The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor-General, etc...


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
UPDATE

The GG did NOT inform the Queen in advance that he was going to dismiss the government.

'I was of the opinion it was better for Her Majesty to not know in advance...'

Even her Private Secretary supports that information thanking him for 'his consideration of Her Majesty'.

The letters were expected to say that The Queen knew in advance and advised the GG but ... they show she didn't know in advance at all. As she didn't know she didn't interfere in Australian politics.

The GG did follow the Constitution by the way ... and the powers of the GG to dismiss a PM still exists (as can all State Governors dismiss their Governors ... as happened in NSW in 1932.)

Further information from the letters indicate that the Sir John Kerr did check with The Queen that he did have the right to dismiss the PM under the reserve powers of the constitution ... and she advised him that he did but that he should only do so for political and not personal reasons. There is more of course but the essential point is that she didn't know he was going to do it.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
UPDATE

The GG did NOT inform the Queen in advance that he was going to dismiss the government.

'I was of the opinion it was better for Her Majesty to not know in advance...'

Even her Private Secretary supports that information thanking him for 'his consideration of Her Majesty'.

The letters were expected to say that The Queen knew in advance and advised the GG but ... they show she didn't know in advance at all. As she didn't know she didn't interfere in Australian politics.

The GG did follow the Constitution by the way ... and the powers of the GG to dismiss a PM still exists (as can all State Governors dismiss their Governors ... as happened in NSW in 1932.)

Further information from the letters indicate that the Sir John Kerr did check with The Queen that he did have the right to dismiss the PM under the reserve powers of the constitution ... and she advised him that he did but that he should only do so for political and not personal reasons. There is more of course but the essential point is that she didn't know he was going to do it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this, @Iluvbertie
 
I remember that day so well ... I had to sit my Modern History HSC exam in the morning and so arrived home and watched the TV in the afternoon as things unfolded, the equivalent of the UK's A-levels.

I had my 'General Studies' exam the next day ... and in those days there was no actual syllabus ... just three essays on 'issues of the day'. The exam was set in May but one of the questions related to Australian politics and I wrote extensively about the events from the day before. As I received a very high mark for that course (47/50) I can only assume I must have been 'on point' with my essay.

I also did well in the Modern exam. It was bit weird when I started teaching High School in the 1990s to be teaching that day as 'history' when to me it was 'life experience'. I got more used to it as I spent time in my final year as a teacher teaching the 2008 GFC and the changes of PMs in Australia in the 2000s as part of a unit on 'popular culture'.

The subsequent double dissolution election in December was also the first time I was allowed to vote. My parents took me to the PO the next afternoon to ensure I was registered. I had only become qualified a few weeks earlier due to when I turned 18.

11th November - a date in Aussie history with three major events:

1. Armistice Day - which everyone knows and sees us with a one minute silence and increasingly more official acknowledgements ... ANZAC Day is our main memorial day of course.

2. The Dismissal - the day Sir John Kerr dismissed Gough Whitlam

3. The Execution of Ned Kelly - whose final words allegedly were 'such is life'.
 
Last edited:
Thanks iluvbertie for the insights, looks like another black spider memos then.
 
So far what has been revealed would be even less incriminating than the 'black spider' letters. I do notice that the Sydney Morning Herald's headline has changed to 'A Total Bombshell: Neither The Queen nor Sir John Emerge Unscathed'. Unfortunately I have used my five articles for this month and so can't read it ... but other outlets aren't making such a claim.

news.com.au - have to go the politics page as not on the main page - 'Palace Letters from John Kerr show Prince Charles was in the Loop' - wow - the heir to the throne, aged 29 knew what was happening in one of his realms. The Queen, like her father before her, wanted to ensure that her heir was prepared in case he had to ascend the throne early so of course he was 'in the loop.' I would have been more surprised to find out he wasn't 'in the loop'.

