Talk:1975 Australian constitutional crisis

CIA involvement section

This section has serious issues - why are uncritically quoting a random American journalist's claim that Kerr received CIA funding? Why are we uncritically using a John Pilger opinion piece - a non-historian, non-Australian resident who is "a strong critic of American, Australian, and British foreign policy" - as a major source? Should Christopher Boyce's claims be included in the article at all given his background? Why are none of the numerous academic works about the dismissal cited in this section? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would favour getting rid of the section, which has a tendency to grow, either by deletion or by spinning it out to its own article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with both. I hadn't looked at Boyce before, but now suspect that someone who gave him as an example of a person without credibility might be accused of overkill. Pilger (who can be good) has little else. And, to my recollection, the claim never had Whitlam's support. Yes, let's remove the section. I can't see enough in it for a stand-alone article. Errantius (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Well Pilger had this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger in case you wonder how bias he is. 78.62.14.179 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Disagree: this allegation sometimes gets referred to and should be covered here. I don't see the relevance of the fact that Pilger is a "non-Australian resident". I also don't see the relevance of Boyce's "background".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it's bizzare. For context, John Pilger is busy right now blaming NATO for Russian invasion of Ukraine. In case you had any questions about his "neutrality". 78.62.14.179 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That you disagree with it doesn't make Pilger's view of no value here. Allegations of CIA involvement in Australian politics were rife before, during, and for a long time after the dismissal. They probably contributed to public disquiet about the events. It would be wrong for this article to not mention those allegations. So long as we describe them that way, all is fine. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone has removed the CIA involvement section. This should not have been done without more discussion. That there was involvement is not even controversial (there's a discussion of the release in 2020 of formerly secret documents here), though of course the extent and effect of the involvement are controversial. The facts (e.g. the telex sent by Thomas Shackley - head of the CIA East Asia desk - to ASIO, and shown to Kerr) should be stated as facts, and allegations arising therefrom should be described as allegations. This is an important matter that should not simply be airbrushed out of what purports to be a serious summary of the history. The section should be reinstated. Insulation2 (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I have created a new article based on the deleted section: Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam Dismissal.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added a link to it at the bottom of the Intro section as it seems odd to just have a link to it in Further Reading when it such a related page (Which maybe should be a part of this page to be honest) Greenking2000 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. As an Australian American who lived through this era in Australia as a young teen and who still lives there I can confirm that regardless of the truth or otherwise of the claim it is still very much a an issue in the collective Australian consciousness. Even referring to it obliquely as a single sentence note would be preferable to removing it all together. Rags17 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added a link to the new article in the See Also section. I was a little puzzled to be unable to find any mention of the CIA in this article at all; noting the choice to move the allegations into a separate article, a link seemed to be the sensible choice. Rolandturner (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It is surprising that the allegation of CIA involvement was, until recently, neither mentioned nor linked in this article. It should be described as an "allegation", not a "conspiracy theory". Burrobert (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

But given that there was consensus to remove the section, if only by no one restoring it in a reasonable amount of time, then I'm wondering if anything should be said about it at all in the lede of this article. The lede is a summary of the article, after all. Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it deserves a mention in the lead and the current sentence seems reasonable. Agree that it should not be mentioned in the lead without some reference in the body. Now that we have an article dedicated to the allegation we don't need to go into much detail. Is there a suitable spot in the body where we can make a brief mention of this issue? Burrobert (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, we removed it and not to have a mention of it carries a certain level of consensus. I personally feel that the link is adequate, and that the "brief mention" would eventually come to resemble what was already removed from the article once. Open to ideas. Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I missed the earlier discussion about its removal. The sentence that is in the lead is a reasonable coverage of an issue that has received wide coverage over time, and has been addressed by the main participants in the affair. I don't think we should hide it in a link. My suggestion is to place a copy of the sentence at an appropriate place in the body. Burrobert (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you want to compose a sentence and find a source, I guess. Probably the "Reactions" subsection. Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought the sentence that is in the lead would do the job. It may be boring but the lead would then be a summary (in fact a copy) of the body. The source for the allegations and Whitlam's response is . The source for Kerr's response is Burrobert (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Is this in the article at the moment -- whether it can be sourced from Paul Kelly, Nikki Sava or whomever

Under the Kerr (and Barwick) doctrine Fraser was commissioned on the basis that he would secure supply for the Crown, and then advise a double dissolution election.

