Looking beyond the individual

By Professor John Warhurst
The Canberra Times
Thursday, 8 May 2003

The system that produces Governors-General is broken and the Australian Republican Movement says it's time to fix it.

"IT'S BROKE. So let's fix it.'' This statement refers, of course, to the system that produces Governors-General, not to any one individual. That is the major issue that has emerged from the community debate about the future of the present Governor-General. In time this point will be recognised, despite the current predominant emphasis on the case of Dr Hollingworth.

The main concern of the Australian Republican Movement has always been with the Office of Governor-General rather than any one occupant of the position. The ARM is concerned to replace the British monarchy and its representative in Australia, the Governor-General, with an Australian head of state in a new Australian republic. That is what the Australian people want too. The ARM is working to achieve this aim.

For this reason the ARM has deliberately chosen not to rush into the debate. Only now, as shown in articles by Mike Steketee and Paul Kelly in the Australian newspaper, and others, is analysis turning to the larger, lasting issues. That makes it appropriate now for the ARM to make a contribution.

But first there is one misconception that must be corrected. It is just a myth perpetrated by monarchists, and others who don't know, that republicans have been behind the current controversy surrounding Dr Hollingworth's fitness for the position of Governor-General.

On the contrary, criticism of the Governor-General is widespread and would appear to be led mainly by those concerned with countering child abuse, supporting the separation of church and state or engaging in party politics.

Republican opinion merely reflects a cross-section of the community and is neither more nor less critical of Dr Hollingworth than other Australians, though republicans naturally share a particular interest in the position of Governor-General. Republicans believe in Australian office-holders always performing to the best of their abilities because they represent Australians and their interests.

We are proud of our national office-bearers. I publicly argued the case in The Canberra Times upon his appointment that it was in the interests of both monarchists and republicans alike for Dr Hollingworth to perform well. Likewise, 12 months ago in The Canberra Times I warned against any rush to judgment against him.

Australian republicans are concerned about the system rather than the individual. The system needs to be fixed and we call on Australian political leaders to look beyond this individual case towards the lessons it teaches us about the shortcomings of our system.

The whole situation surrounding Dr Hollingworth has demonstrated the inadequacy of a system in which only two people, the Prime Minister and the Queen, are empowered to appoint and remove Australia's Governor-General, without any parliamentary debate or public explanation or discussion.

The system of appointment involves the Prime Minister making a recommendation to the Queen, who is in turn bound to accept the recommendation. This system is foreign to Australia, closed to wider scrutiny and unaccountable. It lacks transparency. Furthermore, it invites party political point-scoring about appointments and dismissals because they are the preserve of the Prime Minister alone, rather than being bipartisan or nonpartisan as the 1999 republican model aimed to achieve. One benefit of the current crisis is that more Australians might become aware of how our system of appointing Governors-General actually works. Surveys taken at the time of the 1999 republic referendum showed widespread ignorance of the facts which needs to be countered by public education, and the current controversy is providing some.

The same applies, of course, just as much to the office of state governor. Last year at the time of the Queen's Birthday holiday the ARM issued a media release urging state premiers to make their processes for appointing governors more open and accountable. State premiers, too, ought to be learning from the Hollingworth affair.

Such a system is plainly not good enough for a modern, independent and democratic country such as Australia. The solution to a crisis in our constitutional arrangements should not be subject to the personal and political judgements of the Prime Minister alone. The system for appointing and removing a Governor-General is undemocratic and inadequate. The system is broken and it is time to fix it.

An Australian republic would offer Australians more say in the appointment of their head of state and greatly enhance his or her relationship with the Parliament and with the Australian people. It is clear that a majority of Australians are concerned about the developing crisis and are aware that the current arrangements are potentially destabilising. They recognise that they need to be replaced by a more open and accountable system in which they and/or their elected representatives have a say.

When next Australia is in a position to select a Governor-General, whether that is in weeks, months or several years' time, we should do things differently. Even before we become a republic changes can be made to the method of selecting a Governor-General.

The processes for both appointment and dismissal can be made more open than they currently are, and guidelines for evaluating the behaviour of office-bearers should be introduced. They may well prefigure changes subsequently incorporated in an Australian republic.

Whatever the outcome of this current crisis whether it be the continuance in office of Dr Hollingworth, his resignation or his removal from office by the Prime Minister and the Queen now is the time for the failings in the system to be addressed by our leaders. We must look to the future.