On Friday, the High Court of Australia ruled in favour of a case arguing that hundreds of letters between the Queen and former Australian governor-general Sir John Kerr. The court decided by majority that the letters are in fact public records and not personal property, the distinction being used by Australia’s National Archives to keep the letters secret.
The letters themselves are clearly of great importance from a historical perspective. Following an impasse in Australia’s senate, caused by anti-government senators being appointed to replace incumbents who had passed away, Sir John Kerr controversially dismissed Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam from office in November 1975. In his place, Kerr appointed the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, who then dissolved Australia’s parliament, forcing a new election just 18 months after the previous election.
Kerr had made no indication to Whitlam of his plans, largely due to his paranoia that Whitlam would ask the Queen to remove him from office. Whitlam met with Kerr to request a half-senate election to end the impasse but was instead dismissed from office.
The Palace has denied both involvement and knowledge of Kerr’s actions. Some sources have pointed to the “surprise” in the Palace when the dismissal was announced. While we don’t yet know exactly what the content of the contested letters is, it’s likely given the secrecy surrounding them that they document at the very least knowledge of Kerr’s actions or plans. That alone will blow the head of state debate open in Australia.
In New Zealand, and elsewhere where the Queen is still head of state, it means even more focus on the secrecy surrounding the monarchy. While it’s often claimed that the Sovereign stays out of our government and leaves us to it, all communications between the Sovereign and his or her representative, and prime ministers, is kept secret. The Official Information Act 1982 specifically exempts (under section 9(2)(f)(ii)) “the confidentiality of communications by or with the Sovereign or her representative.” The only justification for this rule is to protect the monarchy from scrutiny. That scrutiny will now go on to the letters between the Sovereign and her Australian representative.