In an extraordinary attack on the memory of the late Governor-General Sir John Kerr, former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser claims the Governor-General telephoned him on the morning of 11 November 1975 before the then Prime Minister EG Whitlam saw the Governor-General to seek an early half Senate election.

Fraser's waited 34 years to make his claim about Sir John Kerr

The states were unlikely to offer their necessary co-operation in holding an early half Senate election and in any event the new senators would not take office for eight months. The Governor–General could not see this as a solution to the Senate’s withholding of of supply to the government.

Accordingly, he dismissed Mr. Whitlam on the ancient principle that no government may rule without supply being granted by Parliament. Shortly afterwards, the Governor-General commissioned the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister pending an election on 10 December.

Malcolm Fraser claims Sir John Kerr telephoned him earlier that morning after a meeting between Prime Minister Whitlam and Mr. Fraser which had failed to resolve the political crisis resulting from the opposition holding the supply bills in the Senate pending the calling of an early election.

This claim is made in a new book by Malcolm Fraser and Margaret Simons, “Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs”.  Extracts are being published in The Australian and other News Limited newspapers. (These extracts are not accessible on the internet.)

The question must be asked why Mr. Fraser waited so long after the death of Sir John Kerr to make such a damaging claim. Sir John Kerr denied any such prior conversation took place.

Malcolm Fraser claims he was telephoned by the Governor-General at 9.55 am, about one hour before Mr. Whitlam was dismissed. He says he kept a signed note of the conversation, and that his principal private secretary, Dale Budd, remembers seeing this on Fraser’s desk later on November 11.” 

Mr. Budd’s recollection is of course no evidence about the time of the conversation, which is crucial. The following question must necessarily be asked. Knowing this revelation, if true,  would damage Sir John Kerr’s reputation, why has Malcolm Fraser waited so long to reveal this?

Mr. Fraser says that denying the conversation was a sign of weakness on the part of Sir John. “The are many signs of weakness in his character,” he says, softening the blow by adding “ and that is probably true of most of us.”

He continued:” It was an error of judgement and it was a weakness not to explain it how I’ve explained it.” Mr. Fraser does concede that Sir John Kerr thought the worst thing he could do in the eyes of history would be to involve The Queen in a constitutional crisis.

In the 1999 referendum, Malcolm Fraser made the extraordinary claim that had Australia been a republic, the 1975 political crisis would not have occurred. (He actually appeared with Gough Whitlam calling for a Yes vote. It is more likely that appearing together they increased the No vote.)

It is true that the political crisis would have been resolved under the 1999 republic, but not in a way which would have pleased Mr. Fraser.  Under it, Mr. Whitlam would have been able to dismiss the President before he acted against the Prime Minister, or have claimed he had done so.

The reason is that the republican constitution which Malcolm Fraser inexplicably campaigned for would have allowed a prime minister to dismiss a president without notice, without reason and without any right to an appeal or effective review.

This was an appallingly dangerous provision, one unknown in any other republic. No one claiming to be interested in sound constitutional government and the need for checks and balances on political power could have supported it, but many did.

Malcolm Fraser says that in the conversation, Sir John asked him for confirmation of certain conditions if he were to be made Prime Minister. These were that he would immediately advise a double dissolution of both Houses of Parliament, run a caretaker administration, obtain supply straightaway, and guarantee not to pursue Gough Whitlam or the Labor ministers over the attempts to obtain foreign loans irregularly.

The question must be why did Malcolm Fraser wait so long to reveal this, and why did he reveal it at a time when the person most damaged would not be in a position to reply? In the extract published, Mr. Fraser does not explain this.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

38 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Hmmph says:

      05:09am | 23/02/10

      The world, according to Malcolm, seemed to revolve around Malcolm, some things never change do they? The choice was, and I do not joke, continue surviving on the scraps the kids didn’t eat (there was a drought and no such thing as the dole or relief for primary producers then) or take a punt on getting some relief from the onslaught of taxes, licences and regulation designed to knock business and production out of the water.  Didn’t like arrogant, self serving Malcolm then, like him less now.

    • John A Neve says:

      06:04am | 23/02/10

      The inference here is that Malcolm Fraser is lieing.
      As to why Malcolm waited so long, it could be he was saving John Kerr some embarassment.

      Auguments like this, between two upright figures of our community, highlight the problems with our society.

      This was all 35 years ago and still they babble on.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      02:38pm | 23/02/10

      I see no inference here just a great big gap in time as the author has stated for this piece of information to come out.  I really wish Malcolm Fraser would keep quiet about Sir John Kerr, the man is deceased and history/historians have well and truly attacked him over the years.  Sir John Kerr was placed in an invidious position by the then warring Prime Minister and Opposition Leader:  no matter what decision he made he would have been made the scapegoat for the turmoil that followed.  There is no further point to be made here, let the dead rest in peace.  Just for the record, I fully supported Sir John’s decision at the time given the facts as they were known then about the incumbent government in 1975.

