Agent General for Queensland, London, 16 December 1974
The attached is the text of a Press Statement issued today in Brisbane, Queensland by the Premier, the Honourable J Bjelke-Petersen, M.L.A.2
I have been instructed by my Premier to bring this Statement to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
PROTECTION OF QUEENSLAND UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
I have today written to the British Consul-General in Brisbane informing him of my Government’s concern over the reported intention of the Australian Prime Minister to discuss, without prior consultation with the Queensland Government, with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom matters which concern the sovereignty and integrity of this State.
In view of the action I have taken and in view of the grave consequences which could ensue for this State, I consider it the right of every citizen of this State to be fully informed on the facts of the matter.
The Prime Minister, in the face of a resounding rejection, at the recent Queensland election, of Federal Labour Party policies directed against States’ rights, is reported to be carrying his campaign against the States to the British Government. Apparently, he hopes to influence that Government when he has failed to get his way by democratic processes in Australia.
I have only read of the Prime Minister’s intentions in the press. There have been no consultations on issues which affect the constitutional rights of the States and on which the electors of Queensland have made it abundantly clear that they want no disturbance of the present constitutional situation.
When I read these reports I sent a telegram to the Prime Minister asking him to let me know, as a matter of courtesy and propriety, just what matters affecting the State of Queensland he proposed to discuss with the British Government. I have had no reply to that telegram. I now read in the press that he will be having talks with the British Prime Minister this week, and that prompted me to make a public statement on the attitude of my Government.
When the Prime Minister came to power two years ago he tried, in his first enthusiasm, to persuade the British Government to interfere in the constitutional rights of the States. That brought other Premiers and myself to London, where we saw the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Relations, Sir Alec Douglas-Home.3 We pointed out to him that the Australian Constitution may be amended only by referendum. At that meeting we were informed that the British Government would not alter a constitutional situation, of which it is the stake-holder, without the concurrence of both the Commonwealth and the States in accordance with democratic processes.
If the recent press reports I have read are true, it seems that the Prime Minister of Australia is not content with that situation. It is reported that he is again seeking the aid of the British Government to abolish right of access to the Privy Council by means which, if that Government yielded, would spell the end of the Federal System in Australia. Even the three Labour States represented in London with me in 1973 were as much opposed to this unconstitutional proceeding as Queensland was. They too could see the end of the road.
I also read in the press that the Prime Minister hopes to persuade the British Government to sever all links between Her Majesty The Queen and the State Governments in their executive functions. It is precisely because profound questions of constitutional law lie behind the claim of the Prime Minister that Her Majesty is now to be advised only by him, even in matters which concern the Government of this State alone, that my Government has placed before our courts this whole question of the Royal Prerogative as it exists in the Constitution. That question has been referred to the Privy Council by the Supreme Court of Queensland. We have done this because the High Court of Australia has no power under the Constitution to advise my Government of the correct constitutional situation, and because the Privy Council is the proper judicial body to advise upon the Crown’s Prerogatives in the whole of Her Majesty’s dominions.
The Prime Minister hopes to secure the abolition of access to the Privy Council precisely because this would prevent the States from being advised, according to proper judicial procedures, in matters respecting their executive functions. For the Prime Minister to seek to influence a decision on a constitutional matter which is before the courts by putting pressure on the British Government would, if true, be improper. In fact it would be a matter which should cause the people of Australia the gravest disquiet. It would also be naïve of him to suppose that British Ministers would act in a matter where their legal power is a matter of issue before the courts at the present time.
I also read in the press that the Prime Minister is thinking about the role that the British Government could play in transferring Torres Strait Islands to Papua New Guinea. Presumably the reference is to the possibility of the British Government issuing an Order-In-Council under the Colonial Boundaries Act to alter the boundary of Queensland without the consent of the people of Queensland.
I would be surprised if the British Government took such a course of action as it would not be unreasonable to expect that that Government would be bound by constitutional convention not to circumvent the Australian Constitution, but I would be surprised even more because the Prime Minister has opened discussions with my Government on a settlement of the Torres Strait question on the basis of a resolution adopted by the Queensland Parliament.
Press reports also indicate that the Prime Minister hopes to persuade the British Government to abolish the Office of the Agent-General. While the Prime Minister has stated that he has been misrepresented on this, I infer from his disclaimer that he does intend to discuss the operation of the representational functions of the Agents-General to the British Government, as distinct from their commercial functions. The British Government will be fully aware that it is not only the Agents-General of the Australian States that would be involved in this matter but also those of the Canadian Provinces.
I cannot believe that the British Government would alter, without the consent of Queensland, the existing channels of communication between the States and Her Majesty in the exercise of Her constitutional functions, including Her Prerogative of Honours, as they relate exclusively to Queensland. Her Majesty’s Royal Style and Title in relation to the exercise of Governmental functions in Queensland expresses a complex constitutional situation upon which the Supreme Court of Queensland or the Privy Council will eventually speak.
But, if it were thought for one moment that two Labor Prime Ministers could ever reach any accord on these matters without consultation with the State, it would be my intention to make it quite plain to Her Majesty and Her United Kingdom Ministers that the Queensland people have made their will abundantly plain in the recent election, and that their will is that the constitutional situation and its concomitant avenues of access and advice to Her Majesty should in no way be disturbed.
It is my intention to introduce a resolution into the Queensland parliament as soon as it assembles whereby the Representatives of the people of Queensland will have the opportunity to express this will of their constituents that the status quo remained unaltered. If that resolution is adopted, I shall send a copy to London so that British Ministers will have no doubt about the matter.
It is unnecessary, I am sure, for me to point out that Her Majesty’s United Kingdom Ministers are responsible to the Imperial Parliament which enacted the Constitution of Australia Act, by which they, as well as Commonwealth and State Ministers, are bound. I am sure that the Prime Minister of Australia is not unaware that a petition to the House of Commons is the appropriate means of initiating constitutional changes which cannot be brought about in the ordinary constitutional way.
1 N.C. Sweeney, Acting Agent General for Queensland in London; L. Bevan, South-West Pacific Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
2 Johannes (‘Joh’) Bjelke-Petersen, Premier of Queensland for a record nineteen years, 1968–87.
3 See Document 466.
[UKNA: FCO 24/1934]