British High Commission, Canberra, 18 October 1974
Personal And Confidential
UK/ Australian Constitutional Relations: Mr Whitlam’s Dinner for HRH Prince Charles
1. Last Sunday evening, 13 October, my wife and I dined with the Prime Minister and Mrs Whitlam to meet HRH The Prince of Wales. The Attorney—General and Mrs Murphy, Sir John and Lady Bunting, and Squadron Leader Checketts1 were among others present.
2. Before dinner, Mr Whitlam explained to me privately that he proposed—when the ladies retired—that there should be a general discussion among the men guests about Anglo/Australian� constitutional issues. He thought that, as future King of both countries, Prince Charles might find this of interest. He also thought it would be salutary if Prince Charles were to carry back with him to London the substance of the Australian Government’s views.
3. After dinner the men duly stood in a circle in the Prime Minister’s Library, while Mr Whitlam expounded on familiar lines his contention that the relationship between The Queen and the Australian States is anachronistic and anomalous. He was supported by the Attorney—General, who claimed that it was embarrassing and objectionable that advice on Australian matters should reach The Queen by way of British Ministers. The States (whatever the complexion of their Governments) all cherished this procedure, and would not willingly give it up. The British Government had done nothing to discourage them. I said that successive British Governments had done nothing to encourage them either; we had all inherited a difficult situation, and the question was how to bring it up–to–date in the most appropriate and generally acceptable way. Mr Whitlam said he agreed that the British Government had not encouraged the States; our handling of them had been correct and punctilious. But sooner or later there had to be changes; he hoped that they would all have been carried through before Prince Charles came to the Throne and had to deal personally with these matters.
4. Mr Whitlam was also asked to give his views on a number of closely related points, inter alia :
(a) the question of a new Australian National Anthem; and
(b) a possible new system of Australian honours.
5. On (a) Mr Whitlam said he was hoping that Sir John Kerr (whose appointment as Governor—General had been a ‘triumphal’ success) would shortly be taking action so as to clear up once and for all the question of ‘The Royal Anthem’ and the National one. ‘God Save The Queen’ would of course continue to be the first, and ‘Advance Australia Fair’ was now the second. Both ought to be played on ceremonial occasions when a member of the Royal Family, or one of The Queen’s Representatives, was present. On (b), Mr Whitlam said that study was being given to the possibility of establishing an Australian honours system on the pattern of that now in force in Canada.
6. I should add parenthetically that when I went over this ground with Sir John Kerr in a private talk shortly after my return to Canberra three weeks ago, he foresaw difficulty with the State Governors if an attempt were made to impose Mr Whitlam’s wishes on these two points. He told me that he was trying to think of a way around the difficulty of the pattern contemplated by Mr Whitlam for the playing of the National Anthem: the trouble was, however, that Mr Whitlam by his incautious handling of the whole issue had caused it to become irretrievably a political one, and highly charged with partisan feelings. As for a system of Australian honours, Sir John Kerr thought that non-Labour State Governments, which are currently in office in four of the six States, would not wish to give up their present right to make recommendations for British honours.
7. To return to our after-dinner conversation, Mr Whitlam added that he was contemplating the re-introduction of the Australian Government’s Bill requesting and consenting to action by the United Kingdom so as to abolish all appeals from Australian courts to the Judicial Committee.2 However, if he were to re-introduce the Bill, it would in all probability not pass the Senate. He might, therefore, proceed by way of a referendum. (N.B. If ever Mr Whitlam were to decide firmly to seek what he wants by means of a referendum, rather than by asking the British Government to enact the necessary legislation in the teeth of opposition from the States, it would—I judge—suit us well, since the effect would be to settle the matter one way or the other in an Australian context, as we have always advocated. But it is too early yet to forecast how likely this is, and certainly too early to assume that, so far as appeals to the Privy Council are concerned, we shall be off the hook in this welcome manner.)
1 Squadron Leader David Checketts, Private Secretary and Equery to HRH the Prince of Wales.
2 See Document 485.
[UKNA: FCO 24/1933]