Letter's forced captivity, all the while deploying decades-worth of ripple-effect & aftermath to bestow nuance, texture, and import upon a book that could've, in the wrong hands, been drier than an El Niño summer.
December 11, 2024
i enjoyed this, but it's worth mentioning that this is not just about the palace letters. the first half of the book is actually about the legal battle to get the letters released, which is interesting but which isn't really what i was here for. the subsequent chapters on the actual dismissal are a lot more interesting, and i kind of wish the entire book was just an updated record of the dismissal with the new information. while the way the archives acted was frankly galling and inappropriate, it's not quite as interesting as the actual dismissal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews