Creative Thinking About the Governor-Generalship

by John Warhurst
The Canberra Times
1 November 2002

The position of Governor-General is in the news again for a mixed bag of reasons. These include responses to the Bali tragedy, Don Russell's Senate Lecture, a Victorian development, and the publication this week of a book about Sir William Deane.

The Australian Republican Movement (ARM) stands for an Australian Head of State. This central goal has not yet returned to a high place on the political agenda. But public interest in constitutional reform and, more particularly in the position of Governor-General, is something that the ARM always welcomes. One of our enabling objectives is to ensure greater understanding of Australia's Constitution and our system of government. There is no better way to achieve this aim than to have a provocative issue attracting public interest and in the process forcing Australians to understand how our system of government actually works.

Don Russell's talk was about the role of executive government in Australia and the advance publicity gave no hint of the extent to which he would discuss the Governor-General's role. So it came as a surprise when he proposed a radical new task for the Governor-General. He would give the Governor-General or a new Australian Head of State an additional real job to do. This job would be to take responsibility for "good government". In particular, Russell wants a check on prime ministerial power, which he sees as having grown too strong over the past 25 years. The ARM welcomes contributions like this to the debate but takes no position on them because republicans differ among themselves on the powers that an Australian Head of State ought to have.

The tragedy in Bali also provoked debate. The Queen sent her condolences, but has not featured again. Many public commentators believed that her representative, Peter Hollingworth, made the wrong decision when he chose not to return to Australia after the scale of the terrorist attack became clear to him. Some believed that he should have visited Bali promptly rather than remaining in Egypt at the 60th anniversary of El-Alamain. Howard defended Hollingworth from this criticism in a tone that suggested that the critics were the usual anti-Hollingworth suspects. But that was a misunderstanding on his part. The criticism was widespread.

The question, however, is not about personalities or their judgements, right or wrong. The ARM is not concerned with the performance of individuals, despite frequent invitations from the media to comment, but in the substantive case for institutional reform.

The question is rather what the experience tells us about the respective roles of monarch, governor-general and PM at a time of national crisis. The monarch has virtually no role. The GG should have a role, but some incumbents clearly fulfil that role much better than others. Hollingworth at the moment is labouring under the weight of criticism of his performance. While he is diminished Howard himself is filling the vacuum and clearly relishing doing so.

One of the continuing reasons why Hollingworth is under pressure is William
Deane's reputation. Deane's story, "Sir William Deane: The Things that Matter", has just been written by Tony Stephens.

To understand Deane's popularity, asserts Stephens, one must consider issues such as disenchantment with politicians and dwindling faith in institutions. In particular, Stephens mentions "a vacuum at the heart of public affairs". He concludes that Deane "was above the republic debate and at its centre", because while he himself refused to take sides he was many people's preferred choice as President of a new Australian republic.

Earlier in October another quite different development occurred. The Victorian government expressed a serious interest in the republic, while pledging to be cautious and not to run ahead of national decisions and public opinion. In the lead-up to the state election, likely next month or later this month, Labor's state conference announced its intention to do two things.

First, Labor will promote public debate on the need for an Australian Head of State and seek to build public support for such a change, "believing that our national Head of State should be an Australian who embodies and represents the traditions, values and aspirations of all Australians".

Secondly, "in response to public wishes for greater openness, the government will explore the options for wider public involvement in the nomination process for the next Victorian Governor".

The latter is something that several other state premiers have discussed and that the ARM supported in a statement at the time of the last Queen's Birthday holiday. Now this modest idea for some creative constitutional innovation has generated some action with implications for thinking about the appointment of the next Governor-General and, prospectively, of an Australian President.

The common thread to all these discussions is that there remains public concern about the operation of all our political institutions, including the Governor-General. This concern is linked to a widespread unease that our institutions and the people that occupy them are not responsive enough, whether in general or at times of urgency. There is a concern about lack of accountability and a desire for greater openness.

Republicans recognise these concerns, though they are only indirectly linked to the republic issue. Indeed some republicans fear that modernisation of our institutions, such as State governors or the Governor-General, might lessen public enthusiasm for the greater constitutional change that a republic involves. There is something to this argument. But on balance these discussions should be welcomed as a sign of openness to change and recognition that our national institutions can be improved without weakening our system of government.

John Warhurst is Chair of the Australian Republican Movement
John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au