Nine news: https://www.9news.com.au/national/p...ismissal/77152c95-70bb-4e53-be06-f622871d88b4
has the ALPs views on the letters
 
Iluvbertie said:
So far what has been revealed would be even less incriminating than the 'black spider' letters. I do notice that the Sydney Morning Herald's headline has changed to 'A Total Bombshell: Neither The Queen nor Sir John Emerge Unscathed'. Unfortunately I have used my five articles for this month and so can't read it ... but other outlets aren't making such a claim.

news.com.au - have to go the politics page as not on the main page - 'Palace Letters from John Kerr show Prince Charles was in the Loop' - wow - the heir to the throne, aged 29 knew what was happening in one of his realms. The Queen, like her father before her, wanted to ensure that her heir was prepared in case he had to ascend the throne early so of course he was 'in the loop.' I would have been more surprised to find out he wasn't 'in the loop'.

Nine news: https://www.9news.com.au/national/p...ismissal/77152c95-70bb-4e53-be06-f622871d88b4
has the ALPs views on the letters
Click to expand...


The SMH article inspiring the headline was written by the historian who sought access so no wonder she is playing the letters up. The same article is available in the Age and it will let you in even thought you may have used to SMH article limit and the Age & SMH are part of the same group.

The Guardian has rolling coverage as people tweet anything of interest. Needless to say the Republicans are trying to make a mountain out of nothing. Lots of faux outrage.
 
Sounds like she is just really upset that the letters didn't reveal what she wanted them to show - that the Queen acted unconstitutionally. Anyone with half a brain knows that The Queen has always been scrupulous in adhering to the respective constitutions of her different realms but there are some academics who struggle with that concept.
 
There is no doubt that the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth " shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General" (Section 64 of the constitution of Australia).


However, putting it in another way in view of British constitutional practice, if a similar situation had arisen in the United Kingdom, would the Queen have dismissed the PM or would she have let the politicians sort it out themselves?
 
In the UK the powers of the monarch aren't limited by a written document but by convention so no she wouldn't dismiss the PM ... even though the government would be completely unable to operate, as the convention is such that the Queen can't do that.

In Australia the constitution is clear - the GG, like the state governors - have the power to dismiss the PM/Premiers. Those powers still exist as there has been no referendum to remove them from the constitution.

The politicians couldn't sort out the situation in 1975 which led to the crisis. The country was about to literally not be able to pay for the essential workers e.g. immigration officials and other federal public servants as there was an impasse between the two sides of politics and the two houses over passing the supply bills - or the ones that say that the army etc can be paid ... along with other things. That had been going on for weeks with neither Whitlam nor Fraser prepared to give way. We could have gone on ... until the next election which wasn't due to 18 months with no government and no federal public servants being paid or have the solution the GG came up with - send it to the people. He didn't just dismiss the PM, he did insist on a double dissolution election ... which resulted in the greatest landslide victory for the Liberals in history. They even won control of the Senate.

Interestingly for such a monumental event in Australia's history you would imagine that it is compulsory to be taught in our history courses. It isn't. The only Australian history that is compulsory, in high school, is the life of indigenous Australians pre-1788 in Year 7, a selection of Australia's role in both WWI and WWII as well as a study of the Australian home front and Changing Rights and Freedoms for Australian indigenous peoples post WWII. No study of the constitution, political changes, the dismissal or the republican referendum. There are some elective units that allow teachers to cover some other aspects of Australian history such as the decision at my school to include it in a study of 'popular culture' although we can't bring in the republican referendum.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
In the UK the powers of the monarch aren't limited by a written document but by convention so no she wouldn't dismiss the PM ... even though the government would be completely unable to operate, as the convention is such that the Queen can't do that.
.
Click to expand...


Possibly the same scenario might have emerged in Australia if Sir John Kerr had not dismissed the government, i.e. the government would have been unable to operate and the PM would have had no choice, but to ask for an early election. My opinion is that the GG rushed to intervene rather than letting the normal political process run its course, which is what the Queen would have done in his place, I think.


The most interesting aspect of this case is not, however, if Sir John Kerr acted properly or not, but rather to clear the misconception , seen even in the linked BBC article, that the Governor-General is merely the "Queen's representative". Although it is true that GG exercises his powers "during the Queen's pleasure" , the word "representative" (used in Section 2 of the constitution) should not be interpreted as meaning that the GG is a delegate who acts solely on the Queen's instructions. On the contrary, he makes decisions with respect to the government of Australia on his own discretion and does not need to consult the Queen before making such decisions. The appointment and removal of members of the Federal Executive Council or Ministers of State, for example, are powers that are vested personally in the GG by the constititution, and not on the Queen.



At least that is how I interpret it.
 
