After reading the palace letters, some are asking: Why do we have a Queen at all?

Extract from ABC News

Analysis

By Insiders host David Speers

Posted Yesterday at 5:09am, updated Yesterday at 6:48am

Queen Elizabeth II has been Australia's head of state since 1952.(Reuters: Paul Childs)

It's certainly not the image of the Queen portrayed in the Netflix series, The Crown.

In the hugely popular TV series, we're led to believe Queen Elizabeth II doesn't shy away from her role as monarch, takes a keen and intimate interest in every detail and definitely does not enjoy being kept in the dark.

Yet the secret palace letters, finally released 45 years after the event, confirm the Queen was not told by her representative in Australia about his decision to sack then-prime minister Gough Whitlam. This was Australia's greatest constitutional crisis and the governor-general, Sir John Kerr, believed it was "better for Her Majesty not to know".

Even more fascinating, the palace preferred it this way. The Queen's private secretary, Sir Martin Charteris had already advised Kerr that the "crisis had to be resolved by Australia".

He provided plenty of constitutional advice but made it clear this was a call for the governor-general alone. Indeed, after the dismissal, Charteris praised Kerr for keeping the monarch out of it, writing he had shown "admirable consideration for Her Majesty's position".

Historian who won access to Palace letters says their content is 'alarming'

Many will no doubt agree this is just as it should be. The governor-general is the Queen's representative in Australia and is empowered to make such decisions alone. It would be enormously problematic, even scandalous, had the Queen issued Kerr with instructions one way or another.

But what then, is the point of having a sovereign, whose face adorns our currency and whose portraits hang in official buildings, if they are then shielded from a critical decision during a moment of constitutional crisis? Why do we have a Queen at all?

'The race to the palace'

These letters certainly don't suggest the Queen is completely hands-off when it comes to Australia. Quite the contrary. A great deal of power still lies in London.

One of Kerr's great concerns was the prospect of Whitlam moving first and asking the Queen to dismiss him as governor-general. This was the so-called "race to the palace" scenario. Kerr had raised this concern with Prince Charles directly during a visit to Papua New Guinea.

The palace letters, released today, reveal correspondence between the Queen, Sir John Kerr and Sir Martin Charteris.(ABC News: Ian Cutmore)

The Queen's private secretary wrote to Kerr a month before the dismissal, making it clear what would happen in such a scenario.

"You may be sure that the Queen would take most unkindly to it", Sir Martin wrote on October 2, 1975, "but I think it is right that I should make the point that at the end of the road, the Queen — as a constitutional sovereign — would have no option but to follow the advice of her prime minister".

This is a fascinating piece of the puzzle and was presumably critical in Kerr's decision to give Whitlam no warning of his dismissal. The palace was effectively validating the governor-general's concern that if Whitlam had beaten him to the punch, the Queen would have reluctantly dismissed Kerr.

The letters therefore suggest the Queen would rather leave it to her Australian representative to judge the fate of an elected prime minister, but still carries the ultimate power over that governor-general. A point made crystal clear to Kerr when he was weighing a critical decision.

Labor calls the sacking of Whitlam a 'blight' on Australia's national character

So where does it leave Australia today?

In releasing the palace letters, National Archives director-general David Fricker said he hoped they would "illuminate us all in Australia about what is a constitutional monarchy".

Perhaps they will and perhaps many will be satisfied the Queen didn't directly intervene to advise Kerr on the dismissal of Whitlam. These letters, however, also illuminate the complicated power structure at the heart of Australia's constitutional monarchy.

One of the most successful arguments against an Australian republic over the years has been that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's true the monarchy has largely served Australia well, but when a constitutional crisis hits, it's far from a perfect system.

'Palace letters' reveal Kerr dismissed Whitlam prior to asking the Queen

If a governor-general wants to sack a prime minister, we now know the palace will offer plenty of advice, but ultimately the Queen would rather stay out of it.

Yet if a prime minister manages to get in first, the Queen would apparently have no choice but to agree to remove the governor-general.

At the very least, this does set up the potential for a "race to the palace" situation, it's a powerful disincentive for a governor-general to talk openly to a prime minister about their considerations and it gives the palace in London ultimate authority over Australia's affairs.

For this illumination of how power is structured and exercised in our constitutional monarchy, Australia owes a debt to Monash University professor Jenny Hocking, the historian who fought for the release of these secret palace letters.

David Speers is the host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9:00am on Sunday or on iview.