Hollingworth can make step to republic easier

By John Warhurst
Canberra Times, 6 July 2001

The new Governor-General has just completed his first week in office. All eyes will be on Dr Peter Hollingworth during his five-year term because the position is now more than ever the centre of our public life and our constitutional debate.

The first reason for this is Sir William Deane's performance. The general
conclusion is that Bill Deane enlarged the role and took it to a new level
during his term of office. Though it should not be forgotten that the
controversy attached to Deane's performance in some quarters means that
Hollingworth has no universally agreed template on how to perform.

Part of Deane's popularity came from his willingness to present himself
implicitly as an alternative voice to the government of the day.
Hollingworth has no easy task to get it right.

The second reason is that there is still no agreement between monarchists
and republicans about just what role Hollingworth is fulfilling. They
continue to talk past one another. Both groups can find authoritative
support for their position.

The search for authorisation has ranged across various web sites, including
the Queen's, the Governor-General's, and the Prime Minister's, as well as
other sources. Ultimately this has proved all to no real effect as the
community is not interested in debating points. Republicans and monarchists
have wrestled each other to the ground.

The monarchists' position is that Hollingworth is Australia's head of state.
Although they deny that the term ''head of state'' is a constitutional term
and in any way helpful. Their public position is that the Queen is not our
head of state but our sovereign. Though they do not define exactly what a
sovereign is.

They say, furthermore, that the Queen is Queen of Australia, quite separate
in office, but not in person, from the Queen of the United Kingdom. So,
according to the monarchists, the Governor-General is not responsible in any
way to the Queen of the United Kingdom. This argument is their attempt to
strike at the heart of nationalist republicans.

The Australian Republican Movement's position is that the Queen is
Australia's head of state, while the Governor-General is the Queen's
representative in Australia. Upon Deane's retirement the ARM's chairman,
Greg Barns, acknowledged his outstanding service but said regretfully that
''it was a pity he couldn't have been Australia's head of state''.

Barns added, ''no Australian should be merely the representative of the
Queen. Sir William Deane displayed to all Australians the sort of qualities
that a head of state in an Australian republic should have tolerance,
compassion, a unifier, and above party politics.''

Hollingworth swore the following oath of office last week: ''I will well and
truly serve her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors
according to law, in the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of
Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and
usages of the Commonwealth of Australia, without fear or favour, affection
or ill will''.

This wording makes clear that the Governor-General is a representative, but
does not clarify exactly which monarch is servant Hollingworth's master.
Monarchists cannot dispute the Governor-General's subordinate status but
they argue that Hollingworth is a representative of the sovereign of
Australia. To republicans he remains primarily the representative of the
British head of state, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Hollingworth began his term following a modest ceremony. He was sworn in, by
the Chief Justice of the High Court, Murray Gleeson, in the Senate Chamber.
MHRs and senators were in attendance at the invitation-only event. The
Australian Federation Guard and the Royal Military College band occupied the
front courtyard of Parliament House.

There is a lot to be said for a more public occasion with more pomp and
ceremony. Certainly, whether or not one thinks that Hollingworth is head of
state, in name or practice, then the occasion needs bolstering with greater
public involvement. Why not a national public holiday on the day of his
swearing-in?

It is in every Australian's interest to have Hollingworth do as good a job
as possible, whatever the job is. But for both sides in the constitutional
debate there are also dangers. Republicans, as nationalists, should welcome
an Australian expanding the Governor-General's role. The more the position
is a full-blown one the better it will be for Australia.

Republicans have to accept, nevertheless, the very real risk that another
successful Australian Governor-General may narrow the space for the growing
demand for an Australian in the ''top'' job. There is no avoiding this
possibility. Every successful step along the way to making our political
institutions more Australian has made the next step harder.

Monarchists, too, should welcome an expansion in the role. Yet they run the
risk that this will further cut the thread that binds some Australians to
Britain. The Queen will fade even further from sight.

They also run the risk that yet another example of an outstanding Australian
public figure will help diminish the insecurity some Australians feel at the
prospect of cutting that thread. Psychologically it will make the step to a
republic that much easier.

Monarchists seem not to realise that whether the Queen is our sovereign or
our head of state, the key point is that she is not Australian. So their
attempted demolition job on the desire for an Australian ''head of state''
misses the point. Hollingworth is Australian and he is ours. The Queen is
neither, in any flesh or blood sense.

Professor Warhurst is deputy convener of the Australian Republican Movement in the ACT.