However, when Fraser agreed to ensure supply, he made a commitment that he could not guarantee.

Whitlam, with his majority in the House of Representatives, could have denied supply to Fraser:

Before the Senate had passed the Appropriation bills, the House of Representatives could have rescinded the House's previous motions carrying the bills; and asked the Senate to return the bills. This could have been done immediately without debate and achieved before the Senate had voted on the Appropriation bills. The House could have then agreed to sit until Kerr recommissioned Whitlam.

In the Senate, Labor could have used every possible procedural motion and its control of the Chair to delay the reintroduction of the supply bills. Even after the Senate had passed Supply, the House of Representatives could have directed the Speaker not to send the Supply bills to Government House for the Governor-General to give the Royal Assent.

If Whitlam had resolved to take the above actions he would have denied supply to Fraser. Kerr could not have called an election (supply needed to be guaranteed before an election was called). By the same logic Kerr sacked Whitlam, Kerr would then have to sack Fraser and reappoint Whitlam. It appears Kerr's strategy worked, at least in part, because of its innovation and element of surprise. Now that the weaknesses in the strategy are better understood, should a similar situation occur again, it is unlikely that a future caretaker Prime Minister in the same position as Fraser would be able to secure supply. 144.6.1.58 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't the article make clear that Fraser succeeded because of the element of surprise and because many members of the ALP party both in the Senate and House were unaware what was going on, or at least did not react quickly enough? I'm not sure what we need to add to that. I don't know if we should be speculating about what might have happened had Fraser been balked. I will agree that such events in the age of instant information seem unlikely. Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification tag

Safes007, has twice added a clarification tag, here, to one of the quotes in the article. I do not see that this is unclear at all. It talks about Whitlam changing the constitution, not by the normal process, but by his own actions with the support of this caucus. The quote is basically what much of the article is about: Whitlam's desire to disempower the Senate when in conflict with the House. I would suggest that the tag be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The notes attached to the tag are "Unclear what "Cromwellian" changes to the Constitution are being referred to here". Afaict, there is no other mention of Whitlam having a "project of changing the Australian Constitution, not through the vote of the mass electorate ... but through prodigious personal exertions backed by the support of his parliamentary followers", so what is Reid referring to here? One way around this would be to summarise the long quote from Reid and include an explanation of what he meant by Whitlam's "project of changing the Australian Constitution". I don't have access to the book so cannot see what Reid meant. Burrobert (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see what the quote adds to the article and would support its removal. It's not really a great summary of the situation. I T B F 📢 13:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this edit I can't see how Kelly's comments can be called "anti-Whitlam". Kelly is the author of several books about the period and the Dismissal in particular. He is as objective an historian as Australia has on the matter.

Whitlam intended to use the crisis triggered by Fraser to defeat the Senate in such a comprehensive manner that no future Senate would contemplate such action, and to ensure that the contradiction within the Constitution since the inauguration of the Commonwealth was finally resolved with the victory of the Representatives over the Senate and of responsible government over federalism. Whitlam would become the last of the founding fathers. He would resolve the contradiction that they had been unable to resolve.

Whitlam was attempting to remodel the Constitution. He proposed amendments, he passed legislation affecting the relationship with the UK, he made several changes in practice. There is nothing wrong with this; our constitutional arrangements change through various events, not all of them overt.

Whitlam had, for example, attempted to cast the Governor-Geeneral as a powerless figurehead - his "tame viceroy" able to be got around or ignored as required - and although that was the trend of history, he was shown to be mistaken.

Whitlam had - as Hansard shows - voted against Supply in the Senate from Oppisition multiple times. His changed position once he moved to the other side of the House is exactly what Kelly states: an attempt to remodel the Constitutional arrangements without referring the matter to the electorate.

I think that we should be quite clear in this article that Whitlam saw himself as a reformer, which of course, he was.

I restored the quote pending discussion here. --Pete (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, by my reading of BRD, the bold edit was this one by @Safes007: [1]. This was then followed by a revert by @Errantios: [2]. The process then left the rails.

Secondly, this talk section was created to discuss a quote from Alan Reid which has somehow now been removed from the article. Shouldn't decisions about removing the quote wait until the discussion has ended?

Thirdly, who is this Kelly that suddenly appears out of nowhere to pontificate about what he thinks was Whitlam's motivation. Is the reader expected to know him?

