London, 10 December 1974
Confidential
Talks Between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia, 19 and 20 December 1974—Australian Honours
Points to Make
1. If Mr Whitlam says that he proposes to establish an Australian Honours system , the Prime Minister should say that this is a matter between the Australian Government and The Queen, on which Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have neither the constitutional right nor the wish to express any opinion. The Prime Minister could add, to show goodwill, that he understands that the Order of Canada works very well.
(a) If Mr Whitlam says that it is anomalous that the Government of independent Australia should submit its Honours recommendations through the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Prime Minister should agree and say that this is done for reasons of convenience only, since the Foreign and Commonwealth Office administers Commonwealth Honours quotas etc. Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would have no objection to the Governor-General submitting his recommendations direct to The Queen, nor, he felt sure, would the Palace. (New Zealand Honours are in fact submitted in this way, by decision of the present New Zealand Government.)
(b) If Mr Whitlam objects to the title ‘Sir’, the Prime Minister could give it as his personal opinion that, if that were the only objection, it might not be insuperable.
(c) If Mr Whitlam objects to the ‘Order of the British Empire’, the Prime Minister should say that the question of re-naming or replacing this Order has been examined several times, together with Commonwealth representatives, and the difficulties have been found overwhelming. Any contemporary designation for a new Order might lead to similar difficulties in fifty years’ time. It seems best that the title ‘Order of the British Empire’ should continue, like that of the Order of the Bath, as being of historical significance only. With every year that passes, the risk of it being thought to have contemporary imperialist connotations diminishes.
2. The crunch will come if Mr Whitlam asks the Prime Minister to agree that a new Australian Honour should be the only award for Australians. He might suggest that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary should take it upon himself to prune States’ Lists to the extent of not submitting them at all.
3. The Prime Minister should reply that, as Mr Whitlam will wish to ensure that any new Australian Order is uniting rather than divisive, he will presumably consult the States with a view to submitting agreed proposals to The Queen. The States’ Governments would thereafter recommend for the new Australian Order only and no problem would arise. If Mr Whitlam were unable to carry some of the States with him but went ahead with a submission to The Queen for the establishment of an Australian Honours system, any subsequent recommendation by States’ Governments for British Honours would have to be considered within the general context of the constitutional relationship between the States and Westminster/Whitehall. Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would be delighted if by general agreement among Australians1 they could be relieved of their constitutional obligations in this field as in the others.
4. The Prime Minister could say that, as and when The Queen on Mr Whitlam’s advice approves an Australian Honours system, British Ministers will of course carefully examine all its implications as regards the constitutional responsibilities of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, but he should decline to commit himself to particular action in hypothetical circumstances. (It will hardly be possible to set up an Australian Honours system in less than two years.)
5. Mr Whitlam may try to draft his eventual advice to The Queen in such a way that Her Majesty will be invited to approve that the new Australian Honour and no other should be conferred on Australians; that will be a problem for the Palace in the first instance, in their dealings with Mr Whitlam over the introduction of a new Honours system. It would be best for the Prime Minister not to be drawn on to this ground, except to the extent of saying that all The Queen’s Governments will no doubt continue to take care that the possibility of Her Majesty receiving conflicting advice is avoided.
Background
6. Australians can receive Honours in two ways:—
(a) on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Australia, through the Governor-General and (for reasons of practical convenience) the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary;
(b) on the recommendation of States’ Premiers through the Governor and (for constitutional reasons) the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
7. As regards (a), Mr Whitlam has made no recommendations (except for gallantry and for Papua/New Guinea, an Australian Dependent Territory). His main reason for discontinuing ‘British’ Honours is no doubt his desire to emphasize the independence and national identity of Australia, but he does specifically object to the title ‘Sir’ which goes with Gs and Ks and to the Order of the ‘British Empire’. Mr Whitlam intends to establish an Australian Honours system, probably on the lines of the Order of Canada.
8. As regards (b), States with Liberal/Country Party Premiers continue to recommend, Honours being one of the fields in which they still have access to the Crown through HMO in the United Kingdom.
9. Pre-Whitlam, States’ Governors copied their recommendations to the Governor-General for his personal information as The Queen’s representative in Australia, and he was able to advise the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to prune any State List which he considered excessive. The FCO have insisted that States’ Governors should continue to copy their Lists to the Governor-General, with whom the FCO have a working arrangement (not supposed to be known to either the Federal or the States Governments) that States recommending should not have access to more than the number of Honours which they would have if the Federal Government were still recommending—that is to say, about half the Australia quota–and that in terms of relative populations the number of Honours awarded to the various States should keep more or less in line. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has in fact pruned one or two States’ Lists in consultation with the Governor-General acting in his personal capacity and not on the advice of Federal Ministers.
10. The Governor of Victoria has requested the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to convey to The Queen his Government’s views that there would have to be complete agreement between the Federal Government and the States before any system of Australian Honours could be introduced. Preliminary FCO thinking, subject to legal advice, is that Mr Callaghan has no constitutional obligation to convey the opinions of States’ Governments to Her Majesty and should reply to the effect that the contents of the Governor’s despatch have been noted. Sir Martin Charteris is, however, aware of them.
1 Emphasis throughout in original.
[UKNA: FCO 57/599]