The Queen's Representative in Australia

Professor John Warhurst
The Canberra Times
30 May 2003

As the Prime Minister ponders the advice that he will tender to the Queen about the next Governor-General we should all be absolutely clear about one thing. Whoever is appointed they will be the "Queen's Man" or the "Queen's Woman". The Governor-General is the Queen's Representative in Australia.

The constitutional position is clear. The Queen is Australia's Head of State and the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in her (s. 61 of the Constitution). The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen to be "Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth" (s. 2 of the Constitution). There is an overwhelming consensus among independent constitutional experts that this is the case.

The Governor-General is not Australia's Head of State. This is not a matter of semantics. Republicans are not being pedantic or precious in making a fuss about this point. We hold to it absolutely. Language can often be crucial to political argument. Arguments are already half lost if you accept the language of your opponents. It is central to the whole debate about Australia's constitutional arrangements. Republicans want to make a complete break from Australia's status as a constitutional monarchy. We refuse to fight on our opponents' terms.

Monarchists know the power of language, of course, and they have long been
attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the popular and totally compelling republican argument that Australia needs an Australian Head of State. Newspoll (Australian 15 November 2002) calculates that an amazingly high 95% of Australians agree with the need for an Australian Head of State. On what other issue is their such agreement? Many of the people that hold this view are actually monarchists. To comfort their supporters in their dilemma monarchist front organisations, such as "Australians for an informed discussion on our Constitution", which is based in Sydney, continue to mount the case for the Governor-General as Australia's Head of State in their leaflets. So too does Australians for Constitutional Monarchy through Kerry Jones and David Flint. They are shrewd even though misguided.

The British, interestingly enough, are absolutely confident who Australia's Head of State is. It is a point correctly understood over there. Following the breaking of the news last Sunday afternoon that Peter Hollingworth had resigned as Governor-General the interest from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was considerable. Phone lines to Australia rang hot. They wanted immediate comment. They saw the implications, in their terms, for the "Queen's reign over Australia". The BBC saw that the "Queen's Man" in Australia was in trouble. They wanted to know the implications for the Queen herself. Their worry was that the Australian connection to the Queen might tarnish the monarchy.

The BBC recognised this point far better than many in the Australian media who ought to know better. Paul Kelly, in the Australian on Wednesday, was quite right to note what he called "the media eruption of calling the governor-general head of state, pursued by the papers, the ABC and commercial media."

Though to the Australian media's credit there has been some attention paid to this point among those parts of the media concerned with accuracy. On 16 May, for instance, the Sydney Morning Herald noted, in an admittedly small item, under "Corrections": "An analysis piece last Friday described the Governor-General as Australia's head of state. Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State". Well said. More media outlets should follow the lead of the Sydney Morning Herald.

There are several reasons why media presenters, journalists and others fall into the trap of repeating this error. Some presumably don't know any better. Most surely do. If they do not it is an adverse commentary on the standards of Australian journalism. Of the ones who do know better many may slip into e rror because of sloppiness and taking shortcuts. Perhaps they are genuinely trying to find a descriptive term to explain to the Australian people just what the Governor-General does. Kelly reckons it is all just a "bizarre manifestation" of a general growth in interest in the position of Governor-General.

One organisation that should know better however is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

On behalf of the Australian Republican Movement I officially complained to the ABC more than two weeks ago that their news and current affairs programs often followed incorrect usage. I wrote to Russell Balding, the Managing Director, that "when the ABC uses the term "Australia's Head of State" to refer to the Governor-General it is giving credence to a usage contrived for political purposes. It is totally unacceptable for the national broadcaster to adopt such a position."

Perhaps the Friends of the ABC will recognise this slide in standards and also take up my complaint.

In my letter to the ABC I asked it to begin "adopting correct usage in this important matter." I expected "an assurance that this is to be the case in the future."

I've had no assurance, though I'm still expecting one. But I have noticed that on the "7.30 Report" Kerry O'Brien has now begun, somewhat less offensively, to refer to the Governor-General as "effectively" our Head of State. Perhaps he's been given a little tap on the shoulder. If so, republicans have had a small victory. But a much larger republican task remains to be completed.

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