Fouthly, I have searched in vain for a reference to Whitlam voting against supply while in opposition. It is not mention is his bio or in the bios of the PM's during his time as opposition leader. Any sources (apart from Hansard) available for this? Burrobert (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The quote attributed to Whitlam from Brown (present footnote 6) seems to indicate his intent to. As for Kelly, the version of this article that passed FAC here mentions who he is. Somewhere that's been edited out. We can restore that easily. Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the FAC-version language. I oppose deleting the quote from Kelly. I don't see how that would be biased. There was nothing wrong with Whitlam trying to make the House of Representatives dominant on supply matters. That's the way it is in many Westminster parliaments. There's nothing wrong with saying it. Whitlam thought himself a reformer here, and the article doesn't contradict that. It's just an instance in which reform lost. Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I also oppose the insertion, here, of excerpts from resolutions passed by the two houses that basically add nothing except repeating what we already know in stiff legislative language. These are primary sources and are sourced (in a poor format; Safes007, as a parenthetical, it would be helpful to use the same citation format as the rest of the article uses) only to the legislative journals. I also think the removal of the Fraser quote here, ill-advised, especially since it removes the citation for that block of text.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not at all keen on Hansard text. Unless they are of historical importance in themselves, far better to find a secondary source. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the long quotes and summarised them in response to this criticism. However, I do think they, or a paragraph discussing the position of the parties when the deadlock began, need to be included. The article did not previously mention that Whitlam treated the actions of the Senate as illegitimate. It was more than that they just disagreed with them.

Also, why do you find the removal of the Fraser quote ill-advised (apart from the accidental removal of the citation which has helpfully been readded)? Safes007 (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, why do you find it objectionable? You removed it and bear the burden of consensus, so I may as well see how I can address your objections to the passage. Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the "paragraph discussing the position of the parties when the deadlock began", wasn't that the Reid blockquote? Are you removing matter then complaining of its absence? Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be clearer, there I wasn't talking about the Reid blockquote. I was talking about the quotes from the House and Senate that I added where the House asserted that the Senate was going against constitutional principle. I was just saying we need to keep a mention of that dispute, whether in the summarised form of the resolutions I just added or another secondary source that someone else adds. Safes007 (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the Fraser sentence adds anything. It's just Fraser saying the PM can sack the GG, which is just repeating the previous sentence. They also say the Queen can't be sacked which doesn't add any more information unless you want to do a full comparison of the applicability of the reserve powers in the UK vs Australia. Otherwise readers could be confused why we are mentioning the Queen in the first place. Safes007 (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I would propose replacing the Hackett quote with the following quote from Quick and Garran, that Kelly cites in his 2015 edition, "In the end it is predicted that either Responsible Government will kill the Federation and change it into a unified State or the Federation will kill Responsible Government and substitute a new form of Executive more compatible with the Federal theory." It's a far better source, obviously.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good source, but not necessarily a good quote as it is too wordy. I have added the greater information from the section that quote comes from. The quote from Hackett is arguably redundant, but I think it is memorable and a good summary regardless, especially considering it is widely quoted in other sources (including Quick and Garran). Safes007 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not a classic BRD but here we are in discussion and that's the aim. The ALP has a long history of voting against Supply in the Senate. Whitlam continued this when he became Leader of the Opposition. The fact that he didn't have the numbers and knew it was a symbolic gesture doesn't detract from his later claim that there was some kind of convention to let Supply sail through on the voices or unanimously. On the contrary, Whitlam made it into an opportunity to attack the government of the day. And why not?

One source is here. The late Sir David Smith, one of the most polite and devoted people I have ever met. His outrage at a politician telling lies is a little over the top nowadays but he belonged to an age when standards were higher. The votes are a matter of public record. I believe Hansard is all online nowadays and doubtless the votes may be checked. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing?

Looking at this edit, I see it relies on something called Declassified Australia that looks fairly sketchy and politicised to me. This whole theory of royal involvement is very dubious. Paul Kelly wrote a book debunking Hocking's sensationalism; the reality is that the Queen really wanted nothing to do with this and probably would have preferred that Kerr do nothing. It's not as if Buckingham Palace had any control over events anyway.

I think that this wild notion belongs with other fringe theories such as the supposed CIA involvement and the Chinese submarine: great stories but fiction.

