Questions & answers..
Faq

Sir Anthony Mason on the issue of 'Who is Australia's Head of State?'

Sir Anthony Mason was the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1987 to 1995. The High Court of Australia is the highest court in the land and the only court with jurisdiction to interpret Australia's Constitution.


The following is a transcript of an interview with Sir Anthony on Four Corners, shown on ABC TV on 27 October 1997. Sir Anthony was interviewed by Liz Jackson.

LJ: Many monarchists say that we do already have an Australian Head of State, Sir William Deane. He is our Head of State. He is Australian.

AM: Well, those people haven't read Section 2 of the Constitution where the Governor-General is clearly described as Her Majesty's representative in Australia. It is nonsense to say that Sir William Deane is the Australian Head of State - much as I would like him to be our Australian Head of State - he just isn't our Head of State.

What about the view that we have two Heads of State — one the Queen and one Australian, Sir William Deane?

That's equal nonsense, arrant nonsense.

Why are you making your position public now?

I think it would be appropriate to do so because the debate is now reaching a critical stage, and that is why I think I should make it clear that my sympathy is for the move towards a republic.

A number of people have said: well, look, the Governor-General under the Constitution does have huge powers and those are only constrained by convention. And that if we try and codify those powers, it'll happen with a great deal of difficulty. And if we fail to do that properly, that's where you find that area of potential dictatorship, potential megalomania.

That's an exaggeration. It is to the interests of supporters of the monarchy to emphasise and exaggerate legal difficulties - particularly constitutional difficulties - with a view to making them to appear to be so complex and complicated as to amount to a serious obstacle in the way of a transformation to a republic.

But I don't think those difficulties exist in the way that the monarchists suggest that they do.

I don't think that the change from a monarchy to a minimalist version of a republic would mean much in terms of fundamental change to our constitutional structure. But I do think it would mean a great deal symbolically.

Why? Because I think it is important, both from the point of view of Australians, and from the point of view of people outside Australia, that Australia should have as its Head of State somebody who resides in Australia and primarily identifies with Australian aspirations.

There is something odd about having as your Head of State, the Head of State of another country, a person who doesn't reside here, and primarily identifies with the goals and aspirations of that other country.

site map | search | home | contact us
Australian Republican Movement 2001