The Dismissal Deniers
Next Tuesday marks the 50th anniversary of the moment when Governor-General Sir John Kerr exercised a constitutional power to resolve a political deadlock and ensure that the Crown had access to properly appropriated funds necessary for government operations. For this act, Sir John has faced relentless criticism, even posthumously.
“Sir John Kerr did not deliver us from a grossly incompetent government. The people of Australia did that. Sir John Kerr simply gave them the opportunity to do so.”
The author stresses that Kerr’s decision was not driven by political bias but by his duty to uphold constitutional responsibility. The outcome—removal of the government—was incidental rather than intentional.
This anniversary is expected to renew debate about Kerr’s legacy. Surprisingly, it coincides with a concerted media and academic push, including a new biography of Gough Whitlam, a Sky News documentary, and a full-day program by the Museum of Australian Democracy, streamed live from Old Parliament House.
That event, chaired by Barrie Cassidy, features prominent critics of Kerr such as journalists Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston, and academic Jenny Hocking. Most participants lean toward the Labor side, promising a day filled with passionate exchanges and political intensity.
Author’s Summary
A half-century later, Sir John Kerr’s controversial yet constitutional decision continues to ignite intense debate in Australian politics and media circles.