What we're doing here is synthesis: asking our readers to connect the dots for things where we don't have actual evidence. It's one thing if HM or Kerr says there was royal involvement, another to suggest there was without evidence. --Pete (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree we need to be relying on secondary sources such as the books of Hocking or Kelly. Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Some comments on recent edits that were reverted

I recently added a source and expanded a few points. Most of these were reverted. The source I added was an article by Professor Jenny Hocking and Peter Cronau in Declassified Australia. An editor described the source as "dodgy". Declassified Australia is an investigative journalism site that is related to the UK site Declassified UK. Jenny Hocking is used multiple times as a source on this page and is an authority on the subject. Cronau is an established journalist who has worked for the ABC. Declassified Australia, Jenny Hocking and Peter Cronau are not dodgy. Below are some comments about the changes I introduced into the Royal Involvement section.

• The September 1975 date of the meeting of Kerr and Chas. Isn’t it significant that Kerr mentioned this to Chas weeks before delaying supply became an issue? It is mentioned by Hocking and Cronau so presumably they considered it important. Readers would be able to easily work this out for themselves if the two events were in close juxtaposition. However, the September date is mentioned in a separate section to the supply issue. Perhaps we should mention the September meeting in the introduction, just before the statement “Whitlam's tenure in office proved highly turbulent and controversial, and in October 1975 .... Readers would then understand that supply was not the only driving force for the dismissal.

• Charteris’ statement that the Queen would "delay things" if Whitlam requested she withdraw his commission, also appears in Hocking's book The Dismissal Dossier.

• I added the statement: Hocking and journalist Peter Cronau have interpreted the response as a warning to Kerr to "act swiftly and with secrecy”. Hocking makes a similar assessment in her 2020 book: "This advice no doubt reinforced Kerr in concluding that, to forestall any risk of Whitlam sacking him, he would need to give him no, or very little, warning of his intention".

Burrobert (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right, the source isn't dodgy sorry. However, I think it's better to have Hocking's opinion's sourced directly from her book rather than from a website, which is necessarily shorter and has less detail.

• I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning the September meeting in the introduction. Are you talking about the introduction to the whole article or the introduction to the royal involvement section? I reverted the sentence in the royal involvement section that said the meeting was weeks before the supply crisis because the paragraph already mentions the discussion occurred in September 1975 so that sentence didn't add any more information. If you want to include Hocking's argument that this suggests that supply was not the only driving force of the dismissal, this should be explicit and mentioned as an interpretation of events. We can't prefer one interpretation over another.
• I reverted the "delay things" comment because that is a quote from Kerr's summary of the Charteris letter in his diary not the letter itself. When The Dismissal Dossier was written the palace letters weren't yet available. However the sentence as written in the article sounded like they were two separate quotes from the same letter. I think a better way of including that would be a sentence like "Hocking argues that this letter and a diary entry by Kerr discussing the letter that noted that the Queen would 'delay things' indicated that ..."
• That sentence you quote is much better summary of Hocking's view than the quotes I added from her book and I support replacing one of the current ones with that one.

Safes007 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion was to include the September 1975 meeting in the article's introduction. Currently the intro jumps from August 1974 to October 1974, suggesting nothing significant happened between those dates. In fact, Kerr was already considering sacking Whitlam in September 1975. I haven't read Hocking's books so don't know the extent to which she put that argument that more than supply was involved. We don't need to be explicit in saying that supply wasn't the only driving force. It would be enough to provide a timeline so readers can draw their own conclusions. So I would suggest saying in the intro something like:

"Whitlam's tenure in office proved highly turbulent and controversial. In September 1975, Kerr discussed his reserve powers with the Prince of Wales (now Charles III) and mentioned the possibility that he would dismiss the Whitlam government. In October 1975, the Opposition under Malcolm Fraser used its control of the Senate to defer passage of appropriation bills needed to finance government ..."

It seemed from the article and also from my snippet view of Hocking's book that the "delay things" quote was from Charteris. If it was Kerr's summary of Charteris' letter, then I would be happy with your suggested text. Burrobert (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The way I read the proposed text, it draws a connection, implicitly, between Whitlam's controversial policies and Kerr laying the groundwork to dismiss him. I don't see where there is that connection. Whitlam's policies outraged many, but I don't recall Kerr being among them, at least to the extent of sacking Whitlam. From what I recall, Kerr had a reputation as something of a liberal as CJ of NSW, or he would never have been considered as Hasluck's replacement. Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Then add the meeting to the end of the previous lead paragraph:

"With the two houses of Parliament still deadlocked, pursuant to section 57 of the Australian Constitution, Whitlam was able to narrowly secure passage of the six trigger bills of the earlier double dissolution election in a joint sitting of Parliament on 6–7 August 1974, the only such sitting held in Australia's history. In September 1975, Kerr discussed his reserve powers with the Prince of Wales (now Charles III) and mentioned the possibility that he would dismiss the Whitlam government".

