Talk:John Kerr (governor-general)

Sexuality

As noted WP:BLP does not allow for unsourced defamatory material on article or discussion pages. I haven't seen any credible sources for the material so far mentioned and I am removing this discussion for this talk page and that of Paul Keating's. I trust that this is acceptable to the reasonable editors participating in the discussion. --Jumbo 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, you can't defame the dead. As for credible sources, Kerr's closest friend until their falling out was James 'Diamond Jim' McClelland. See 'The Australian for November 25, 2006', where Philip Adams writes: "A few years back I told you a story that Senator James McClelland had told me involving the then governor-general, Sir John Kerr. After a pleasant evening with other old mates in the ALP, an inebriated Sir John asked Senator James for a kiss. When Diamond Jim proffered a peck on the cheek, the G-G turned his face, puckered up and said: "No, I want a proper one." Jim’s account of the encounter on a Canberra lawn wasn’t some squalid kiss-and-tell, as he insisted their lips never touched. He told the story because, he believed, The Dismissal could only be fully understood if you factored in Kerr’s confused sexual identity. To Jim, the events of November ’75 were a sort of lovers’ tiff. That the G-G had fallen out of love with Gough and into love with Malcolm won’t find its way into learned tomes or PhDs on constitutional crises. However, if you believe Jim McClelland, as I do, then the coup d’etat might be regarded as a crime passionnel." [1] McClelland himself in interview for the 1995 Film Australia 'Australian Biography' short on him makes the same claims about the pass and Kerr's repressed homosexuality. Transcript is here: [2]

What Adams doesn't mention, and may not know, is what was discussed in gay legal circles at the time of The Dismissal by those who had known them as young men: that Kerr and McClelland's lifelong friendship had actually begun as an affair when they were university students. It gave McClelland's "Dear John" article in The Australian following The Dismissal, which publicly revoked his friendship, a whole other dimension to those in the know. Engleham 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

POV and contradictory statements

The information under "Kerr as Governor-General" seems to contradict statements in Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. The Kerr article says that no Labor candidates were even proposed:

Very unwisely, the Queensland Labor Party refused to submit the three names Peterson required, and Albert Field was appointed by the Queensland Parliament to fill the position.

while the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 article states that Labor's proposed candidate was refused in favour of Field:

On 3 September, Bjelke-Petersen refused the Labor Party's candidate as replacement Senator, Mal Colston, in favour of obscure french-polisher Albert Patrick Field, a Labor Party member but openly critical of the Whitlam government.

As well, the statement from this article (i.e. the Kerr one) is somewhat POV with the "Very unwisely, " bit. It also gets Bjelke-Petersen's name wrong in two different ways, though I've fixed that. --Saforrest 14:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a comment in the current text to the effect "Kerr did not know Whitlam well". That is not correct. Both men were barristers at the New South Wales Bar and were in fact floor members on Level 10 Selborne Chambers. Kerr had a thorough personal and professional knowledge of Whitlam which makes the circumstances of the dismissal all the more interesting.

When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to discuss this matter with you. Adam 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not registering. That is why I didn't change the text. I attended a speech at a private function last year where a person commented how Kerr and Whitlam had attended an anniversary function for the chambers, which the speaker also attended, in about 1974. As barristers they were colleagues together in the 1950s before Whitlam focussed on politics. I raise the point because the impression is given in the text that Kerr and Whitlam were not well known to each other. The NSW Bar in the 1950s was a very small community and being on the same floor they would have had dealings with each other on a weekly basis during that period. To me what is interesting is that Whitlam apparently appointed Kerr as GG because he thought he knew him but gravely misjudged him if he thought Sir John was a political friend --Davrosjay 11:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Whitlam and Kerr may well have known each other in the 1950s, before the ALP split and before Kerr went to the bench. I think the point is that by 1975 they no longer knew each other, but that Whitlam thought he knew Kerr's political views. No doubt the text could be changed to make the point clearer. (However, what you heard someone say can't be cited as a source.) Adam 11:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes - it is your observation that "by 1975 they no longer knew each other, but that Whitlam thought he knew Kerr's political views" that makes their earlier familiarity with each other interesting. The other comment I would make is that it is said that Kerr "met" HV Evatt at Fort Street High School. If he did it would only have been in circumstances where Evatt had returned in some capacity as a graduate because Evatt was 20 years older and an undergraduate at Sydney Uni the year Kerr was born.--Davrosjay 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They met in 1931 when Kerr won the H V Evatt essay prize at Fort St, which Evatt had endowed in the 1920s. This could also be expanded in the text if you think the current wording is misleading. Adam 12:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we need so much detail on November 1975?

