Dnarever wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:


not really at all. His choices were to sack the govt or have the govt collapse and unable to pay for the running of the country. He didnt really have any other option. And he did after all refer the matter to the final arbiter - the voters. Most people who reject Kerrs actions fail to realise thatthe people themselves endorsed it. It is in a curious way the ultimate stamp of authenticity - unless of course the people's opinion isnt valued.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:


Although Kerr was once associated with the ALP, by the time he was appointed Governor General, his political views had changed considerably.  I don't think that he was guilty of political bias though.  The installation of Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister was, however, a bad move that gave the impression of political bias.

Improper?  Yes.  He was reportedly advised by Sir Roden Cutler to let Whitlam know what he was proposing to do.  He did not heed this advice.  It would have been the proper thing to do.

Unnecessary?  I think that he did what he did in the belief that it was in the best interests of the nation.  The crisis facing the government may have been able to be resolved in other ways, but the options were running out and, as has been pointed out, Kerr's actions were, in a way, approved of by the public at the subsequent election.

Kerr may have acted outside the expected conventions, but I don't think that he acted outside the required conventions.

Frances wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:


you ahve to feel sorry for the poor bugger who was put in a terrible place by the circumstances. for all the angst, Ive not seen anyone come up with a viable option to the course of action he took. It is one of the values of our system that it went to an election that decided he matter once and for all.