Regarding Kerr, I don't think Whitlam would have chosen him if he was a liberal. He was a former member of the Labor Party. Burrobert (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Liberal in the small-l sense. Whitlam certainly considered him someone who would go along with what he wanted. Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And I think devoting that much time and space in the lede to the joint sitting is ill-advised. The lede is an executive summary and should focus on the events of 1975. Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that you were describing Kerr as a lefty. Did he have any political principles? The part about the joint sitting is already in the article. I just suggested adding the September 1975 meeting to the end of it. I am not averse to reducing the space we give to the joint sitting. Burrobert (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

He did. I refer you to the excellent discussion of whether he was still at heart a Laborite or wanted to emulate Menzies, to be found in Chapter 5 of Kelly's 2015 book. Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

" … so readers can draw their own conclusions."

No. That is synthesis We don't do that. We provide sourced facts, not suppositions. We don't let readers "connect the dots". We find a reliable source that makes the statement.

Declassified Australia is a dodgy source. The fact that we don't have an article on this supposed reliable source says a lot. Hocking is the co-author of this article. Why not simply quote her book?

If we must quote her, then we need to also quote Paul Kelly whose own book specifically and comprehensively debunks Hocking's theories. That's basic WP:NPOV, a pillar of our encyclopaedia.

It may be exciting to think that Kerr and HM conspired to stitch Whitlam up but there is simply not a shred of evidence for this. The furtherest that they went in this direction was to insist on written advice, which I imagine is simply the protocol. Whitlam couldn't call up the Queen in the middle of the London night - as Kerr claims in his book that he threatened - and have her sack Kerr over the phone. As Kelly noted, HM would be entitled to consider the situation but could not ignore it.

This is very thin stuff that doesn't really belong in a factual account of the crisis. It should really be spun off into a conspiracy theory article much as we have for the JFK assassination or for the Malaysian Airlines thing.

We should not be misleading our readers by asking them to "draw their own conclusions" if we do not ourselves have reliable sources firmly saying these things. Not for a matter of such historic importance. --Pete (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• “We provide sourced facts, not suppositions”. The fact that I suggested adding was the September 1975 meeting, placed in its chronological order. There was no supposition involved.
• “It may be exciting to think that Kerr and HM conspired to stitch Whitlam up” - where did this come from?
• “asking them to "draw their own conclusions" - there was no suggestion that we explicitly ask the reader to do that.
• There is a lot of editorial opinion Pete:

“Declassified Australia is a dodgy source”

“Paul Kelly whose own book specifically and comprehensively debunks Hocking's theories”

“This is very thin stuff”

• Regarding Kelly, he is Murdoch’s editor-in-chief at the centre-right (our description) The Australian newspaper and appears as a commentator on the conservative (our description) Sky News Australia, which we would be justified in describing as dodgy. Yet we use him as a reference 52 times out of 152 references. What affect is that likely to have on this article? Burrobert (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you grasp the point about WP:SYNTH. There's no doubt that Prince Charles and Sir John spoke and briefly referenced the mechanics of how PM and GG might remove each other. But there's no evidence that this was significant or led to any action or had any consequence. You say above, "It would be enough to provide a timeline so readers can draw their own conclusions." In other words, have Wikipedia hint at something that is unsourced. Do you see the problem?

  As for Kelly, you seem to be drawing your own conclusions. He is widely respected as a reliable historian of the Seventies. I agree that The Australian is obnoxiously right-wing these days but it has been well left of centre in the past.

  If you really want to get into personalities, I suggest that the fawning biographer of Whitlam may not be entirely objective. Presenting Whitlam as the hapless victim in all this doesn't quite ring true. Read Kelly's definitive account in "November 1975" where he goes into forensic detail and you'll see why he is such an excellent source for this article. He presents Kerr as a rather shallow and insecure person whose major objective in all this was to secure his own position and ambushed Whitlam instead of being open and honest.

