With apologies to former prime minister Gough Whitlam,these might approximate words he would use today to demand the unsealing of documents held by the National Archives that constitute thelast significant piece in the puzzle of what actually took place in the lead-up to his dismissal on November 11,1975 by then governor-general John Kerr.
In light of last week'shearing by the High Court of Australia into an appeal against a lower court's refusal,via a split 2-1 decision,not to order the release of the Kerr documents,it is reasonable to ask this simple question. Why is the Australian public being deprived of its historical birthright in the form of a full accounting of what actually transpired in those fateful days leading up to the Whitlam dismissal and subsequently?
The Kerr documents,sealed in the National Archives,might answer some of those questions. This includes what sort of consultation,if any,was held between Yarralumla and Buckingham Palace to forestall the possibility of Whitlam demanding the Queen sack Kerr before the latter had his opportunity to get in first.
Other questions include the extent to which Kerr might have communicated either directly or indirectly with opposition leader Malcolm Fraser,or his surrogates,in the lead-up to the Whitlam sacking.
How reliant was Kerr on constitutional advice from Chief Justice Garfield Barwick and High Court justice Anthony Mason?
The short answer to all of this is there is no sustainable justification for what the National Archives argues are Kerr's"personal"documents to remain private.
After all,these communications with Australia's distant monarch were constructed by Kerr and communicated by Kerr while he was serving as governor-general. He was fulfilling his constitutional duties. He sacked Whitlam on vice regal authority. He was not a private citizen.