-AmP 3
PRIME MINISTER
PARLIAMENTARY STATEMENT 2 MARCH 1978
On 14th July, 1977, Sir John Kerr announced his intention to
relinciuish the office of Governor-General. lie made his decision
because he believed that the events of 1975 and
the position into which he had been forced while serving as
Governor-General of Australia had left some scars on the
Australian body politic, which would be more quickly healed if
he stepped down. Sir John protected the Australian people and
Parliament according to the law, according to the Constitution
and according to his duty as Governor-General.
The attempt of the Labor Government to stay in power in defiance
of Parliament compelled his proper and inevitable dismissal of
that Government. An executive governing without the sanction of
the Parliament is the hallmark, not of a democracy, but of a
dictatorship. His difficult decision gave the people the opportunity
to vote and upheld the Parliamentary system. The people of
Australia passed their clear judgement on these events and
Sir John's actions in the election of 1975. History will judge
them just as clearly. It will support the actions Sir John Kerr
was compelled to take in the extraordinary circumstances in which
the Government of the day so reprehensibly placed him.
Australia, as a nation of free people, owes as much to the courage
of Sir John Kerr as to any man in our history. Had he not acted
as he did, had he not prevented the unconstitutional designs of
the last Government being consummated the shape of Australian
democracy would have been twisted and distorted. Sir John's
action was opposed by a hostile and bitter minority. Division
was caused by the statements of the then Leader of the Opposition,
by Senator James McClelland and other members of the Labor Party
who sought to make the Governor-General a scapegoat for their own
actions. Because of this unjustified bitterness, the office of
the Governor-General became a matter of national controversy.
Sir John recognised this we all did.
He believed he could best serve Australia by standing aside, by
allowing another to serve as Governor-General. This he did.
His action was applauded. I believe his action was right, that
it contributed to our nation's healing process to a return to
normalcy. In this Parliament two days ago, I drew attention to Sir John's
long and notable career of public service, and to the fact that
both as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of N~ ew South Wales
and as Governor-General, he would have been able to devote more
of his life to serving Australia had not most unusual events
intervened. / 2
At the time of Sir John's resignation, he said he looked towards
new fields of constructive actitity. It was clear that he still
wished to serve this country in some other capacity where he
could serve energetically but out of the public gaze. Recognizing
Sir John's desire to continue serving Australia, I after
consultation with my senior colleagues, offered him on behalf of
the Government the opportunity to do so. This became possible
after the Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote to me on 1 February,
advising that in his judgement the Australian diplomatic posts
at Los ngeles, Bombay and UNESCO should be re-opened. As a
result of that advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and
after consultation with my colleagues, the Government decided to
offer Sir John Kerr the post of Ambassador to UNESCO.
The Government took this step in the firm belief that Sir John Kerr
would fill the post with honour and as ably as any man available
from within or without the public service. The Government
believed that having served this nation honourably, Sir John
should not be cast aside, relegated to the shadows, simply because
he was forced by the Government of the day to make a difficult
decision. The Government believed that he had earned the right
to serve the nation quitely, at peace with himself, at peace with
the nation at peace with his family.
There were people in this community who were determined that
this should not be so. Since his appointment as Ambassador to
UNESCO, the attacks on him in the Parliament and attacks outside
it have been renewed. Sir John Kerr, once having discharged his
duty to the nation under the most difficult circumstances, has
no wish to continue as the centre of public dispute, making it
impossible for him and his family to live the normal life to
which we are all entitled.
An Ambassador at UNESCO trying to carry out his functions under
these conditions would find it impossible to discharge the
responsibilities of his office.
Mr. Speaker, I inform the House that I have today re ceived a
message from His Excellency Sir. John Kerr who was today to have
commenced duty as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. Sir John has
informed me that with great regret he feels he cannot take up
this post. I read to the House the message that I have received:-
" My dear Prime Minister,
I have become aware since arriving in Paris of
the attacks that have been made upon me and upon
the Government as a result of my appointment as
Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. These attacks
have been made in the Parliament, under Parliamentary
privilege, by members of the Opposition Parties.' and
they have also been made in various branches of the
media. I am bound to say that the virulence of these
attacks and their unfairness has shocked me. I
have to contemplate serving in this appointment
in the face of them, and possibly perhaps likelytheir
continuation. / 3
-3-
" There is no doubt that in these circumstances,
my ability successfully to undertake the work of
Ambassador to UNESCO would be severely impaired.
For most of the time I should be absent from'
Australia and, holding an Ambassadorial appointment,
be unable to reply in the way that I would wish and
to overcome them as I believe I did during my term
as Governor-General. Beyond this, I have had to
consider whether the purpose that led me to leave
the Governor-Generalship earlier than the normal
term will be defeated if controversy over this new
appointment continues.
As you know I felt that by leaving the office of
Governor-General when I did there would be an
opportunity for remaining wounds to heal and
controversy to die down. The importance of the
Gov ernor-Generalship and its protection stand high
in my objectives. My consideration of all these
matters has led me to the conclusion that I should
ask to be relieved from taking the post of
Australian Ambassador to UNESCO in which I would
have begun duty today.
I believe there is too much at risk, greatly as
the position would have attracted me personally
and much as I feel I would hay e been able to
contribute to Australia's interests with UNESCO.
There is a further reason which concerns me in the
decision I now make. That is the feelings of my
wife and family, who with me have had to withstand
the vilification and attack for part of my term as
Governor-General, and now in prospect through a
term as Ambassador to UNESCO. They with many others
have stood by me without question through all that
has happened. I am not prepared to demand more of
them. I am not prepared to subject them to this
further trial by innuendo and falsehood, even though
my personal instinct is to stand firm and make
certain once again that this tactic of persecution
fails. Prime Minister, I trust that you will understand the
considerations that have led me to this decision.
I appreciate the support I have had from the Government
and your desire to allow me to continue to serve
Australia in public office.
My decision, however, is made. It is with sadness
and regret that I inform you of it.
Yours sincerely,
John Kerr."
-4-
I can only deplore the actions that led to this decision.
The bitterness of the attack, especially in another chamber,
since Sir John left the protection of the office of Governor-
General, has shown that the Labor Party still blame him, when
in logic and in justice, they should be blaming themselves.
They are still seeking to find a scapegoat for their own
misdeeds. The A. L. P.' s refusal to allow Sir John to serve
his country in peace has been despicable; their actions and
statements on this mat-ter have served only to descredit
themselves. There have been some who have sought to confuse the high
purpose of this man with the remuneration he would have
received in his new post. If this is to be a point of
principle, then it should equally have been applied to
appointments such as that of Senator Murphy to the High Court,
Mr. Barnard to an ambassadorship.
The principle of taking a full salary while retaining their pension
was established by the previous Labor Government. It is plain
that this itself is not the major matter of dispute.
If there are others who believe Sir John's actions in 1975 to
have been proper and necessary, but who now want to pass him
by, who want to forget he ever existed and deny him the possibility
of service; I only ask them to ask themselves how much justice,
how much fairness there is in that view.
By his decision, Sir John Kerr leaves public life. A long and
distinguished public career is thus ended. I respect his decision.
I cannot argue with it.
To be an ambassador, constantly pilloried, constantly in the
public glare, who had his family placed under intolerable stress,
was something he did not want; he deserved better.
I feel shame for those events which led to this decision. I
expected less meanness, more generosity and more understanding of
a person who only wanted to serve his nation. I can only hope
that all Australians will now show Sir John the decency and respect
in his retirement that his great integrity and courage in public
office have earned him.
Sir John Kerr ' can hold his head high as he leaves the public
arena he has served so faithfully and well.
.0000....