London, 24 March 1971
No. 359. Priority. Confidential
Your telegram No. 275 of23 February.1
Appointment of Australian State Governors.
1. I fear there is not much guidance we can give that will be helpful. Situation under which State Governors are appointed on advice of UK Ministers and using Queen’s UK Style and Titles can only be explained in terms of developments in Australia’s relations with us and with Her Majesty over the last seventy years. Chief milestones were the imperial conferences in 1926 and 1930 and the ensuing Statute of Westminster. The preamble to the Statute referred to The Crown as a symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth and to alterations in the law touching on. the Royal Style and Titles requiring the assent of the Dominion parliaments as well as of the UK parliament. The Statute of Westminster was adopted by the Commonwealth parliament in 1942 and the Queen’s Style and Titles as Queen of Australia was changed by statute in 1953.
2. But the Australian States (unlike the provinces of Canada) were specifically excluded from the operation of the Statute of Westminster. This was certainly in accordance with the wishes of the States who doubtless regarded their continuing links with the UK Government as a safeguard against encroachment by the Commonwealth. The effect has been that State Governors have continued to be appointed technically on the advice of UK Ministers as before 1901 and as indeed the Governor-General was appointed until the mid-1920’s. And the use of the Queen’s Style and Titles in the documents appointing the Governors has remained as it was for all the monarchical Commonwealth members to 1953. In practice, however, UK Ministers in advising the Queen on the appointment of a State Governor have abided by the advice of the State Government.
3. The short answer to any Queensland critics of the present arrangements are [sic] that this is how the states have wanted it to be. It is important to keep the British Government as far as possible out of any controversy over this issue.
1 See Document 433.
[UKNA: FCO 57/231]