The Australian Republican Movement was born out of a lie

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men…” — John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

“This on-again-off-again flirtation with an Australian republic is a symptom of a wider problem: understanding what motivates power. Marxist school teachers have no interest in educating our kids about the preservation of liberty, mostly because they intend to dismantle it one hashtag at a time with their freshly hatched child soldiers.” — Alexandra Marshall

The modern Australian Republican Movement was born out of the Whitlam Dismissal in 1975, because apparently the Australian system of government was rotten to the core and needed an overhaul, such as a republic that would prevent a foreign power from interferring with Australian politics. Or should I say, the politicians’ republic. Whilst Australian republicans continue to fail to reach a consensus as to what an Australian republic should look like, world history shows that republics usually end up being the politicians’ republic. Why should we the people give more politicians more power?

The politicians’ republic, are the people’s worst nightmare. Fortunately here in Australia, we have a constitutional monarchy where Queen Elizabeth II, our Sovereign (who is not our Executive Head of State), is above politics. She’s above politics in 2020, and on Tuesday this week the National Archives of Australia’s release of the so-called Palace Letters between the then Executive Head of State, Governor-General Sir John Kerr, and Her Majesty, resoundingly proved that she was just as above politics in 1975. Here’s the wording of one of the released letters to prove it:

“Personal and Confidential

Government House, Canberra. 2600. 11 November 1975.

[Illegible],

I asked David Smith to ring to let you know in the Palace that I have taken a decisive step and terminated the commission of the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam and commissioned Mr Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister upon certain conditions which will appear from the attached documents.

Our position in this country is rather different from yours and so that you will understand at least the way I look at things I am attaching the following documents,

(1) A letter which I today handed to the Prime Minsiter with its attachment. He had come out to recommend a Half Senate election at a time when he did not have an guarantee of supply. On the contrary, the Senate had three times refrained from granting supply, the money was running out and the Prime Minister was seeking to organise some kind of credit from the banks for public servants and others.

(2) Before taking the final step, although I had already made up my mind, I consulted Sir Garfield Barwick as to my authority and duties in the present situation. On a confidential basis, because it is not to be disclosed without his permission except ultimately for historical purposes, I send you a copy of the letter which he wrote to me after our discussions.

(3) I attach also a letter which Mr Fraser wrote to me at my request and upon the basis of which I commissioned him as Prime Minister. When this was done supply was immediately passed by the Senate and today, on the advice of the Prime Minister, I have dissolved both Houses of Parliament. It is now for the electors to decide.

When Mr Whitlam came to see me before he had said anything about his proposal for a Half Senate election I told him that I had decided to terminate his commission. He said, “I shall have to get in touch with the Palace immediately”. To this I replied that this would be useless as he was at the time no longer Prime Minister. I had already signed the document terminating his commission.

I realise of course, that if he wins the election and he may well do so, he will have advice to tender to Her Majesty. I accept all the consequences.

I should say that I decided to take the step I took without informing the Palace in advance because under the Consitution the responsibility is mine and I was of the opinion that it was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance, though it is, of course, my duty to tell her immediately.

I would like to add that after the Senate passed supply the House expressed its confidence in the Member for Werriwa, Mr Whitlam and the Speaker attended upon me to make the point that I should send for Mr Whitlam and commission him to form a Government. However, by the time I saw him I had already dissolved both Houses, a step which I took immediately after assenting to the Appropriation Bills. I did this in the continued exercise of my discretion under the reserve powers of the Crown which were open to me to exercise in the light of all the circumstances up to the last moment.

I was advised by the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department that such a course of continued exercise of the reserve powers were open to me in all the circumstances. Of course, the House has been regularly expressing its confidence in Mr Whitlam. This has been part of what ultimately constituted the deadlock which I have attempted to resolve as set out in the attached documents.

Please assure Her Majesty of my loyalty and humble duty.

Yours sincerely,

John R. Kerr

Lieutenant Colonel the Right Honourable Sir Martin Charteris, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., O.B.E., Private Secretary to The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London England”

Newspix: Guy Wilmott

After the Dismissal Sir John Kerr gave the Australian people the choice to re-elect the Whitlam Government, in accordance with the Australian Constitution. The Australian people chose not to, in accordance with the Australian Constitution. Thank you republican Prof Jenny Hocking for proving that the modern Australian Republican Movement was born out of a lie. Thank you for proving that Australia’s constitutional monarchy works, and that the Whitlam Dismissal was indeed a political crisis, not a constitutional crisis. Thank you for proving that our constitutional monarchy was in fact the solution to the political crisis. Who wouldn’t want a Sovereign who indirectly ensures the Executive Head of State follows the Australian Constitution?

Pronouns: who/cares | Omnivert | TransCatholic Liberal Arts student @notredameaus | @AUMallard contributor | all opinions expressed here are my own