SYDNEY: A legal battle over secret letters revealing what Queen Elizabeth II knew of her Australian representative’s stunning plan to dismiss Australia’s government in 1975 opened in federal court Monday, in a case that could finally solve a mystery behind the country’s most dramatic political crisis.
Historian Jenny Hocking is asking the Federal Court to force the National Archives of Australia to release the letters between the British monarch, who is also Australia’s constitutional head of state, and her former Australian representative, Governor-General Sir John Kerr. The Archives have classified the letters as “personal,” meaning they might never be made public.
The letters would reveal what, if anything, the queen knew about Kerr’s plan to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s government in 1975 to resolve a deadlock in Parliament. It is the only time in Australian history that a democratically elected federal government was dismissed on the British monarch’s authority. The dismissal stunned Australians and bolstered calls for the country to sever its colonial ties to Britain and become a republic.
Whitlam’s own son, lawyer Antony Whitlam, is arguing the case on behalf of Hocking, and took on the case free of charge.
Hocking, a Whitlam biographer, argues that Australians have a right to know the details of their history, and that the letters written in the months leading up to the unprecedented dismissal are key to unraveling the truth.
“It needs to be settled once and for all,” she said during a court recess. “There’s a lot of uncertainty in this.”
Antony Whitlam argued that the letters should be viewed as official, rather than personal, documents in part because the relationship between the governor-general and the Queen is an official one.
“It couldn’t seriously be suggested that there was a personal relationship between the Queen and John Kerr,” he told the court.
If the letters lose their “private” and “personal” classification, they are free to be made public 30 years after they were written like other government documents held in the Archives. That means they could be available immediately.
Lawyer Tom Howe, who is representing the Archives, told the court that there was a distinction between the institution of the governor-general and the governor-general himself. The governor-general himself, Howe argued, is not a national institution, and thus his personal records are owned by him and are not subject to the Archives Act. The Act allows for the release of official records.
Questions and conspiracy theories still swirl about the motivations surrounding the prime minister’s dismissal. Kerr, who died in 1991, said the decision to oust Whitlam was his alone. But some Australians believe the Queen had a hand in the decision.
One of the most spectacular theories is that the US Central Intelligence Agency ordered Whitlam’s dismissal because the agency feared his government would close a top-secret US intelligence facility in the Australian Outback. Kerr rejected that theory as false.
Before 1975, few Australians realized the governor-general — whose role is largely ceremonial — had the power to fire a prime minister during a constitutional crisis.
That crisis began when the opposition party tried to force Whitlam to call general elections by blocking routine legislation in the Senate that allowed the government to pay public servant salaries and provide services. Whitlam refused to call an election, sparking a weeks-long constitutional impasse.
Kerr then fired Whitlam, called an election and appointed opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as prime minister. Weeks later, Fraser’s coalition won an overwhelming election victory.
Critics of Kerr dubbed his firing of Whitlam an ambush, and said the governor-general should have warned the prime minister that it was coming. Kerr said he was worried Whitlam would have fired him first if he’d tipped him off ahead of time.
Monday’s hearing was the only one scheduled in the case. Federal Court Justice John Griffiths is expected to issue a ruling at a later date.
Australian court debates release of Queen’s secret letters
Australian court debates release of Queen’s secret letters
US intel did not suggest a preemptive strike from Iran before US-Israeli attacks, AP sources say
- The official said a variety of factors created a golden opportunity to take out much of Iran’s leadership
WASHINGTON: Trump administration officials told congressional staff in private briefings Sunday that US intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the US, three people familiar with the briefings said.
The administration officials instead acknowledged there was a more general threat in the region from Iran’s missiles and proxy forces, two of the people said. The third person, however, said the administration emphasized that Iran’s missiles and proxy forces posed an imminent threat to US personnel and allies in the region.
The officials did not provide any clarity about what would happen next in Iran after the joint US-Israeli operation, the two people said. All three people insisted on anonymity to discuss details that have not been made public.
The information conveyed to the congressional staff contrasts with the message from President Donald Trump. “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. A vicious group of very hard, terrible people,” he said in a video message after launching strikes on Iran.
Senior Trump administration officials, who like others were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, had told reporters Saturday that there were indicators that the Iranians could launch a preemptive attack.
The White House and Pentagon did not immediately reply to requests for comment on Sunday night. Details of the briefing were first reported by Politico.
On Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will brief the full membership of Congress on the US military operation against Iran, the White House said Sunday. Rubio also was slated to brief Hill leadership Monday, the same day Hegseth and Caine are planning a press conference about the operation.
Three strikes, three locations, within a single minute
The military operation came after authorities from Israel and the US spent weeks tracking the movements of senior Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and shared information that allowed the strikes to be carried out in a surprise daylight attack, according to an Israeli military official and another person familiar with the operation.
The eventual barrage of US-Israeli attacks on Iran came so quickly that they were nearly simultaneous — with three strikes in three locations hitting within a single minute — killing Khamenei and some 40 senior figures, including the head of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard and the country’s defense minister, the Israeli military official said Sunday.
The official said a variety of factors created a golden opportunity to take out much of Iran’s leadership, like weeks of training and monitoring the movements of senior figures as well as intelligence in real-time before the attack began that key targets were gathered together.
Striking by day also gave an additional element of surprise, said the official, who said so many major, rapid-fire strikes were critical to keep key officials from fleeing after the first strike. The official said Israel closely cooperated with its US counterparts and had used a similar tactic at the beginning of last June’s war — which resulted in the killing of several senior Iranian figures.
The official also noted Khamenei having posted defiant tweets taunting President Donald Trump in the days before the attack.
The details about the strikes came as the conflict entered its second day, with Trump saying in a video message Sunday that he expected it would continue until “all of our objectives are achieved.” He did not spell out what those objectives were.
The Republican president also said the US military and its partners hit hundreds of targets in Iran, including Revolutionary Guard facilities, Iranian air defense systems and nine warships, “all in a matter of literally minutes.”
CIA had long tracked top Iranian leaders
Before the attacks, the CIA had for months tracked the movements of senior Iranian leaders, including Khamenei.
The intelligence was shared with Israeli officials, and the timing of the strikes was adjusted in part because of that information about the Iranian leaders’ location, according to the person familiar with the planning.
The intelligence-sharing between US and Israel reflects the preparation that went into the strikes, which threw the future of the Islamic Republic into uncertainty and raised the risk of escalating regional conflict.
The US regularly shares intelligence with allies including Israel. Those partnerships, and the accuracy of the intelligence they yield, is often critical not only to the success of a military operation but also to the public’s support for it.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the senior Democrat on the committee, told The Associated Press that, historically, “our working relationship with the Mossad and Israel is really strong.” Mossad is the Israeli spy agency.
Warner said he has serious concerns about the justification for the strikes, Trump’s long-term plans for the conflict and the risks that US service members will face. The military announced Sunday that three American troops had been killed in the Iran operation.
“No tears will be shed over their leadership being eliminated, but always the question is: OK, what next?” Warner said.
Iran has signaled it’s open to talks with the US
A senior White House official said Iran’s “new potential leadership” has suggested it is open to talks with the United States. That official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations, said Trump has indicated he’s “eventually” willing to talk but that for now the military operation “continues unabated.”
The official did not say who the potential new Iranian leaders are or how they made their alleged willingness to talk known. Separately, Trump told The Atlantic that he planned to speak with Iran’s new leadership.
“They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them,” he said Sunday, declining comment on the timing.