    • Hedda Clark says:

      11:11am | 24/02/10

      Repeat after me ‘argument’, NOT augument

    • clarencegirl says:

      07:20am | 23/02/10

      Oh for heaven’s sake!  Grow up Flint and stop this manufactured outrage.
      The day after the Whitlam Government was elected for the first time Coalition heavies and some prominent businessmen met to explore how they could bring the new Labor government down.
      The day after that again certain Nats were bragging that Whitlam would be gone within a year and openly talked about this meeting.
      The campaign to subvert the will of the people was relentless and known within international diplomatic and business circles.
      At least a month before dismissal of the Whitlam Government the exact method for overthrow was also known by some outside that plotter’s clique and the G-G’s active behind-the-scenes participation was being privately discussed.
      Neither Kerr nor Fraser came out of this smelling of roses and both were not candid with the Australian people at the time.
      You can bet your bottom dollar that Fraser in his turn in this new book is less than open about his own part in the Dismissal.

    • Randal says:

      08:55am | 23/02/10

      Clarencegirl at the end of the day, regardless of the revisionist view of history put forward by the ALP, the people ultimately decided, with an overwhelming majority, that the Whitlam government had to go.

      That is democracy, and the action’s of Kerr or Fraser are irrelevant, as the people spoke and clearly supported the actions of Kerr, an action forced upon him by the Prime Ministers refusal to call an election to resolve the political crisis.

      I have very little time for the two political men involved, Fraser could be trusted about as far as I can spit and Whitlam who out of desperation to stay in the top job put his own career ahead of the nation.

      Kerr did what he had to do and for taking the brave action and resolving the greatest political crisis in our history he has been castigated and had his character questioned.

      In reality he is the only one who acted appropriately through the political circus that has now become known as the dismissal and this should not be forgotten.

    • EJ says:

      09:47am | 23/02/10

      Still didn’t stop Whitlam & Co from throwing the taxpayers money around like drunken sailors did it?? And now we are seeing an exact replica of that in the Rudd mob. I already can feel a massive shift in the electorate just as i did when Whitlam was bleeding us dry & if the Labor goons can’t open their eyes & see this then it’s their political funeral. Both Liberals & Labor need to wake up to the fact that we the tax payers are NOT stupid!!!

    • Vivian says:

      10:11am | 23/02/10

      Yeah, it’s shocking that a group of conservatives should discuss how to deal with the Whitlam flimflam.

      And it’s good to know by inference that nobody from the unions, academia or the welfare industry would ever talk about how to oppose a conservative government.

      It’s called democracy, clarencegirl, so you can go back to reading the Green Left Weekly.  Must admit you are right about Fraser, though.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:20am | 23/02/10

      EJ,

      Is it possible for you and those like you to make a comment on any topic without mentioning Rudd or Whitlam. It’s 35 years since Whitlam
      was in power.

      Nowhere in your post do you mention the two main characters in this article!!

      Do you even read what’s writen?
      Or do you just use old comments from your store?

    • acker says:

      07:27am | 23/02/10

      A risk assesment would suggest we remove the major root cause of the problem…The Govenor General and The Monarchy

    • Change for change sake huh says:

      08:17pm | 23/02/10

      What risk are you assessing?

      Supply being blocked and going to an election to decide?

      Or a “successful” republican model - they’re bloody thin on the ground aren’t they?  Just ask all the immigrants fleeing their Republics.

      If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

    • acker says:

      09:32am | 24/02/10

      Including commonwealth republics such as Sri Lanka and Pakistan :?

    • Russ says:

      07:52am | 23/02/10

      And the point of the article?  Are you encouraging people to buy The Australian or pushing your monarchy barrow again?  Is it better that an unelected drunk could dismiss a government than that the elected prime minister be permitted to govern?

    • acker says:

      08:28am | 23/02/10

      An unelected drunk whos boss was Queen Elizabeth II .... who has experience and comes from a family that has experience in being in charge of unelected drunks who control nations…remember the Viceroy’s in India wink

    • Al says:

      01:24pm | 23/02/10

      Nice try Russ but you have failed to understand the simple fact that Whitlam couldn’t govern - he didn’t have supply.

    • iansand says:

      08:02am | 23/02/10

      What the good professor fails to remind us iss that this bit:

      “The reason is that the republican constitution which Malcolm Fraser inexplicably campaigned for would have allowed a prime minister to dismiss a president without notice, without reason and without any right to an appeal or effective review.