Wikipedia already has an article containing every detail of the constitutional crisis of 1975. Is there really a need to repeat the whole thing on Kerr's page? I feel that since this is a biography, it would be more appropriate to simply have a very brief discussion of the crisis and the dismissal (with a link to the main article of course), followed by the effect on Kerr's public and private life. Any objections?--EDH 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason Kerr is of any interest to readers is because of what he did on 11 November. It is impossible to form an opinion of Kerr's worth or place in history without knowing what he did and why he did it. That requires both some background and a detailed examination of his actions, and his motives. Please leave the article alone. Adam 10:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Edwinski. The section of the dismissal should be merged with the other page. If there is additional information here on Kerr's motives which is not presently on the other page, then I think that information should be moved to the other page instead.

If indeed "The only reason Kerr is of any interest to readers is because of what he did on 11 November," then this article will be quite short after material on the dismissal is moved. That's okay.

Bayle Shanks

Bayle Shanks 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup required

There are some contradictions with 1975 Australian constitutional crisis and the later sections have severe POV issues. None of the statements are directly sourced. Thin Arthur 03:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if these are the same issues that Thin Arthur was referring to, but I noticed a few potential POV issues:

On 2 November Fraser offered to pass the budget if Whitlam would agree to call an election before the middle of 1976, but Whitlam in turn quite properly rejected this. Under Westminster convention it is the Prime Minister who determines the timing of an election and not the Leader of the Opposition.

If this is a constitutional crisis, then it seems as if whether it is "quite proper" to follow convention was in dispute at the time. Also, I am ignorant of these matters, but the article Loss of Supply indicates that it is the usual custom for blocking supply to force the resignation of the government. Wouldn't this mean that the applicability of "Westminster convention" could be disputed in this case?

Whitlam for his part assumed with characteristic confidence that Kerr, acting in the established manner of all previous vice-regal representatives, was in full sympathy with the Government's position and would do nothing to act against him. [15] He therefore, quite correctly, made no effort to convince Kerr of the validity of his position and did not think to consult with him during the crisis.

Why is this decision being labeled as "quite correct"? The assumption that Kerr would not act against Whitlam turned out to be wrong, not correct. The only other interpretation I can think of would be that Kerr was not supposed to act. But it was not declared illegal when Kerr acted, right? If it was something that he was not "supposed" to do, then wouldn't at the very least the Austrailian Constitution have been amended after the fact to clarify this for the future? However, the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975#Legacy suggests that this did not happen. So, it seems to me like no consensus was ever achieved as to whether or not Kerr was "supposed to" do what he did. Therefore, the second possible interpretation of the "quite correctly" also doesn't make any sense to me. Bayle Shanks 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As commonly occurs in explosively controversial issues, there is a tendency for specal interests to supplant and/or rearrange the facts of the 1975 Dismissal. I strongly support removal of the detailed Dismissal exegesis from this Kerr article so that it can be integrated and cleaned up in the specific 1975 Australian constitutional crisis article. If this is not done decisively and soon by one of the article's more experienced editors, I will myself attempt to commence the integration. I suspect the Gough Whitlam article and maybe other related ones should be similarly pruned for consistency. Bjenks 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have to laugh at those "quite correctly" inserts. Looks like an attempt to shift blame away from Whitlam by implying he was the hapless pawn of his enemies and he was bound by convention. In truth, he stuffed up his second term royally and was quite properly booted out by the people as soon as they got a chance to have a say.

