Of the 21 people who have been Governor-General of Australia, only one has been called upon to make a decision that in any way prfoundly affected the lives of Australians. That was Sir John Kerr in 1975.
For the rest of the 95-year history of the position, the occupants have not had to make serious decisions or to weigh up competing interests or arguments. In that sense it is not a taxing job. Sure, it is demanding on time and requires a modicum of social grace and an ability to make a good speech. Stripped of its nominal casting as the top position in the Australian political heirarchy, the practical elements of the job are not difficult. The mere fact that various incumbents and supporters of the office have protested too much to the contrary illustrates the point.
In short, the job is symbolic not actual; social not intellectual. For that reason, Sir William Deane is perhaps wasted on the job and might not have been the best appointment for it. No doubt he will do the task very capably, with ease. It is just that the High Court and Australia is deprived of his intellectual rigour and innovative talent. The Governor-General’s position is a symbolic one; there could have been an appointment attuned to that.
There is certainly no legal training required for the job. Bill Hayden with a couple of law units and a queue of military men have done the job as well as the retired judges. Even retired judge Sir John Kerr sought further legal advice from the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, before taking action against Whitlam.
Governors-General and other writing about them have argued that Governors-General have given important advice and words of caution to Prime Ministers and Cabinet members. It has never been precisely documented and may be no more valuable than the advice of a friend or spouse.
The Whitlam sacking aside, the power of the Governor-General is only symbolic. Sir Ninian Stephen turned Malcolm Fraser away for a few hours to get more details when Mr Fraser sought a double dissolution in 1983, but there was no question the double dissolution would be granted. The one time the Governor-General had to resolve a crisis his decision was condemned by half the population and praised by the other half almost purely upon the basis of their political feeling.
Governments and prime ministers do not have to explain these apppointments lie. Did they want a serious, safe appointment so the lead up to the republic could be smoothed? Did they want to avoid partisan debate? Or did they pick Sir William for his avowal that power in Australia comes from the people alone, not from God via the divine right of kings and the Imperial Parliament, and that such a man would never do what Sir John Kerr did?
Whatever the reason, there is now a pivotal gap on the High Court. With Sir William and the former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason gone, there is a danger the court will be more legalistic and less likely to imply human rights in the Constitution. The freedom of speech ruling, for example, is likely to be watered down. This will have a far greater long affect on the people of Australian than who happens to perform the almost purely social and ceremonial functions of Governor-General.