      “This was an appallingly dangerous provision, one unknown in any other republic. No one claiming to be interested in sound constitutional government and the need for checks and balances on political power could have supported it, but many did.”

      Is precisely the current situation.  At the moment the GG can be dissmissed on the whim of the PM.  There are no “checks and balances”.  Unfortunately the monarchists of this world are prepared to say anything to preserve their system, without concern about the truth.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:04am | 23/02/10

      David, fellow monarchist syncophant B. Bishop is doing the Right wing funnies this morning, though yur huffing and puffing about something no one gives a rats about is worth a laugh.
      If you really believe Fraser is lie-ing, why not be courageous enough to say so? , or is that too ill mannered for a dapper chap like yourself.?

    • ~Bug Catcher~ says:

      08:09am | 23/02/10

      Malcolm Fraser is too old to remember every detail of thirty five years ago.
      I voted for him but he was always an arrogant snob from The Western District.  He only sniffed his rarefied air.
      I don’t think he ever forgave Miss Tammy [His Mrs] for saying that Bob Hawke was sexy.

      Even in his old age Fraser has come out with all his “do gooder” statements. He never bothered with foreign peasants when he was PM, why the turnaround?
      Back to your district Mal and crutch some sheep!

    • Jeff Mueller says:

      09:20am | 23/02/10

      You’re as snobby for ascribing all of Fraser’s character traits to accidents of birth and upbringing. You also have a short memory there - he allowed a big influx of Vietnamese refugees into the country post-1975 on humanitarian grounds and against the objections of many in the Liberal Party, including John Howard.  Is it that he’s a reminder of what the Liberal Party used to be, that upsets you so much?  Mal and Tammy would probably be pruning roses or vines down on the Mornington Peninsula where they live rather than crutching sheep.

    • Bug Catcher says:

      10:10am | 23/02/10

      Jeff Mueller, don’t get off your bike.!

      I am on your side. Died in the wool Lib.  I always found Fraser to be an arrogant PM at the time of his leadership. He was a bloody snob!
      I did like Harold Holt and love John Howard as true elder Statesman.
      John Gorton was a bit unusual and Billy McMahon well, we won’t go there.
      Tammy was always a fine ladylike person and I think she would enjoy The Peninsular way of life.

    • Jeff Mueller says:

      03:40pm | 23/02/10

      So you hated them all except Holt, Howard and Menzies?

    • WTF says:

      08:32am | 23/02/10

      Monarchists like Flint and dyed in the wool Tories hate Fraser because he supported the republic referendum, he opposed Aparthied (one of the greatest atrocities since the Holocaust) and has taken a more liberal stand on many social issue since he lost the ‘83 election.  The “do gooder” accusation of one person here confirms that in the eyes of many Tories he is a traitor to his class.

    • Another Republican says:

      11:08am | 23/02/10

      Totally agree WTF. Flint you are a dying breed. Hopefully you will live long enough to see this great nation take its place amongst the worlds great republics. Old men should no longer decide the future of our country with antiquated ideology.Go and have another cup of tea and ponder the demise of your cherished monarchy. All things pass in time.

    • Rob says:

      04:04pm | 23/02/10

      Fraser was a do nothing politician and was incapable of pushing through even moderate economic reform. What a great idea supporting the ANC and Mugabe. It was just lucky that in SA they had Mandela otherwise it would have ended up a bloodbath - greatest atrocitie since the Holocast - please - how about Stalins Gulags, Cambodia, Cultural Revolution,  Ukranian Genocide and the story of Africa post whitey. Do you think the average black Soth African is any better off now?

    • Kieran says:

      08:58am | 23/02/10

      Kerr was a disgrace and so is Flint. Fraser doesn’t like talking about the Dismissal because he knows that is role in it was morally reprehensible. This article is hopeless, like everything that Flint has written. He is completely servile towards the monarchy, always willing to tug his forelock to the Royal Family. Pathetic.

    • Al says:

      01:28pm | 23/02/10

      Why not deomonstrate why Flint’s article is hopless rather then laying on some facile abuse?

      There are few people in this country with the understanding of the constitution Flint has.

      Without an argument backing it your point of view is worthless.

    • iansand says:

      01:45pm | 23/02/10

      See my comment at 9-02 today.  Flint is either stupid or deliberately misleading.  My guess is the latter, but you never know.

    • ~Rumpleteazer~ says:

      09:24am | 23/02/10

      Two great statements came out of The Fraser Years:

      1. Put your money in a shoebox under the bed.

      2. Life wasn’t meant to be easy!

      I still quote them to this day.