Bjenks, you have my support to tidy up this and other related articles. We don't want various different accounts of the same events. --Jumbo 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support, Jumbo--I shall wear it at all times! I seriously agree that Wikipedia is no place to "maintain a (misplaced) rage" which belongs in the coffin of an ancient and badly managed election campaign (even if its architect is still breathing). In my youth I had dealings with a barrister named Kep Enderby who later featured in the Dismissal cockup as the Labor Attorney General. He was the man who went to Kerr seeking endorsement of an unsigned paper containing Whitlam's advice that the public service would function without supply by borrowing money from banks. Kerr (quite correctly under the tradition) said [my paraphrase] "I am obliged to endorse this advice and will do so when the PM affixes his signature and the date to it." Whitlam declined to sign the damning document, thus (in my book) squarely accepting all responsibility for Kerr's having to look elsewhere for advice. I'll have a go at straightening out the mess in the near future. --Bjenks 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying that Kerr couldn't have handled things better. He really shouldn't have ambushed Whitlam like that, but it was his responsibility to sort things out when Parliament couldn't. But as Kerr notes, he had seere doubts about the legality of the advice he was being given on babks, and leaving it for the High Court to decide would have taken far too long. --Jumbo 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The following is a copy of what I've posed at Talk:Malcolm_Fraser#Dismissal_cleanup As previously mooted over several months on the John Kerr discussion page, we need to rationalise a group of articles dealing with the Australian Labor government's dismissal in 1975. The Malcolm Fraser article is the easiest one because of its relative brevity, but there is considerable duplication to be removed from the articles John Kerr, Gough Whitlam and Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, which will undoubtedly create controversy. However, someone has to make a start. Please, everyone, accept that this is an exercise in good faith and editorial balance, to make these articles better. Cheers -- Bjenks 18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

rename partly reversed

This page got renamed from John Kerr to John Kerr (justice) without discussion. I tried to rename it back, but it didn't quite work, but now at least John Kerr is a redirect to John Kerr (justice). I think it is correct that John Kerr points to this (Sir) John Kerr, because (a) there are lots of Wikipedia links which assume John Kerr is Sir John Kerr (there are over 100, and looks to me like well over half assume this one), and (b) I didn't see any evidence that any of the others rivaled this one in historical importance, judging by the size of their articles. Anyway, if anyone wants to change John Kerr to point to the disambiguation page, bear in mind that the "move" page instructions say, "You (the person doing the move) are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go." Peter Ballard (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

". . .the most significant"?

We don't really know, do we? Is this an issue of fact, or POV? I can think of the referendum in which WA voted to secede, another in which military conscription was rejected, another in which Aboriginal people were allowed into the human race, another in which we opted for the monarchy rather than a party-run republic. All more significant, imho, than an issue drummed up by the vanity and pretensions of political parties and leaders, over which only an impassioned few have maintained any rage. :) Bjenks (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But ... not a single one of those examples was what I'd consider a "constitutional crisis". They were all referendums conducted in a very orderly manner, very much in accordance with law and with the constitution in particular. Their outcomes were all implemented (WA aside, but that has a curious history). -- JackofOz (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Right on all counts. However, it can been argued that the dimissal was less a "crisis" in itself than a controversial action to avert an impending constitutional crisis. A remedial election was the least-worst outcome under constitutional law. The proposed alternative, federal government without parliamentary supply, would have been more than unlawful—it risked negating the very basis of law. Later Libs, like Howard or Costello, might have grasped with eagerness the precedent to privatise the entire government - the mother of all crises for our kind of democracy! Bjenks (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We could speculate all day about what ifs, but I'm not getting into that. The sentence at issue reads: "He dismissed the Labor government of Gough Whitlam on 11 November 1975, marking the climax of the most significant constitutional crisis in Australian history." We're not saying the dismissal itself was a crisis (although it certainly felt like one to many people because ... well, it's obvious why). But it was an unarguably pivotal event in the entire circumstances that lead up to it and followed it. Nothing remotely like those circumstances had ever happened before in Australia, and have never happened since. Even Phillip Game's dismissal of Jack Lang was not really comparable, apart from the fact of the dismissal. 1975 Australian constitutional crisis says: "It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australia's history", where "It" refers to all the events, not just the dismissal. If you're unhappy with that set of words, maybe you'd like to argue the toss at that talk page. But here's not really the place, I think. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the opinion is not worth contesting. I really don't know enough to do so. Bjenks (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I DO wish people would stop spreading this misinformation. The 1967 Referendum was nowhere near as "landmark" as is often made out. Aboriginals already had full rights in court, and all aboriginals already had voting rights by the time of 1967. There were two questions voted on. The first was to transfer power for legislating specifically for Aboriginals from the States to the Federal Government. The second (and the issue which has tricked many) was to include Aboriginals officially in the national census as part of the general population. This second issue is really a relic from the 1900 case where aboriginals didn't vote, and a high proportion were "pre-contact" in any case. WA in particular had a very high aboriginal population in proportion to the total. The real issue was allocation of seats in the Federal Parliament. IF aboriginals were counted in the census, states like WA and Queensland would have been given more seats, whilst the number of voters would have been fixed. This would have meant that votes in WA and Queensland would have counted for more than votes in NSW and Victoria, which had much lower aboriginal populations in comparison. An analogy would be the power of Southern whites in the US in the Jim Crow era, where white voters exercised full and exclusive voting rights in "the south" whilst the southern congressmen and Senators had representation based upon the total population of the south, white AND black. By 1967, with all aboriginals having the right to vote at least, the original rational for this "arrangement" was null anyway. As for the rest... The WA secession failed for a number of reasons. The first was that the Statute of Westminster had passed, and removed the right of the House of Commons to legislate for Australia (however Australia didn't ratify the statute, so technically Westminster could still do so!). Of more significance, although WA had voted to split, it had also voted the ALP in, and the ALP opposed secession! Thus things were contradictory, and from London's perspective, difficult. With both Canberra and the officials in Perth opposed to secession, the split was effectively filibustered.

