It was denounced as the “”Politicians’ Republic” and defeated. Its central proposition was that the Governor-General/President/Head of State should be selected by a two-thirds majority of the Federal Parliament.
With the defeat of the “”Politicians’ Republic” we continued with the present set up. And this week, the Prime Minister – that quintessential politician – decided to extend the term of the Governor-General by six months. He did not refer to any state leader or any other major political party. He did not have to refer to anyone in his own party. All he had to do was ring up the Queen to inform her. She could not, as a matter of practice, object. In truth, it is the politicians’ constitutional monarchy.
Now, Sir William Deane has done a good job a Governor-General. He has usually made suitable noises on national matters, though some might reasonably argue that he has expressed political views. And that they are contrary to those of the elected government is another sin, in the eyes of some. Personally, I agree with Deane’s view on the importance of reconciliation, but I don’t think an appointed, figurehead head of state should express views running counter to those clearly expressed by the elected government, even in the admittedly careful and restrained way that Deane has done. What if a Liberal appointed Governor-General expressed a view contrary to, say, the Hawke Governments view on multi-culturalism or increased humanitarian immigration under the guise of national unity?
Deane has best played his role as Chief Mourner – starting with Port Arthur and continuing with Thredbo, the Swiss canyoning disaster and the Childers pack-backers fire. At those times the nation needs such a figurehead figure to represent everyone in the nation in a way that a Prime Minister cannot. Let’s face it, at least a quarter of the population utterly detest whomever is Prime Minister after the first year and another quarter are at least mildly hostile.
The trouble with the present politicians’ constitutional monarchy is that the Governor-General is chosen by the Prime Minister alone. Sure, the Prime Minister can consult, but does not have to, and often does not. It means the Governor-General’s private, public and professional life is vetted by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s staff to at least ensure that the appointee is not hostile to their general political and social outlook. Deane had a Catholic-Labor right-small-l liberal view of the world. It was apparent in his court judgments.
It does not always work. John Kerr, appointed by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, was a Labor man. He did industrial relations legal work on the Labor side and mixed with Labor people. But he turned in office, particularly after his wife died and he remarried – to a woman who did not have those links. And Bill Hayden, former Labor leader and Foreign Minister turned. As his occupancy of Government House went on, he got more Tory in his social and economic outlook until finally siding with the monarchists in the 1999 referendum.
Nonetheless Kerr and Hayden, like all modern Governors-General, were political appointments. And the appointment is made by the chief politician of the day, the Prime Minister.
With this week’s extension of Deane’s appointment, the Democrats leader Meg Less called for a consultative process to select his successor. She is dreaming. A cardinal rule of Australian politics is that the Prime Minister will not voluntarily or easily surrender any power, whether it is Howard or Keating. Keating is a prime example. He talked of an Australian republic and had the ideal opportunity to do something about it when it came time to replace Bill Hayden as Governor-General. Keating could have set up a consultative process as now sought by Lees. Indeed, he could have passed a law saying the Prime Minister shall not present a name to the Queen for the Governor-Generalship without the approval of two-thirds of a joint sitting of Parliament. Keating could have cracked the ice. People would have seen that it was not difficult to change the selection of the head of state from the whim of the Prime Minister (the politicians’ constitutional monarchy) to selection by the representatives of the whole people.
But no. Prime ministerial power must come first. Notice Labor did not support Lees. Labor sees the day when in office that its prime minister will get the power to choose the head of state under the politicians’ constitutional monarchy.
We can only guess what was behind Howard’s unilateral exercise of the power of the nation’s top politician to extend the term of the head of state. He is not obliged to tell anyone. Perhaps his favourite for the job is not ready yet. And given that the next election will not be held till after June 30 next year because of the need to synchronise the half-Senate election, Howard can exercise his untrammeled power then to select the new head of state. He might select former National Leader Tim Fischer. Or Liberal Minister Jocelyn Newman. It is purely his choice. As top politician he can select a politician or ex-politician from his side. A requirement for approval by a two-thirds majority of parliament would have prevented such a political appointment.
It is a myth that the governor-generalship is not political or not politically controversial. Hayden’s appointment caused division and outrage. Deane statements on reconciliation have been attacked. Kerr caused on-going controversy. Isaac Isaacs appointment in the 1930s caused outrage among the British and Australian establishment. Former NSW Labor leader William McKell’s appointment by a federal Labor Government caused a stir. That is what you get with a politicians’ constitutional monarchy.
We need to change the selection process where the Governor-General – who is supposed to unite and represent us all – is chosen on the whim of one man (or woman), the nation’s leading politician. We need a more inclusive process involving all major parties and the states or indeed the whole people. When that happens republic will slide into place with no need to further change the way the head of state is selected.
That said the post has only ever mattered twice in Australia’s history: the constitutional crisis in 1975 and in 1983 when Ninian Stephen’s requirement that Prime Minister Fraser give him further details as to why an early election was needed resulted in a critical delay during which Labor dumped Hayden in favour of Bob Hawke. The way round those events is to remove some of the discretion of the head of state by having a fixed term and fixed election dates and handing the role of choosing the Prime Minister formally to the House of Representatives. But that argument requires more fleshing out than I have space here for.