Last edited:
The government had been unable to operate since early October and was about to run out of money. Without the Supply Bills being passed the federal public service, army, etc wouldn't be paid. Other bills also wouldn't be paid. The Senate wasn't going to budge as Fraser wasn't going to let the Liberals budge and the Liberals controlled the Senate.

This wasn't a decision made on one day but one that had been building up for weeks.

Whitlam did ask for a half-Senate election and Kerr asked him if he could guarantee that he would get a Senate majority with a half-Senate election. Whitlam couldn't give that guarantee and if that failed then they were back to square one. Whitlam was asked to ask for an election and refused.

The situation can't arise in the UK as the House of Lords doesn't have the powers to hold up money bills the way the Senate can in Australia. It could, prior to the reforms of 1911 ... and in fact it was the stopping of the People's Budget in 1910 that triggered the reforms of 1911, which saw George V threaten the Lords that he would create enough peers to ensure the legislation - both budget and Lords reform passed ... so the Lords passed both pieces of legislation. The Queen therefore would never be faced with the same situation of the Upper House refusing to pass money bills.

If the Australian Constitution had been written a decade later than it was the situation wouldn't have been able to arise either - as the UK parliament would have ensured that the Senate had the same powers as the House of Lords. Remember that our constitution is an Act of the British Parliament ... and for a century we didn't even have the original document in Australia. The Queen gave it to us on the 100th anniversary of Queen Victoria signing it into law.
 
Iluvbertie, is what the GG did viewed as a good thing or bad thing? Regardless of The Queens involvement.

It seems so monumental.
 
It still depends largely on what side of politics a person is, especially with ALP supporters. To the ALP Kerr is still the devil incarnate while to Liberal supporters he did the right thing as the people were able to have their say.

As an historian I always tried to present both sides of the argument without emotion and let each student reach their own conclusion. Due to where I teach most came down on the side of Kerr deserved to be hung, drawn and quartered (the school is in one of the safest ALP electorates in the country with the primary ALP vote usually around 65% although in 2019 it was only 58%.
 
VictoriaB said:
The Guardian has rolling coverage as people tweet anything of interest.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...rr-gough-whitlam-1975-dismissal-released-live

Has there been any more coverage in regard to ex-Prime Minister Whitlam calling Buckingham Palace requesting to be reinstated as PM because his party had passed a supply bill? Was his request constitutional?

It is interesting that both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General mentioned the possibility of the Governor-General advising the Queen to sack the Prime Minister at the same time the Prime Minister was advising the Queen to sack the Governor-General, and that the Queen's Private Secretary made clear that if it came to choose, the Queen would follow the advice of the Prime Minister.

I am surprised that of all the potential reasons for the Queen to decline the proposal for the Prince of Wales to become governor-general of Australia, she declined it on the basis that a governor-general needed to have a wife (!).


Statement from Buckingham Palace:

While the Royal Household believes in the longstanding convention that all conversations between prime ministers, governor-generals and the Queen are private, the release of the letters... confirms that neither Her Majesty nor the Royal Household had any part to play in Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam.
Click to expand...
 
Tatiana Maria said:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...rr-gough-whitlam-1975-dismissal-released-live

Has there been any more coverage in regard to ex-Prime Minister Whitlam calling Buckingham Palace requesting to be reinstated as PM because his party had passed a supply bill? Was his request constitutional?

It is interesting that both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General mentioned the possibility of the Governor-General advising the Queen to sack the Prime Minister at the same time the Prime Minister was advising the Queen to sack the Governor-General, and that the Queen's Private Secretary made clear that if it came to choose, the Queen would follow the advice of the Prime Minister.

I am surprised that of all the potential reasons for the Queen to decline the proposal for the Prince of Wales to become governor-general of Australia, she declined it on the basis that a governor-general needed to have a wife (!).


Statement from Buckingham Palace:
Click to expand...

Answering one of your questions, under the constitution of Australia, the power to appoint and dismiss ministers is not vested in the Queen, but rather in the Governor-General. I don’t think it would be up to the Queen to either dismiss or reinstate the PM.

However, The Queen could have terminated Sir John Kerr’s commission and removed him as that was within her power.
 
Last edited:
Lumutqueen said:
Iluvbertie, is what the GG did viewed as a good thing or bad thing? Regardless of The Queens involvement.