On the whole I agree that the 1975 crisis was the biggest Constitutional Crisis in Australia’s history. Both Government and Opposition were seeking to act in ways which were “dodgy” constitutionally. In terms of “stacking” the Senate, Whitlam was no cleaner than Bjelke-Petersen or even Lewis. He tried to do this by getting Gair off to Ireland without others knowing it. The problem with Whitlam was that he was not only Machiavellian, he wasn’t particularly good at it. It’s bad enough to cheat, but to cheat badly is simply pathetic. The reason why “the Dismissal” has become the focus is IMO because it lets the politicians (the real villains of the piece) off the hook. Fraser was the one who decided to block supply, and Whitlam was the one who decided to not accept a compromise (Kerr’s one of no Senate election prior to June 1975 looks perfectly reasonable to me), and indeed put himself and his government in the position where the Opposition felt it could try such a stunt and get away with it! Focusing on Kerr also deflected attention away from the scandals that were the precursors to the crisis in the first place, and kept the attention away from the failings of the Whitlam Government – which is why it was so personal against Kerr! As for whether or not Whitlam knew Kerr well. I remember reading a statement of Whitlam a few years ago where he claimed that Sir Paul Hasluck gave him a list of “prominent Australians” when he (Hasluck) decided to turn down reappointment. Whitlam claimed that the “first two” declined (implying Kerr was 3rd choice) and that he “didn’t know the man was a drunk”. I always found this to be unsupportable. Given the small circle of the NSW legal fraternity in that era, it was not credible that Kerr could be a serious drunk and Whitlam to know be aware of it! It has since emerged that Whitlam has not been exactly honest about the events of 1975, and has certainly not taken his share of the blame for what happened. The motivation is clear. It can be made out that Whitlam is a “martyr” who was “assassinated”. Focusing on the Dismissal also is a convenient way to avoid confronting the fact that the Whitlam Government suffered a record electoral defeat at the subsequent election (surely there is nothing more “democratic” than an election, and Whitlam refused to submit himself to an election to resolve the dispute with the Senate – he knew he’d lose). That is why the crisis, and the fall of the government is blamed, almost exclusively, on Kerr, and why he became such a hate figure for the ALP and its supporters. No one wants to admit the truth that the first ALP government in 23 years fell apart so badly, or the role of Whitlam’s own arrogance and blind spots in destroying it. It also, like JFK, makes a nice “what if”, although I’m sure that the “what if” in this case would be that the Whitlam government would have been thrown out by an even worse electoral disaster when it eventually faced the voters, although Fraser may not have been the next PM.

Kerr should have followed the lead of Sir Philip Game and told Whitlam if he couldn't achieve supply by 11th November, he'd have to find another PM who could and recommend an election to resolve who the country really supported! I think it's to the credit of both Game AND Lange that Game warned Lange of what the consequences would be, and that Lange didn't choose to try to sack the Governor for doing his duty (to keep the government operating within the law!). Sadly, despite what he's said, Whitlam would probably have tried to get Kerr dismissed (we can see what he did with the Administrator), but I think there would have been a backlash against Whitlam, and it would have dissolved much of the sympathy he got due to the Opposition's action. If anything it would have probably prompted his downfall. So I think Kerr's REAL "sin" was lack of courage in that he didn't honestly tell Whitlam like it was. Perhaps Whitlam may have accepted a compromise - one like Kerr's suggestion which would at least have let his government serve out its term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.245.247 (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

When was Kerr's appointment as Governor-General announced?

No point repeating the question. Anyone know the answer? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it. It was 27 February 1974. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Head of State

I note a claim that Gough Whitlam considered advising the Queen to terminate Sir John Kerr's commission, using as a source "Matters for Judgement", Kerr's autobiography. That source does not say that the Queen is the head of state, and as the matter is disputed in Australia, it is not Wikipedia's place to support one view or the other. --Pete (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really following you, Pete. The only place the term "Head of State" is mentioned is "... [Whitlam] then offered the post to Sir John, who accepted on condition that he could expect to have ten years in the office, and that he could represent Australia overseas as Head of State". That is sourced to p. 200 of Barry Jones' A Thinking Reed, and it is the exact words that Jones used. I don't actually know what Jones's personal position on the head of state dispute is, but I'd be very surprised if he favoured the view that the Governor-General is head of state. Hence, I assume he was repeating the words that Kerr used in his discussions with Whitlam. That is, it was Kerr's own stated condition that he could be accorded the status of Head of State when representing Australia overseas. That, of course, does not make him the head of state. Maybe the Jones quote should be put in quotes, to make this distinction clearer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. In a sweat to do something else, off-wiki, you know how it is. I was looking at something else and a google search came up with a reference in this article, and I changed the wording to clarify the action. Another editor reverted me, so I made a note here to kick off discussion in case it turned into a thing.I've got no problem with the remaining reference, though I'd probably not capitalise the title. --Pete (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

death of kerr

Just a query...did Kerr die in London as opposed to Sydney? 58.107.27.39 (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed

I notice a slew of "citation needed" tags added to the article. The statements in question are all sourced in Paul Kelly's excellent book 1975, which is listed as a general reference. I shall hunt through and add the page numbers when I get a chance - at a more civilised hour! - so I would be obliged if there were no mass deletions for the time being. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Kerr (governor-general). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013141348/http://www.supremecourt.nt.gov.au/old_site/judges/former/kerr.html to http://www.supremecourt.nt.gov.au/old_site/judges/former/kerr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Kerr (governor-general). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420023235/https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC19740917/%24file/442LC015.PDF to https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC19740917/%24file/442LC015.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Kerr (governor-general). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100428092454/http://moadoph.gov.au/exhibitions/online/dismissed/prologue.htm to http://moadoph.gov.au/exhibitions/online/dismissed/prologue.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Kerr did not forgive Fraser

I remember reading an article in 1995 on the 20th anniversary of the Dismissal that while Kerr did not regret dismissing Whitlam he however did not forgive Fraser for not accepting much of the blame for his part in it.

On this Kerr had no intention of ever catching up with Fraser and this should be included in the article. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The "Palace Letters"

The "Palace Letters" (a set of 211 letters between the Queen, her representatives, and then governor general John Kerr in the lead-up to Whitlam’s dismissal) were released on Tuesday July 14th 2020. I assume editors will wish to interleave their contents into the article. The link to a Guardian article about the set is here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/14/better-for-her-majesty-not-to-know-palace-letters-reveal-queens-role-in-sacking-of-australian-pm-whitlam

More analysis: https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/07/17/john-kerr-palace-letters-whitlam-cia/ 50.194.115.156 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevance?

This paragraph seems rather irrelevant, seems unsubstantiated considering he had multiple wives and children, and honestly just doesn’t flow very well with the rest of the text. Any thoughts on whether there should be an edit to remove?

”After Kerr's death, his former embittered close friend, Whitlam cabinet member James McClelland, claimed that Kerr had long aspired to be "top dog in Australia"; that Kerr had once made a pass at him; and that the Dismissal could only be fully understood if Kerr's alleged repressed homosexuality was factored in—that an infatuation with Whitlam had become one for Fraser.” DKing1908 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)