    • Jason says:

      02:11pm | 23/02/10

      In the present system the Prime Minister could have dismissed the GG without notice, all he would have had to do is gave advice directly to the queen to dismiss the GG and she would have no other option but to do it as she acts on the advice of the PM. However it was a game of who dismissed who first, and Kerr and Whitlam had had discussions on this same scenario before, so Kerr knew that he would have to act fast. I am sure the outcome would not have been different.

    • Peter of Adelaide says:

      04:09pm | 23/02/10

      I have long had no confidence no respect for Malcolm Fraser or Gough Whitlam. For Fraser to now attack the deceased Sir John Kerr would add to my lack of respect and lack of confidence in Fraser, only that is not possible.

      I have not heard some of the disturbing comments regarding the Republic before.  I quote some disturbing comments which include:-

      ......”.The reason is that the republican constitution which Malcolm Fraser inexplicably campaigned for would have allowed a prime minister to dismiss a president without notice, without reason and without any right to an appeal or effective review.

      This was an appallingly dangerous provision, one unknown in any other republic. No one claiming to be interested in sound constitutional government and the need for checks and balances on political power could have supported it, but many did.”..............

    • Temerarious says:

      04:12pm | 23/02/10

      Another Republican @ 12:08pm. I’ve got news for you, buddy….the only thing that’s dying out these days is the push for a republic. Any person with common sense can see that Australians love their country and their flag the way they are. When you tell them they need a republic, you are in effect telling them that there is something inherently wrong with the country, the constitution and our way of life. I would suggest to you that the pride, passion and happiness of the majority of Australians, as seen on occasions like Australia Day, shows that we are more than happy to keep the status quo. 

      Common sense would also tell you that the more you push your confused, expensive, taxpayer-funded republican agenda, the less people are likely to listen. Oh wait, that’s similar to what is happening to Rudd, now that people have had enough of his hyperbole, spin and reckless spending!

    • Reform Now says:

      04:23pm | 24/02/10

      There is something wrong with the constitution, namely the lack of entrenched rights. We do not even have free speech, it is only implied. As for the flag, the millions of Australians who do not have British ancestory cannot relate to the butchers apron in the corner and the embarrassing perception we have a colony mentality.

    • Chris says:

      06:58pm | 23/02/10

      Of course, all the public had to do to settle the matter in Whitlam’s favour (and consign Fraser and Kerr to the dustbin of history) was to re-elect the Labor Government. The fact that they overwhelmingly—overwhelmingly—endorsed the decision that had so incensed many of them only weeks before, perhaps says it all. Whitlam was a great thinker but a lousy Prime Minister. The people were clearly sick of him after three years.
      One further point: what other action could Kerr have taken? You can’t govern without money. Whitlam should have called an election and saved himself the ignominy of being sacked and the nation the tedium of thirty-five years of hand-wringing and mud-slinging.

    • Richard says:

      08:13pm | 23/02/10

      If Whitlam was so great, why was there a landslide coalition victory after he was sacked?

    • loz says:

      12:14am | 24/02/10

      Having the opportunity to read articles by a pro monarchist such as David Flint on a news site is quite a rare find.  The informative look at Malcolm Fraser’s swipe at Sir John Kerr was worth considering for the reader and not the opportunity for a swipe back at the author (who is well qualified in constitutional law). As for Malcolm Fraser, it seems ‘time’ for a few swipes at past PM’s policies too, as he disclosed on his appearance on the 7.30 report. Once a politician always a politician.

    • Democrat says:

      12:37am | 24/02/10

      The event of November 1975 were and remain a disgrace to anyone who believes in democracy.  An elected government dismissed by an individual elected by nobody, in fact an individual who never held elected office.  Our nation and its institutions were attacked on so many fronts. 
      The subversion of the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box in 1974 - the rorting of the conventions that hitherto been observed by both sides of politics by not filling senate vacancies by members of the same party.
      The provision of an advisory opinion by the Chief Justice - when the High Court has always declined to give advisory opinions.
      The failure of Kerr - intending to take the gravest action possible - to demand that the Senate vote on the Budget (remember the Senate to this day has never rejected a governments budget - in 1975 it refused to vote on the budget bills).  If a vote had been taken to vote the bills down he could legitimately have said that supply had been denied.
      Kerr corrupted our political processes and deserves his place in the gutter of Australian history.

    • Maddington Jim says:

      01:09am | 24/02/10

      Hey Malcolm, where’s yer troosers?

    • Mark says:

      09:01pm | 24/02/10

      As a Liberal voter, I was disgusted with Malcolm wasting control of both houses of Parliament that I joined the Liberal party to make sure that they would never again have such a leader, and they didn’t until Malcolm Turnbull came along.
      They are both very similar ... enormous egos… so large that they can’t see ordinary people.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter