Jenny Hocking was 20 years old at the time of the Dismissal, and hasn't matured since then. Talks about childish obsession! I was in my early 30's, and still in thrall to a man who turned out to be nothing but a shallow, petty and vindictive Fabian. I even 'maintained the rage' be demanded, made easy by the arrogant, cold and snooty creature who replaced him, Malcolm Fraser. But, 45 years later? Come on! China, China virus almost certainly let loose on West by the CCP in its war against us, our wrecked economy, an increasingly powerful cancel culture white anting from within, plus plenty more minor problems; and some ratbag academic (Hocking) is still foaming at the mouth about a perfectly legal action that occurred nearly half a century ago?

A majority of Australians approved the dismissal of Whitlam by chucking him out at the ensuing election. They have more important things to think about now. Anyone still whining about it had their mental and social development permanently arrested 45 years ago.

John Kerr single-handedly saved this nation from ruin. Heroes like him only turn up very rarely !

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

And whatever is said, nothing that has happened, changes!
Alan B.

nothing that has happened, changes!
Alan B,
Well, no ! Things went ok until the Dud got into office & all but reverted all back to Whitlam era tactics.
Of course the regressive progressive now whine about the show in general & they moan that Morrison is not going all that great. It would be good if they could just think for a moment that Morrison took over nothing & has to build from that. I shudder to think what this Nation would be like by now with Shorten at the helm ! I bet even he is glad now that he lost the election !
Trying to rebuilt from a Labor mess with COVID-19 thrown in is a situation no-one in living memory has experienced.
To deal with the economic disaster & the sabotage of the oppositions on top of it puts Morrison & Co into a rather unenviable situation. If only the citizens of this Nation cooperated with this Govt for the good of all !

Don, you're resting on your laurels. This is the Palace-Morrison-Fricker-Twomey line, brushing off (old and new) evidence.

After 45 years, this fissure is deep. It could divide us, another 45 years. If that is the resounding success from "continuity and stability" of a "respectfully neutral" Palace, what would failure look like?

After her fresh denial, MW Media has rightly depicted Elizabeth with a long Pinocchio nose. To paraphrase the Menadue case:
* The dunce Charles faithfully relayed Kerr's plot from PNG back to the Palace, and the Palace at once responded in supportive tones.
* At no stage of a long, neurotic, and humid correspondence did Charteris ever do anything other than butter Kerr up. Despite the fact that he was obviously needy, prejudiced, and unbalanced. Some "judgment".
* Charteris and Elizabeth were joined at the hip, it's inconceivable that he was acting without her full knowledge and consent. Nor would Kerr ever have struck, had Charteris remotely dissuaded him.
* Charteris actively led, the fake Forsey "reference", which endorses "dissolving the House", but ignores the Constitutional option for half-senate election.
* Said option was Whitlam's advice, and should have been preferred to the gratuitous advice of an alien courtier, who felt superior to Kerr and Colony.
* Over a lengthy period, Elizabeth gave special awards to Charteris, Kerr, Smith, and Howard. For services betraying Australia, to the Crown.
* The only logical reason for Elizabeth to personally lock down Australian records, till 2027 and counting, was the certain knowledge of their awkward contents. She was just covering her backside, buffing her image, like any other politician.
* This new lie from the Palace is pure "plausibility deniability". It is only made on the basis that Kerr conveniently "best didn't tell mum" on the actual day. Every other preceding day, Elizabeth and Charteris were in it up to their necks.

And now you suggest that Australians, especially indigenous, should meekly take on board the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England? Next time he shows his face in Canberra, I promise to go down and get arrested.

Steve S,
Did you live in Australia when Kerr rightly showed the Goaf the door ?
Of course it didn't affect the hangers-on so much but It wasn't so nice & cosy for blue collar workers !

1. I very much agree with Don's:

"We have an absentee monarch, who is really not interested in us, and our Constitution delegates all her powers to the G-G. What more could you want?"

2. Looks like the documents represent no Smoking Gun for Professor Hocking to sniff.

3. A Republic with a President?

Just imagine if we had a DIRECTLY ELECTED President.

He/She would not need to be a member of a Party and could win on popularity.

If He/She had loads of money He/She could buy the Presidency.

He/She might have greater powers than the PM.

He/She might need to be impeached by the House of Reps AND the Senate to be gotten rid of.

4. We may get:

- an Aussie version of the rich TRUMP?

- an Alan BOND?

- Clive PALMER is rich.

- a Gina RINEHART?

- Why did someone push for a Republic - Malcolm TURNBULL?

- Who did all Aussies use to like/trust? Are yes, ROLF HARRIS.

What more could you want? Indeed. It's the perfect setup. A symbolic figurehead with almost no power except as a last resort. A position filled via a trusted hereditary formula, thus avoiding the one genuine potential problem, which is selecting a candidate who might come into conflict with the elected government and its Prime Minister. An outsourced "head of state". Perfect. Some seem to find the concept offensive. We can live with that.

Who did all Aussies use to like/trust? Are yes, ROLF HARRIS
plantagenet,
And, don't forget Kevin 07 ! Which of the two let us down mor

No, "Individual", I was studying in Canada. But I was so appalled by the Palace interference that I fell off the electoral roll for 30 years.

Try this simple thought experiment. If a try-hard GG had been plotting with a Labor leader to oust a Liberal PM, would blue-bloods Charles, Elizabeth and Charteris have played it the same way? To the same endgame? Obvious answer: No.

Now that you've instantly rejected that point out of hand, welcome to the next 45 years of Australian rancour. Thanks for the superb legacy, Elizabeth

Steve S,
If a Coalition PM had made as much of a mess as the Goaf managed, the Coalition PM would have been ousted by his own party long before there was a need to involve the GG !
Just look at Abbott as an example. Even though he out-performed the Dud 100:1 he still got the boot.
It's to do with the levels of integrity, competence of the gang behind the PM.
Australia's economic woes are not due to Lizzy, they're entirely due to Labor incompetence !
Their legacy of mismanaging will haunt us for generations !

The real story is not to be found in Kerr’s letters to the Queen, but in his long-standing ties to Anglo-American intelligence organizations.
Kerr was a member of the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom which was a reactionary group founded, funded and run by the CIA. He also helped found a lawyer’s group called Law Asia which too was funded by the CIA.
The CIA was never going to stand for a reformist government in Australia running an independent foreign policy, standing up to America and refusing to be part of its war-mongering.
Senior officers have revealed that the ‘Whitlam problem’ was discussed ‘with urgency’ by the heads of CIA and MI6 and that Kerr, who they referred to as ‘our man’, ‘did what he was told to do.’
The huge numbers of letters to the Queen clearly demonstrate the obsessive lengths Kerr went to in order to obey his CIA directives.
This is the real story.

Yes Bronwyn

None other than unionist expert Bob Hawke
Was an alleged contact of Labour Attache, US Embassy, Canberra
An alleged slot for the ___

Check out the 14th/15th paragraph of

"Is Bob Carr a Spy?"

at http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/is-bob-carr-a-spy,5207

Steve S,

I was around when all this happened, and I can tell you, you're blinded by your ideologies.
Try to think with a clear mind and you will see that, even if there were other alternatives, it was not illegal or unconstitutional to apply the eventual choice.
In my opinion, did the Queen know what was going on?
Of course she did and rightly so, the red-necks and plebs of this country, can't stand having to be beholding to a "MONARCH".
She inherited all that belonged to her father, the moment he died, and whether YOU like it or not, that included ALL the countries owned by the British Empire, OR, her father The KING, at that moment!
So get over yourself and just accept and be grateful that we have had an independent entity quite within her right to influence the direction and stability of one of her countries.
The thing about The Queen is that she did not really want the job, but being the true mature and responsible person that she is, she took on the job and has been the most lauded and successful at her job compared to every other leader or dictator both current and historically.
The idiots who push for a republic, stupidly, ignorantly, arrogantly, and immaturely think that somehow they are going to pick an honest, considerate, mature and objective person as opposed to all the con-men and charlatans that would apply for the job.
As for your pathetic and petulant attempt at an example, if the tables were turned, well thankfully the libs even though they are still con-men and charlatans, they would have been less bogan about the way they went about skimming/scamming as that buffoon Whitless did!
You and your running mates better hope that Charles is not the buffoon he appears to be.
As long as we have someone like Queen Elizabeth watching over us, we can focus on trying to stop the absolute pigs breakfast created and promoted by our so called leaders and how they are managing to stuff up this country, by treasonous acts.