The Dismissal deniers
Next Tuesday marks the 50th anniversary of the day when governor-general Sir John Kerr legitimately exercised a constitutional power to resolve a severe political deadlock. This action secured funds properly appropriated for the Crown, enabling the government to continue its work. Despite the legality and necessity of his decision, Sir John Kerr has faced relentless criticism, both during his life and posthumously.
It is important to clarify that Sir John Kerr did not remove an incompetent government himself; rather, he provided the public with the chance to do so. This opportunity was a consequence, not the driving force, behind his choice.
Renewed Criticism and Commemorations
As the anniversary approaches, a new wave of attacks against Sir John Kerr has emerged. These include a recently published biography of Whitlam, a Sky News Australia documentary, and a day-long event organized by the Museum of Australian Democracy. This event, which will be live-streamed from Old Parliament House and chaired by Barrie Cassidy, features prominent critics like journalists Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston, along with academic Professor Jenny Hocking, all known for their opposition to Kerr's decision. Most participants tend to align with the Labor Party, intensifying the political controversy surrounding the anniversary.
"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 anniversary is expected to provoke strong reactions within the parliamentary precinct on what many consider a significant and solemn day in Australian political history.
Sir John Kerr’s dismissal remains a deeply polarizing event, marked by ongoing debate over his motives and the consequences of his constitutional intervention.