Deep affection for Australia

However, it seems the truth is much more complicated. While there is no doubt Queen Elizabeth has a deep affection for Australia – she has visited 16 times and hired two Australians as press secretaries – there is no desire to stand in the way of constitutional reform. But it could also be argued the Queen's views cannot be summarised as simply wanting to remain impartial. Indeed, the little that can be gleaned from the famously discrete sovereign suggests she believes it is likely Australia will eventually break its ties with the monarchy and the royal family will not be as upset as many people think if it does happen.

A rare insight into the Queen's thinking comes from differing views expressed in communications with Howard's office about the statement Buckingham Palace would issue once the result of the November 6 referendum became known.

We know from the memoirs of Philip Flood – who was Australia's high commissioner to the United Kingdom at the time – that the Queen had prepared three statements: one if there was a clear vote for change; one if a majority of voters – but not states – voted for change; and one if a clear majority rejected the proposal to become a republic.

"I had lengthy meetings with the palace about these statements, conveying the views of the Prime Minister," Flood writes in Dancing with Warriors: A Diplomatic Memoir. Other members of the small circle involved in these discussions included Howard's chief of staff Arthur Sinodinos, who now serves as Cabinet Secretary in the Turnbull government, senior adviser Malcolm Hazell and the Queen's private secretary, Robin Janvrin. Joe Hockey, the former Treasurer who was Minister for Financial Services and Regulation at the time, also happened to be in London for the vote. This was a happy coincidence for Hockey as he was able to attend the Rugby World Cup, which was played in Cardiff on the same date as the referendum. Hockey, a passionate republican, may not have got the result he wanted back home but Australia defeated France in Wales.

Subtle changes

Flood does not explain what Howard's "views" were. However, The Australian Financial Review has learned that the former PM suggested subtle – but important – changes to the wording of the Queen's response. And that not all these proposed amendments were rejected by the palace.

With the result of the referendum known by Saturday morning UK time – 55 per cent of Australians had backed the monarchy – the Queen responded by saying (in part):


I respect and accept this result. I have always made it clear that the future of the Monarchy in Australia is an issue for the Australian people and them alone to decide, by democratic and constitutional means. This decision has now been reached by way of the Constitutional Convention in 1998 and subsequently by this referendum. During this time I have followed the debate with close attention. My family and I would, of course, have retained our deep affection for Australia and Australians everywhere, whatever the outcome. For some while it has been clear that many Australians have wanted constitutional change. Much of the debate has been about what the change should be.

While Howard accepted the wording, it was not exactly what he wanted. Having backed the winning side after a long – and sometimes bitter – argument about Australia's future head of state, it seems he would have preferred the Queen to be less equivocal. For example, it is understood he was not entirely happy with the reference to "many Australians" wanting "constitutional change". He also suggested the Queen describe the result as "clear" and "unambiguous". It seems clear Howard wanted to put the issue to rest with stronger language that emphasised a good result for the monarchists. However, these suggestions were rejected by the Queen, through Janvrin.

A spokesperson for Howard said he "really does not remember the details of any discussions which might have taken place about the contents of the Queen's press statement" and "he certainly does not recall any differences of opinion on substance between the office and the Palace". She added that "what really mattered was "the ultimate outcome (much to his satisfaction)".

This may be the case. And the disagreements over working during the drafting of the statement were certainly not substantial enough to create any rift between the palace and Howard's office in Canberra. However, they do throw a light on how Britain's longest-serving sovereign viewed the republic issue at the time.

Prince Charles not universally admired

It is important to remember that in 1999, Prince Charles was not universally admired in Britain or other parts of the Commonwealth. The pain of Princess Diana's death two years earlier was still relatively raw while the public was coming to terms with his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles (it would be another seven years before they were married).

The Prince of Wales was busy trying to rebuild his image in Britain. If Australia was to vote to have its own head of state then it was one less thing for him to worry about. The Queen's own personal popularity among Australians was one of the reasons the referendum had failed. Charles knew he would be blamed if the result of some future referendum was reversed when he was King.

It is understood his father shared the same view. Prince Philip kept quiet on the Australian referendum – in keeping with the Palace's desire not to become involved – but those familiar with his opinions say he was almost surprised the former colony had decided to retain its constitutional ties with the UK.


Indeed, the Queen's biographer, Robert Lacey, claims that Prince Philip's immediate response to the vote was: "What's the matter with these people? Can't they see what's good for them?" And a Quadrant article published in September noted Philip had been just as blunt about republican rumblings in Canada back in 1969.

Amicable terms

"I think it's a complete misconception to imagine that the monarchy exists in the interests of the monarch – it doesn't," he said. "It exists in the interests of the people … I think that the important thing about it is that if, at any stage, people feel that it has no further part to play, then for goodness sake let's end the thing on amicable terms without having a row about it."

An important point to note about the royal family's openness to Australia becoming a republic is that it reflects the view of most of their subjects. The strongest reaction most Brits can manage when talk turns to whether or not Australia should keep the Queen as its head of state is one of mild bemusement.

For his part, Turnbull is believed to have got wind of some version of the discussions between Howard's office and the Palace. In his book about the referendum, Fighting for the Republic, Turnbull describes the Queen's statement as "quite revealing".

He goes on to write: "The monarchists have not served their Queen well. A clean break with Australia was always the best outcome. She can read the opinion polls and knows that most Australians don't want a foreign head of state. Her position, let alone that of her son, will become more and more uncomfortable as time goes on ... It's hard not to imagine the Queen saying to Howard, 'For heaven's sake, can't you Australians just get on with it'."