A Mate For Head of State - Why Australia Needs One

Speech by Gerard Henderson at The Sydney Institute launch of A Mate for Head of State
Museum of Sydney, Wednesday 18 January 2006

It is almost 218 years since the First Fleet came ashore at Sydney Cove and soon made this piece of ground the site of Government House. This place was the office and home of the first nine governors of what became the Colony of New South Wales - Arthur Phillip, John Hunter, Philip Gidney King, William Bligh, Lachlan Macquarie, Thomas Brisbane, Ralph Darling, Richard Bourke and George Gipps. It was here that Australia's only uprising against legitimate authority occurred - the Rum Rebellion of 26 January 1808. The only extant visual representation of the interior of Government House depicts three members of the Rum Corps securing the (illegal) arrest of Governor Bligh from the bed under which he was (allegedly) hiding. The scene is reproduced in colour in the edited collection Australia's First Government House (Allen & Unwin, 1991). And it was on this First Government House site that initial negotiations took place concerning the one substantial stain on what became Australia's proud history - namely, the interaction between the modern Western settlers and the traditional indigenous population.

It has become accepted for the events of 26 January 1788 to be described as the creation of a British society in what came to be called Australia. And certainly this site became the centre of British authority in New South Wales - with governors from Arthur Phillip on reporting to the Colonial Office in London. Yet Australia was never just a British society, since those who sailed on the First Fleet were a mixed and multicultural lot. A governor, the military and convicts - who were essentially British and Protestant but also Irish and Catholic, and more besides.

In an article which was published in for The Bulletin on 26 January 1993, to co-incide with Australia Day that year, I condemned what I termed the left-wing interpretation of Australian history. This article was published some months before Geoffrey Blainey's critique of what he termed the black armband view of Australian history. It is a matter of public record that Professor Blainey and I disagree with some issues. However, what we share in common is an irritation that so much commentary on Australia - by intellectuals and journalists alike - has an alienated tinge. In my January 1993 Bulletin article I focused on the published work of Robert Hughes, Manning Clark and John Pilger. I could have added many more names then - and I could add fresh names to the list now.

Like all individuals, all nations make mistakes. After all, this is an inevitable consequence of The Fall. However, there is ample evidence to indicate that - in just over two centuries - Australia has become one of the freest, fairest and most successful nations in the world. That's why I believe it's time that Australia has an Australian head of state. Australia's very success is cause enough to dismiss the notion that, for some reason or other, Australia is not ready to have an Australian head of state and - in order to ensure the continuation of Australia's democracy - Australians must continue to rely on a British citizen and British resident to fulfill this role.

I have considerable respect for Queen Elizabeth II who, on any analysis, has been a hard working and dutiful monarch for over half a century. Moreover, I understand why - in line with British historical traditions - a clear majority of British citizens want the monarch to remain their nation's head of state. Britain is a valued ally of Australia - as is the United States. But Australia is different to both Britain and the US. That's why it makes sense for Australia to have one of us as head of state. In the traditional Australian parlance, a mate for head of state.

The constitutional monarchists understand that the weakest link in their belief that the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (who also happens to be Queen of Australia) should remain Australia's head of state turns on the implied assertion, in their case, that it is not proper for an Australian to be Australia's head of state. That's why, in recent years, the constitutional monarchists have run the line that the Queen is not really Australia's head of state after all - and that, rather, this position is held by the Governor-General.

I can understand, although I do not agree with, the case for constitutional monarchy in Australia. The most credible position was put by John Howard in the newsletter which he forwarded to the constituents of Bennelong on 27 October 1999, in the lead-up to the referendum on the republic which was held on 6 November 1999. The Prime Minister said that "we should not lightly put aside something which has worked so well and helped give us such stability". John Howard argued unashamedly for the maintenance of the system in which "the Queen is Queen of Australia". In short, the Prime Minister is an unapologetic constitutional monarchist.

During the referendum campaign, however, quite a few monarchists went into "Don't-Talk-About-The-Queen" mode. The Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy temporarily junked its name and called itself "No Republic-ACM". What's more, the official "No" case - which was prepared by a majority of those members of Parliament who were against the proposed changes to the Constitution and which, in accordance with constitutional requirements, was distributed by the Australian Electoral Commission - did not contain even one reference to the Queen.

Many constitutional monarchists are arguing that the Governor-General, not the Queen, is Australia's head of state. This case is spelt out at some length by Sir David Smith in Chapter 3 of his recently released book Head of State (Macleay Press). Now, I like much of Sir David's work and he has addressed The Sydney Institute. Yet I profoundly disagree with his current position that the Queen is not Australia's head of state. Rather, I support the view which Sir David expressed in Quadrant in May 1991, where he wrote:

…we have a monarchical system of government, in which the powers and functions of the Head of State reside in an hereditary Monarch who rules only by the consent of those who are ruled over, and who acts on the advice of their elected representatives. In our particular case, as with the sixteen other monarchical countries within the Commonwealth, the absent monarch is represented by a Governor-General who performs all the duties of the Head of State.