Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, 1 March 1974
Confidential
Sir John Bunting rang me this morning to say that the Prime Minister wished to see a number of officers on the question of a new Australian Honours system. I then attended almost immediately on the Prime Minister together with Sir John Bunting, Mr Lawler1 and one of his officers and Mr Yeend.2
2. Mr Lawler had spoken to me during the last week about a draft submission that he was preparing for his Minister to make to Cabinet. The point on which Mr Lawler spoke to me related to the position of the States. I said to Mr Lawler that some difficult questions could be involved and that I could do no more at that point than suggest that the submission flag the question and indicate that the Attorney-General’s advice would be required.
3. The Prime Minister addressed himself principally to the question of a new Australian system for the Services and the Police—a system of Honours, that is, in what might be called the field of bravery. The Prime Minister’s own thoughts as to civil Honours were, it seemed to me, rather against the idea of having any system in that area.
4. Apparently, the Prime Minister wrote quite some time ago to State Premiers about a common system of Police Honours. I gather that there has been no response so far from the Premiers of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.
5. Reference was also made to a letter received by the Governor-General in January from Sir Alec Douglas-Home concerning a United Kingdom move towards the abolition of Honours containing ‘British Empire’ references. Near the end of the discussion this morning the Prime Minister’s Department proposed that a reply should be prepared to this letter agreeing with the sentiment and also referring to the consideration being given by the Australian Government to the Honours system.
6. It seemed to me from the discussion that the Prime Minister thought that the best course would be to proceed first in the bravery area. I thought he was quite relaxed by the possibility that certain States might continue to recommend civil Honours. He was concerned that if there were a common system of Bravery Honours a State might nevertheless try to make separate recommendations outside that system for the award of British Bravery Honours—i.e., in the Police field.
7. Three questions seem to arise–
(1) the creation of a new Australian Bravery Honours system;
(2) the selection of the persons to whom awards should be given; and
(3) the procedures and channels for recommending awards.
8. It was felt that there should be no UK Government role under any new Bravery Honours system. If, as contemplated, there were an Australian system this objective could probably be secured in a satisfactory way.
9. As to selection of persons to receive awards the Prime Minister was quite content to have a panel of Australian Government and State Government people.
10. This left the question of who should make the recommendations. It was felt that the recommendations should be made by the Governor-General and that any recommendations in respect of State people should be channelled through him.
11. The Canadian system needs to be looked at very carefully. I understand that the new procedures are based on Letters Patent from The Queen to the Governor-General and that awards are actually made by the Governor-General and not by The Queen. If this system were adopted in Australia there would be no channelling of recommendations to The Queen but the awards would be made by the Governor-General himself. A point to note here is that the Governor-General is Governor-General of Australia in the full sense.
12. There was reference to the sensitivity of the States with regard to State relationships to the Crown. The States might see any proposal by the Australian Government to create a new Bravery Honours system embracing State people as the thin end of the wedge that could intrude into matters such as the appointment of State Governors. The Prime Minister expressed the view that he thought that it was appropriate for a State Premier to recommend the appointment of a State Governor although he believed that the recommendation should be channelled through the Governor-General. There was also reference to the idea that the Premier might channel a recommendation for the appointment of a Governor through the Prime Minister in the first instance.
13. There was brief discussion of the position in Canada. Officials are to inform themselves about the Canadian position. Query whether the Provinces of Canada have any kind of separate Police Forces and how Honours are dealt with in those cases under the new Canadian system. I did not raise the question of the Australian Government possibly introducing legislation to deal with the whole Honours position. It seemed to me that at this juncture the Prime Minister might wish to see how much can be obtained in the first instance though discussion with the States.
1 P.J. Lawler, Secretary, Department of Special Minister of State since 1973; formerly (from 1964), Deputy Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
2 G.J. Yeend, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet since 1972.
[NAA: A5034, SR1974/3013]