  Whitlam, in turn, is responsible for much of the disaster. He had Kerr appointed and regarded him as his "tame viceroy". His scandal-ridden government was low in popular support and this gave Fraser the opportunity to force an election he knew Whitlam would lose. Bill Hayden warned Whitlam that he suspected Kerr of plotting something but was ignored. Whitlam presented various plans to Kerr who may have been a selfish snob but was no fool. Kerr knew the law and was aware of his options. All this is in Kelly's books and I haven't seen any serious counter-view.

  Kelly dissects Whitlam's ineffective response. Instead of getting his team organised, he went back to the Lodge, ordered steak and chips, and moaned about what had just happened. Kelly goes into the events of the afternoon minute by minute, noting that Supply was passed in the Senate a short while before the Labor Senate leadership was aware that Fraser had been commissioned as PM. One really cannot blame Whitlam for being shocked and stunned at being sandbagged by Kerr at that moment, but he was and the responsibility for that is placed by Kelly firmly on Kerr's shoulders. A hell of a way to run a country.

  Have you actually read Kelly's books? Including his rebuttal of Hocking?

  As for Declassified Australia, we can take this to WP:RSN if you wish. I don't think it's necessary to use that as a source because the author of that article is Hocking - ever keen to promote her own sensationalist book - and she adds nothing beyond which is already in her book to which we have IMHO given more space than WP:NPV requires.

  I've been with Wikipedia long enough to know that we've moved on from the wild old days, we have developed procedures and policies that work well, and we don't have to sling accusations at one another; we can work through routine. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

More of your opinions Pete. Let's stick to facts and some suggested changes to the article.

• Firstly, the body mentions the fact that Kerr and Chas met in September 1975 and that Kerr said that he was considering sacking Whitlam. The source for this is Hocking's book. I suggest including the following sentence in the lead in its chronological order: "In September 1975, Kerr discussed his reserve powers with the Prince of Wales (now Charles III) and mentioned the possibility that he would dismiss the Whitlam government". The reason for requesting this is that it is a significant event in the lead up to the dismissal.
• Secondly, Safes007 reverted a change I had made to the article and instead suggested adding a sentence like the following to the Royal Involvement section: "Hocking argues that Charteris' letter and a diary entry by Kerr discussing the letter noted that the Queen would 'delay things' if Whitlam requested she withdraw his commission". This seems like a good inclusion.
• Thirdly, I initially added the following sentence to the body as a commentary on the Charteris letter: "Hocking and journalist Peter Cronau have interpreted the response as a warning to Kerr to "act swiftly and with secrecy”. The source for this was an article by Hocking and Cronau in Declassified Australia. Safes007 preferred a similar assessment made by Hocking in her 2020 book. That assessment was "This advice no doubt reinforced Kerr in concluding that, to forestall any risk of Whitlam sacking him, he would need to give him no, or very little, warning of his intention". I now suggest we include this quote or a summary of it in the Royal Involvement section.
• Fourthly, if the omnipresent Kelly has anything to say about these assessments then we can squeeze more of his opinions into the article as well. Burrobert (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Saying that Kerr said he was considering sacking Whitlam is inaccurate. Where, precisely, did he say this? We need a source stating this, not some sort of "reading between the lines" fantasy. I cannot see good sources for the rest of your suggestions. Once again, I urge you to look at our policies on sourcing and especially synthesis. Some of these people are still alive and are covered by WP:BLP. Using some political blog to cram words into King Charles' mouth doesn't sound like a good strategy for writing an encyclopaedia.

Kelly isn't "omnipresent". If you took the trouble to read his books you'd see that he names all of his sources in detail and takes pains to quote them accurately, examining any omissions or discrepancies, as is common with politicians. I commend his methods to you. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• The suggested wording uses the term "possibility of sacking Whitlam", which is contained in the body with attribution: "According to Whitlam's biographer Jenny Hocking, Kerr's papers in the National Archives of Australia reveal that he discussed with the Prince of Wales (now Charles III) his reserve powers and the possibility that he would dismiss the Whitlam government, in September 1975.
• The sources for my second and third suggestions are also Hocking's books.
• Kelly's omnipresence comes from the 52 times we use him as a reference out of a total of 152 reference. Possibly a world record.

