Adelaide, 26 June 1972
Confidential
I am deeply concerned by a recent policy statement made publicly by the Premier of this State. Mr. Dunstan1 has said that his Government will not in future make any recommendations for honours and awards by the Queen’s recognition of outstanding public service. Moreover, he states that an alternative system of State awards will be introduced later this year.
These statements must be interpreted in the light of the prevailing political situation in Australia. For the first time for more than two decades, there is a possibility that a Labour Government may be formed following the Federal elections later this year. It is an item in the Labour electoral platform that State Governorships will be abolished. However, this is not being stressed by Labour spokesmen at present and like many parts ofthe platforms of either party, may not be implemented. In South Australia, there is turmoil in the Liberal and Country League Opposition. The former Premier, Mr. Steele Hall, has formed a separate group of the Liberal and Country League within that Party, but representing a deep cleavage which makes it improbable that the Party will win the next State elections, due in February, 1973.
It is my personal impression that a large majority of the Australian people, supporters of the Government as well as those who favour the Opposition, would wish to retain the present system of honours and awards granted by Her Majesty. The only alternative which could, I believe, be approved by the majority, would be one carefully thought out by a Federal Government and unanimously accepted by the Governments of all States of the Commonwealth of Australia.
I have the honour to have been proposed as Governor of South Australia by the present Government of the State, and I would not wish anything which I write to be interpreted as taking political sides in the present controversies. My concern arises from a profound, and perhaps old-fashioned belief in the British Commonwealth, and a deep personal loyalty to the Crown. The events which I report imply, as do conversations which I have had with the Premier and some members of his Government, a desire to sever all links with, or obligations to, the Queen. It is fortunate that there are legal constitutional obstacles to the rapid implementing of the more extreme actions, but the consequences of those acts which lie within the powers of the Governments of the Commonwealth or States, could be profound.
I realize the impossibility of intervention in Australian affairs by the Crown or the British Government. However, if the Queen and the British Government desire to retain the existing links with Australia, and particularly at the moment with South Australia, my conversations with citizens in every walk of life indicate that something can be done.
The entry of Britain into the European Economic Community has been a factor, sometimes skilfully exploited by a minority, in the generation of feelings unfavourable to Australia’s place in the British Commonwealth. Although the majority of Australian citizens are the descendants of British immigrants, there is now a substantial, and sometimes vocal minority which naturally feels no loyalty to our British heritage. As in most countries whose citizens enjoy free speech, there are some who acknowledge loyalty to no-one and no government. Among the many questions put to me is one which goes as follows: ‘You say that the Queen is as much Queen of Australia as Queen of Britain. When did she last visit Australia and for how long did she stay? As Queen of Australia, why has she no residence here, and why don’t members of her family, especially Prince Philip and Prince Charles, spend reasonable times in Australia?’
Among the residents of nations for whom the Queen is THE Queen, Australia is among the first. I wonder whether some more active participation in its life and affairs, might be a very significant factor in determining that this is always so.2
1 D.A. Dunstan, Premier and Treasurer of South Australia from 1970.
2 In November 1972 Oliphant inquired of the Commonwealth Government why the flag flown on government houses and cars was the Union Jack and not the Australian flag. He argued that because state governors were representatives of the Queen of Australia, they should fly the Australian flag. He also believed changing the flag in these contexts would ‘remove some of the poison from the stings of those who advocate a Republic’. The view from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was that it would be ‘incorrect’ for a state governor to fly the Australian flag. ‘There is no State Proclamation which indicates that the Australian flag may be used as an approved flag by the Governor. This is particularly so as the State Governor derives his authority from the Queen and Westminster and not from the Commonwealth’ (NAA: A2880, 6/14/20, minute by D.l. Gilfedder, 23 January 1973).
3. Whitlam had raised the same question about the flag in Parliament in 1967. On that occasion the Governor-General’s Office explained to the Prime Minister’s Department that the Union Flag, emblazoned with the State Badge, was the approved personal flag of a state governor; any reply to Whitlam should be ‘confined to that fact’. However, this was an ‘involved question’, as the practice differed as between state governors. Some flew the Union Flag over their state government houses, others the emblazoned Union Flag, and while some flew the emblazoned Union Flag on their cars and boats, while others did not. ‘Strictly speaking, it would be incorrect for State Governors to fly the Australian National Flag. Unlike the emblazoned Union Jack, it is not an approved flag for Governor. It is worth bearing in mind that the Governor-General does not fly it at Government House, but uses his approved personal flag. There is nothing unique about this or the fact that Governors fly personal flags for, as you will know, dozens of other authorities such, as for example, the Naval Board, possess special or personal flags.’ It was also necessary to bear in mind ‘that State Governors derive their authority from the Queen and Westminster and not from the Commonwealth of Australia’ (NAA: A2880, 6/14/20, letter, Tyrrell to Marcourt, 4 August 1967).
[UKNA: FCO 24/1373]