The appointment of Quentin Bryce as Governor-General was a wasted opportunity.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd could have used the appointment to make some headway towards a republic. He could have pointed out some of the many flaws and inconsistencies in the present system. He could have incorporated some new elements into the process of appointing the Governor-General that were more compatible with a republic.
Let’s look at the flaws and inconsistencies.
How odd that we have a sex discrimination commissioner of the Federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission representing someone who is appointed on the basis of birth not merit, who has to satisfy a religiously discriminatory test and who is appointed according to rules which discriminate on the grounds of sex.
The Queen of Australia was born to the position. There was no equal opportunity about it. She is not allowed to be a Roman Catholic. Her successors are appointed on the basis of male children succeeding before female children, irrespective of age. If Anne Windsor had been born before Charles Windsor, she would not take the throne first, purely on the ground of her sex.
Then we have the blatant conflict of interest in the appointment and dismissal process. Not even the basest public service position has the bizarre conflicts of the governor-generalship.
The Prime Minister appoints and can dismiss the person who is charged with the job of appointing and dismissing the Prime Minister. It’s a dog eating its own tail.
Also, not even the basest public servant can be hired or fired at whim with no check or balance.
Further, the Governor-General represents someone whose first loyalty is to a foreign country. The woman who dished out MBEs to the rugby team that beat Australia’s rugby team. The woman whose family takes every opportunity to spruik British trade even when it conflicts with Australia’s
So let’s get over the “progress” of at last having a woman representing the discriminatory, sexist, hereditary English monarch.
What could Rudd have done?
Well he has Brendan Nelson’s support on this appointment, and the support of all the Premiers. He could have announced that it was time for the Prime Minister to relinquish the hitherto unfettered power of appointment and dismissal of the Governor-General.
He could have legislated so that, for example, the Prime Minister could not “advise” the Queen to appoint a person as Governor-General without the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition and a majority of Premiers; or, for example, a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Federal Parliament, or whatever. The legislation could have a similar dismissal process. It could even insist that the Governor-General be an Australian citizen.
Nelson would probably have agreed.
After that, the removal of the Queen from the process would be a simpler matter and the Governor-General – and who cares what she is called – would be the figurative and well as de-factor head of state.
Incidentally, the Governor-General is also President of the Executive Council, so could be called “President” right now, without any constitutional change.
But there is nothing wrong with retaining the term “Governor-General”. In a way it is better than “President” because “President” signifies power, which in our system is vested in the Prime Minister.
We saw in 1999 that the voting population is susceptible to scare tactics and that scare tactics are so easy to put on. Also, they do not think very much about constitutional matters. If they did they would ask what could be scarier than having the present system under which the Prime Minister of the day has unfettered power to hire or fire the Governor-General and the Governor-General has apparent power to hire and fire Prime Ministers and call elections.
Again, on that score Rudd could innovate by legislation and practice so that the referendum for constitutional change would run smoother.
He could announce now that the next election will be on the last Saturday in November in 2010 and that, if elected at that election, the election after that would be on the last Saturday in November in 2013. De-facto you would have a fixed term for Parliament with all the advantages of certainty for the administration of the country. It could even be legislated. After all, it is legislated that elections will held on a Saturday, why not state which Saturday?
He could also announce that if elected he would seek a formal vote of the new House of Representative to appoint him Prime Minister. This is similar to what happens in the ACT which does not have a Governor, nor have a need for one.
By doing these things, the Governor-General becomes purely ceremonial. Sovereignty is vested where it should be – in the people – exercised through their elected representatives.
The climate has changed since 1999. Rudd could at least have a non-binding plebiscite at the next election on the subject. Opinion polls suggest it would pass easily. Then the Government could move with more confidence to the next stage instead of having the flawed 1999 process dragged out as an excuse to do nothing.
In 1999 the Australian people were tricked by John Howard and betrayed by “republicans” who demanded a direct election of the president.
So we still have the demeaning process under which our Prime Minister has to grovel into Buckingham Palace and hob nob with a foreigner over who should be Australia’s de-facto head of state.
It should be a matter of pride for Australians to sever this last colonial link.
Heavens above, we have that pride in silly sporting games that don’t matter, why not on something as serious as the appointment of our head of state?