Anyone else have thoughts on these matters? Burrobert (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The relevant passage in Kelly's The Truth of the Palace Letters is:

Kerr enjoyed an amicable relationship with Prince Charles. The account he provides in his journal suggests Kerr told Charles that in any coming crisis the reserve powers might ‘need to be exercised’ which could heighten ‘the risk of recall’ from Whitlam. According to Kerr, the Prince said: ‘But surely, Sir John, the Queen would not have to accept advice that you should be recalled at the very time should this happen when you were considering having to dismiss the government.'

This conversation, for which we had only Kerr's word, is mentioned in the Palace letters with Martin Charteris (writing on 2 October 1975) contradicting what Charles said, that though the Queen would take "most unkindly" to advice from Whitlam to dismiss Kerr, at the end of the day, she was a constitutional monarch and would have to follow the Prime Minister's advice.

So basically, what Charles said is not relevant to the crisis because his view was slapped down before we get to the real start of the crisis on 16 October. They did discuss it, but it's probably not lead worthy because the only real relevance was to convince Kerr that in a crisis, he had no aid coming from the Palace. Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggested including what Kerr said to Chas about the "possibility of sacking Whitlam". Chas' response wasn't mentioned. Given that Kerr was responsible for sacking Whitlam, the date when he started having those thoughts seems significant. Burrobert (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Jeez. This is once again opinion. The Governor-General is given multiple reserve powers which he may exercise without direct advice. "Governor-General in council", as the Constitution puts it. Only one of these is the ability to select ministers of government. He can - and has - refused advice to hold an election. He can prorogue or dissolve Parliament without advice. s128 appears to give the Governor-General the power to put forward a referendum supported by only one house of Parliament (such as the Senate, presumably without the approval of the PM holding the confidence of the Reps). The Whitlam term(s) included several expeditions to the fringes of constitutional practice such as the double dissolution and subsequent joint sitting in 1974, or withdrawing the dormant commission of Sir Colin Hannah. If Kerr suggests that the reserve powers might need to be exercised it doesn't automatically mean that he's considering giving Whitlam the boot. Maybe it did, maybe he was just mapping the limits of his power in what was unchartered terrritory.

Saying, in Wikivoice, that Kerr was considering dismissing Whitlam in September when we don't have any actual source saying this is speculation. --Pete (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• It comes from Kerr's papers and is written that way in the body of this article. Presumably Kerr is a reliable source for his own thoughts at the time. The source for Kerr's papers are Hocking's books and also sources such as the ABC which have reported on the revelations in the papers. "Kerr's papers in the National Archives of Australia reveal that he discussed with the Prince of Wales (now Charles III) his reserve powers and the possibility that he would dismiss the Whitlam government, in September 1975". Kerr's state of mind in September 1975 is also clear from Kerr's own notes of the exchange with Chas, in which he says Chas replied: "But surely Sir John, ... at the very time when you were considering having to dismiss the government ".
• Anyone have any thoughts about my second and third suggestions? Burrobert (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we should mention Charles in the lead. His involvement was not significant, because what he said was slapped down by Charteris and played no role in the outcome. Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree and am not suggesting that we mention Chas in the lead other than as a participant in a conversation with Kerr. The addition I have suggested for the lead is the sentence "In September 1975, Kerr discussed his reserve powers with the Prince of Wales (now Charles III) and mentioned the possibility that he would dismiss the Whitlam government". If you prefer to avoid mentioning him entirely, then we could shorten the sentence to "In September 1975, Kerr mentioned the possibility that he would dismiss the Whitlam government". However, the reader might then wonder to whom he mentioned this. Burrobert (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

We do not have to say mentioned at all. We can say "considered". Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's fine with me. Burrobert (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that. Kerr's note hardly reveals his thinking in 1975; it was written five years later. Kerr didn't make any detailed notes at the time and it's a step to say that he was contemplating - in the sense of planning - Whitlam's dismissal. Even in Kerr's version of Charles' comment it is clearly a hypothetical situation they are discussing. Charteris' response after Charles had reported the discussion doesn't mention the possibility of Kerr dismissing Whitlam. Charles is our sole source for this - in Kerr's hearsay - and he is speaking hypothetically.

Hocking, of course, tries to turn this into a conspiracy. Kelly debunks this in his "Chapter 4: The Queen and Recall". pointing out that the dismissal Kerr was concerned about was his own, not Whitlam's. --Pete (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)