It seems so monumental.
Click to expand...

I remember the whole controversy well. It of course caused heated debate at the time and for my generation, and as an ALP (Labor) supporter and history buff it was a sore point for a long time.

However, it's been a VERY long time since the dismissal ( Sir John Kerr did not last long as GG after it) and I doubt it looms large in the mindset of Australians born in the last forty years or so. Except as a festering sore in the collective memory of fervent republicans of course!

As for what Australians thought at the time, the Whitlam government was regarded as a failure by many voters at the time, for various reasons, though Whitlam has remained as a hero to many supporters of the ALP. Malcolm Fraser's Liberal (Coalition) govt won the following election by a large margin shortly after the dismissal, so there I suppose lies your answer!
 
Please follow this link to see a copy of the Queen's commission appointing the current Governor-General of Australia, His Excellency General The Honourable David Hurley AC, DSC.



The commission is signed by the Queen (on the top) and by the prime minister (on the bottom). The preamble includes the Queen's official title in Australia:


"ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."


It is interesting to note that the Australian commission has a more modern wording than its Canadian counterpart (seen at the bottom of the page after the GG's proclamation).
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
A letter from Prince Charles to Sir John Kerr written several months after the Dismissal, has turned up in the Australian, in which he expresses sympathy for Sir John's position and his actions of the year before (1975.)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rtedly-endorsing-sacking-of-whitlam-condemned
Click to expand...

I know that Jenny Hocking is a Whitlam supporter and possibly a republican, who is still bitter about the reveal of the Palace letters in July and mostly nick pick things out of context, but I think Charles should not have sent a "sympathy letter" to John Kerr. The reason is that it would show Charles is leaning on one side of the political controversy and not neutral. Unless, he also sent a "sympathetic letter" to Gough Whitlam, but then again, even if he does that, he would also dragged the monarchy into politics.

The part that drives the controversy was
“What you did last year was right and the courageous thing to do – and most Australians seemed to endorse your decision when it came to the point.”​

Again, Charles should have done what The Queen did by staying away from politics. And I'm quite serious about Charles involvement in contentious issues, because that was one the main reasons that drives the republican movement in Australia.
 
The Australian has published an article claiming that Sir John Kerr has the confidence of Malcolm Fraser and Buckingham Palace, based on newly released documents.

Revealed: How palace and prime minister’s misgivings led Sir John Kerr to resign
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...n/news-story/3fc7cb2f6800df6ec56e66319751dd9c

Both Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston (the writers of the above article) are the author of a new book, The Truth of the Palace Letters: Deceit, Ambush and Dismissal In 1975, due to be released on 3rd November.

https://books.google.com.au/books/a...EACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

I know the link may be behind a paywall if you have access the recent The Australian's articles to the limit.
 
I've never the understood why the Prince of Wales thinks it a good idea to involve himself with politics either in the UK or Australia or anywhere else for that matter. Surely he must realise that it does a lot more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
The online Ipsos poll conducted for The Age (left-leaning), The Sydney Morning Herald (centrist) and Nine News asked 1222 Australian (aged 18+) on the question: Do you think Australia should become a republic?
Yes: 34%
No: 40%
Don’t know: 26%

[Apologies on the table not being lined up]
By age group:
18-24 25-39 40-54 55+
Yes 26% 34% 34% 34%
No 34% 35% 40% 45%
Don’t know 41% 31% 26% 22%

By voting intention (Coalition: Centre-right, Labor: Centre-left, Green: Left):
Coalition Labor Greens
Yes 27% 41% 46%
No 52% 34% 30%
Don’t know 21% 25% 25%

By country of birth:
Aus Other
Yes 33% 38%
No 41% 37%
Don’t know 26% 25%

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...alia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html

Ipsos director Jessica Elgood mentioned that this 34% was the lowest recorded by Ipsos and Nielsen polls since 1979.

Ipsos director Jessica Elgood said 34 per cent support for republic was the lowest recorded by Ipsos and Nielsen polls since 1979.

She said she was surprised support was so low, but the country had been preoccupied with other issues, including bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Click to expand...
 
As an Aussie I echo the Ipsos director's remarks regarding the present support levels for a republic. With terrible bushfires followed almost immediately by the arrival of a pandemic the last thing Australians have been thinking about in the last twelve months is installing a republic, with all its associated expense.

