Invasion of Privacy !

Forty years ago Australia was undergoing a political crisis.  The Senate had voted to deny the government access to the money needed to run the country and the Constitution called for a general election to resolve that matter.   The prime minister of the day refused - and said he intended to ignore the Constitution and order the Treasury to print money in defiance of the parliament.   It was a face off between the man voters had installed in office and the Governor General who represented the Monarchy in our form of government.

The outcome was unprecedented.  The Governor General sacked the Prime Minister and that action has forever been a matter of controversy.  It lays at the root of a movement to abandon the Monarchy in favour of becoming a Republic - and elevating an Australian citizen to be our head of state.  A referendum narrowly rejected that option when the option called for such a position to be decided by parliamentarians.   Directly electing a head of state was not offered at that time.

Now the " Dismissal " crisis is again raising hackles in Australia.  A Governor General acts as the personal representative of the Monarch and as such there is a separation between official correspondence and any personal letters the two may exchange.  Official correspondence forms part of the archives but personal letters are closely guarded and kept under lock and key in Windsor castle.

An application has been made to the Federal court by the son of that dismissed Prime Minister seeking access to the private correspondence.   It is contended that because they refer intimately to a matter of state they are the property of the Australian people, who have a right to know what advice the Queen gave in deciding the action taken.

The National Archives of Australia is refusing to release these letters although they have a release date some years in the future - if the Queen agrees.  According to the intent of the Governor General's estate such matters gain general access in 2027 but various statutes give the Monarch the right to block the release of any " personal " letters.

Obviously, the Queen would have been very interested in a Constitutional crisis in Australia and no doubt the Governor General would have asked for her advice.  The office of Governor General can be construed as subservient to the crown and therefore becomes a " master and servant " relationship.  Advice given by way of personal letters must therefore impinge on the outcome of the matter, and it can be argued have a direct outcome on the final decisions taken.    This tends to dilute their " personal " protection.

The biggest problem is that the present Queen was on the throne when this confrontation occurred and disclosure of her advice to her representative could influence attitudes towards the Monarchy. Hopefully, its progress through the court may suffer interminable delay.  The Queen is in extreme old age and should this matter be settled after her reign ends it will simply join other matters of contention buried in the history books.