The Governor-General has been taking on an increasing number of national representative functions. Earlier this year it was the flower ceremony at Interlaken to mark the death of the Australian canyoners. Next year it will be the Olympics.
Thredbo and Port Arthur were other occasions where the Governor-General’s presence was valued.
It is an important role.
It is one the Prime Minister of the day is less suited to. We can recall Bob Hawke being booed at football finals. John Howard could have been booed at the Olympics.
It goes with the job of prime minister that about half the people will not have voted for you and that probably half of them are dyed in the wool opponents who might jeer and boo at ceremonial and celebratory occasions.
Because the Prime Minister has to submit to the electorate, he or she could be seen to be misusing occasions to get vote-winning photo opportunities. Not so the Governor-General.
The Governor-General’s role is likely to increase if past events are a clue.
But several elements of the position are troubling. First, when the Governor-General is overseas, not many foreigners know what a Governor-General is. Secondly, both overseas and in Australia the Governor-General, on paper at least, is the appointed representative of the monarch who lives in London and is also monarch of Britain. Third, the Governor-General, being appointed in effect by the Prime Minister, does not have any direct representative imprimatur.
Present arrangements could be improved upon without having to resort to changing the Constitution, without having to persuade the unpersuadable that change can be good.
At present, the Prime Minister chooses the Governor-General and recommends the appointment to the Queen who accepts the recommendation.
That could continue, but with a small addition to enhance the Governor-General’s representativeness. The Australian Parliament (under a Beazley or Costello Government) could pass a law stating that the Prime Minister shall not nominate a person to the Queen for appointment as Governor-General unless that person has been approved by a two-thirds majority of the Federal Parliament. Beazley or Costello would quite reasonable argue that they wanted the appointment process to be wider than just one person.
The Governor-General would then carry greater legitimacy as a representative of the Australian people.
It is fairly standard for legislation to control a Minister’s or Prime Minister’s power. The law could also require that the Prime Minister not recommend to the Queen the dismissal of the Governor-General without a prior vote of two-thirds of a joint sitting.
Indeed, I rather futilely made the parliamentary approval suggestion in this column before William Deane was appointed, arguing that then Prime Minister Paul Keating could have done this as a step to a republic. Silly me. Nothing gets in the way of a Labor Prime Minister and his power of patronage.
It is unfortunate. Deane would have easily got the majority. The Liberals applauded the appointment at the time.
No the title Governor-General is an odd one. The Governor-General does not govern. The Prime Minister and the ministers do that. But he does umpire. He presides. In fact he presides over government. The Constitution provides for a Federal Executive Council comprising the Governor-General and various ministers, one of whom is made Vice-President of the Federal Executive Council. The Governor-General therefore is the President of the Federal Executive Council, effectively the supreme executive body in Australia which formally signs into effect legislation, regulations and appointments. So let’s call the Governor-General the President of the Federal Executive Council, or President for short. It is a title more widely understood, especially outside the Commonwealth of Nations.
A former President of the National Executive Council (and Governor-General), Paul Hasluck, has highlighted just how important the role of the presidency is. He insisted on seeing the papers in time to read them before the meeting and that departments or ministers had not gone off on their own without ensuring there was no contradiction with other government policies. Without questioning policy himself, he would occasionally suggest postponement of an administrative order to check. He saw it as part of his role of maintaining stable and cohesive government — quite presidential really.
These suggested changes to the appointment and titling of the Governor-General
This enhancement of the Governor-General’s role is timely because it looks as if it might be some time until the question of a republic is revisited at a constitutional level.
The argument over the opening of the Olympics reveals the need for a symbolic head of Australia. The arguments and opinion polls during the referendum reveal that the Queen can no longer fulfil that role to the satisfaction of most Australians, much as the vast majority of Australians respect her as head of the Commonwealth of Nations and Head of State of Britain.
While we were at it we could also make the President of the Federal Executive Council’s role easier. We could, for example insist that the House of Representatives vote for the Prime Minister and name any new Prime Minister in any no-confidence motion. We could legislate for fixed terms. This would relieve the President of the FEC of the quandary of who to choose as Prime Minister in the case of uncertain election results or no-confidence motions and remove the task of approving or denying early elections. No change to the Constitution would be necessary.
If after a few years with these legislative changes, a constitutional change to a republic seemed tiny and purely symbolic, it would be a mere side-effect. If it made a change to a directly elected president seem more worthwhile or, on the other hand, unnecessary, so be it.
It may seem a republic by stealth. It may seem like achieving by other means what was not achievable by referendum for constitutional change. Well, what’s new. If you look back over defeated referendums, you see a pattern with many of them that their aims are achieved by other means.
The 1937 (aviation) and 1944 (democratic rights) failures have now been achieved by legislation under the foreign-affairs power. And the extension of the corporations and tax powers have enabled the Commonwealth to achieve much of what was denied in 1911, 1913, 1926 and 1973. The Communist Party (1951) has abolished itself. No-one would dare have anything but a simultaneous election for the Senate and House of Representatives (several referendums in the 1970s and 1980s) and the High Court has done its bit for religious and property rights and fair trials (1988).
If you want to change anything but the utterly obvious (Aborigines are people, 1967, and judges should retire, 1977) do it any way but a referendum.
In the meantime, I hope the President of the Australian Federal Executive Council, William Deane, continues doing his excellent job, and that President Deane is seen as the obvious choice in the future for things like opening major national and international events in Australia.