I've always said that the litmus test for a serious debate about an Australian republic will come after the death of the present Queen. There is a great deal of respect for her here.

At the moment she is alive and well and long may she remain so. However, the feeling for Charles and Camilla is different. We shall see what happens in the future.
 
Also as an Aussie I would agree with Curryong’s comments that Australia has had a lot of other issues to deal with.

I love the Royals however am a strong supporter of a republic in Australia but do feel that one of the issues now impacting the issue of a republic is the low standing of politicians in the country.

A decade ago even if you disagreed with a politician you respected their position as an MP. Now, we seem to have lost that and surveys have shown (particularly in recent elections) that people, particularly younger voters are losing respect for the political parties etc and we are seeing an increase in independent members of parliament at a federal and state level. The problem for a republic is that the only model we have had put forward (intentionally at that time) was one that was tied up in our politicians choosing the head of state. If people feel they can’t trust the politicians then they like a figurehead who is above that and a different model will need to be put forward.

My daughter is about to turn 16 and is definitely not as supportive of a republic as me. She sees the queen as a grandmother type figure and was not around for the Charles/Camilla/Diana triangle and therefore cares more about the fact that Charles looks after the environment which is important to her generation. The statistics above show that young people are not as worried about a republic and I wonder if that is because they never knew Diana and so don’t have that immediate deep seated reaction to Charles that those of us who are older do. By the time we get to a vote this generation will be voting in a Republic referendum.

The Queen dying will be a catalyst for a Republic in Australia and I have no doubt that it will happen but I don’t believe that if it happened in the next three years it would be the massive vote it once would have been.
 
Curryong said:
As an Aussie I echo the Ipsos director's remarks regarding the present support levels for a republic. With terrible bushfires followed almost immediately by the arrival of a pandemic the last thing Australians have been thinking about in the last twelve months is installing a republic, with all its associated expense.

I've always said that the litmus test for a serious debate about an Australian republic will come after the death of the present Queen. There is a great deal of respect for her here.

At the moment she is alive and well and long may she remain so. However, the feeling for Charles and Camilla is different. We shall see what happens in the future.
Click to expand...

Always interesting to hear about this debate in Australia. What would replace the present system? A directly elected president? And what powers would a president have? Would Ireland be the model followed?
 
Well, that’s a deeply interesting question isn’t it? And one that came up constantly in the debate before the referenda we had in the 1990s, which was lost for the republic side. Several of their leaders came out at the time and said that the question had been defeated on what form of Presidency not being fully sorted out before the Referendum was held and being made clear on the form.

The sort of President countries like Ireland have, who mostly concern themselves with ceremonial duties and are not involved in politics, appointed by Parliament or the PM, would be the least contentious. It is the sort of thing our Governors General do now (though THEY have far reaching powers as well.)

However in surveys taken before the referendum that wasn’t the sort of Presidency the majority of Australians were enthusiastic about. They appeared to want a US style Presidency elected by the people.

As that is obviously not very compatible with the Westminster style of government it’s hardly surprising that republican- minded govt ministers and members of the House of Representatives weren’t particularly happy with that model.


Maybe the Australian public have changed their minds about the sort of Presidency they want since the late 1990s. However, it is central to any future republic of Australia. There will have to be a great deal of debate and a lengthy Constitutional Convention held before a referenda is held next time. I do think it will come nevertheless, in the next reign.
 
Last edited:
The Australian Republic Movement promotes an Irish-style republic, not the sort the USA has. An Irish-style system would slip most easily into our current parliamentary system and involve minimal change. It would give the people the power to decide who their head of state is going to be as they would have the final say from the pool selected by whatever method is adopted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
Queen Elizabeth (1926-2022) and the Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021)
2 3
Replies
77
Views
11K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
  • Locked
General News for Queen Elizabeth II: April 2021 - September 2022
12 13 14
Replies
398
Views
56K
JessRulz
JessRulz
muriel
Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee Celebrations: 2022
26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
112K
yukari
Y
AC21091968
The Queen: A Life in Pictures (by Victoria Murphy)
Replies
1
Views
1K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
LadyFinn
The Crown Princess Couple's 10th Wedding Anniversary: 19th June 2020
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom