Editing Anthony Mason (judge) (section)

==Role in the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam==
{{BLP sources section|date=January 2018}}
{{main|1975 Australian constitutional crisis}}

On 11 November 1975, [[Governor-General of Australia|Governor-General]] Sir [[John Kerr (governor-general)|John Kerr]] summoned Prime Minister [[Gough Whitlam]] to his residence and, without warning, handed him a letter dismissing him from office, together with his ministers. Kerr's 1978 autobiography mentions that he had discussed that possibility with Mason but gives no detail.{{citation needed|date=January 2018}}

In 2012, statements in some of Kerr's papers, released by the [[National Archives of Australia|National Archives]] following a request by Professor [[Jenny Hocking]], were given publicity in her biography, ''Gough Whitlam: His Time''. Kerr confirms that, in 1975, Mason had advised him on whether the [[Constitution of Australia|Constitution]] allows a Governor-General to dismiss a Prime Minister who is unable to obtain supply. Kerr claims that Mason, as well as Chief Justice Sir [[Garfield Barwick]], had advised him that there is such power and that he had followed that advice.{{citation needed|date=January 2018}}

In response, on 27 August 2012, Mason published his own account in major newspapers.<ref name=mason>{{cite web |title=Mason Disputes Details But Largely Confirms Kerr's Account Of Their Discussions |url=http://whitlamdismissal.com/2012/08/27/mason-largely-confirms-kerrs-account-of-discussions.html#more-685 |website=WhitlamDismissal.com |access-date=2018-03-19}}</ref><ref>The dismissal letter, Kerr's statement of reasons and Barwick's advice are reproduced in {{cite book |last1=Williams |first1=George |last2=Brennan |first2=Sean |last3=Lynch |first3=Andrew |title=Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory |year=2014 |edition=6 |publisher=Federation Press |location=Leichhardt, NSW |isbn=978-1-86287-918-8 |pages=361–65}}</ref>

Mason's account challenges the accuracy and completeness of Kerr's account in several respects, but most importantly on his advice regarding power to dismiss a Prime Minister. He confirms that, as early as August 1975, he had advised Kerr, as a "close friend", that the Governor-General does have such power.  He confirms, as Kerr's autobiography stated (although Kerr's papers give a different impression), that he had only advised Kerr on the available courses of action and had not advised him to pursue the course of dismissal.<ref name=mason/>

Mason also stresses that he had warned Kerr on several occasions, and as late as 9 November 1975, that the Governor-General could exercise that power only after notifying the Prime Minister that he would do so if the Prime Minister did not agree to holding a general election. On 19 November, Mason says, he asked Kerr to ensure that his papers contained that warning, but Kerr did not do so.<ref name=mason/>

However, on 11 November 1975, Kerr dismissed Whitlam summarily. Had Kerr notified Whitlam of his intention, Whitlam could pre-empted his dismissal by advising the Queen to dismiss Kerr. Mason confirms that Kerr was well aware of the danger of what Kerr referred to as a "race to the Palace". Indeed, Mason says, Kerr had told him that Whitlam had once raised with him the possibility of such a situation.<ref name=mason/>

Mason recounts that, in August, or soon after in 1975, Kerr had been told by a member of the Prime Minister's department that Whitlam was of the view that, if Kerr were to indicate that he might dismiss Whitlam, Whitlam would advise the Queen to dismiss Kerr. Mason states that, at Kerr's request, on 9 November he drafted a letter dismissing Whitlam,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hocking |first1=Jenny |title=Snub over 'palace letters' underlines why Australia should ditch the Queen |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2018/mar/19/snub-over-palace-letters-underlines-why-australia-should-ditch-the-queen |access-date=2018-03-19 |work=The Guardian |date=2018-03-19}}</ref> although without consulting him further a "very different" text was used.<ref name=mason/>

Mason says that he had declined to provide Kerr with written advice on his powers, particularly because it would be inappropriate for a Justice of the [[High Court of Australia|High Court]] to do so without consulting the Chief Justice. However, at Kerr's request, Chief Justice Barwick did provide written advice, which was that he did have power to dismiss a Prime Minister who could not obtain supply and was unwilling to either resign or agree to a general election.<ref name=mason/>

Mason states that he saw that advice and expressed broad agreement with it. He says that, when Kerr asked him whether, if the matter came to the High Court, Barwick should sit, he had said that he did not know.  He says that Kerr did not ask him what his own position would be in that event.  But he recalls that he had thought it unlikely that the matter would come to the High Court, which had also been Barwick's advice to Kerr.<ref name=mason/>

Mason's statement ends:
:Despite my disagreement with Sir John’s account of events and his decision not to warn the prime minister, I consider that Sir John was subjected to unjustified vilification for making the decision which he made.  I consider and have always considered that Sir John acted consistently with his duty except in so far as he had a duty to warn the prime minister of his intended action and he did not do so.<ref name=mason/>