How Hollingworth argues the case for a republic

May 14, 2003
Issue 

BY ALISON DELLIT

At the 1998 constitutional convention, which debated whether or not Australia should become a republic, then-Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane Peter Hollingworth spoke in favour of the minimalist republic model that was subsequently defeated in a referendum. Ironically, as governor-general, Hollingworth has done more for republicans than he ever did when he was one.

By May 10, editorials in the Fairfax-owned Australian Financial Review, Age and Sydney Morning Herald, as well as all the Murdoch-owned press, including the Australian, had demanded Hollingworth resign for the "good of the country". His supporters were almost non-existent — even conservative politicians were distancing themselves from him.

On May 1, a report by an independent inquiry initiated by the Brisbane Anglican Diocese was tabled in the Queensland parliament. The report said that while he was archbishop of Brisbane, Hollingworth had allowed a priest to continue his ministry despite knowing he was a child abuser.

Having an Australian head of state who is a paedophile protector is obviously extremely embarrassing for the ruling class. But Hollingworth also threatens the ruling class because the furore has started people wondering again why we need a "head of state" if the position is "just ceremonial" (and whether it's worth the expenditure of $10 million a year!), and if we do, why we can't elect him or her?

The May 3 Age editorial put its reasons bluntly: "As a constitutional monarchist, Mr Howard should understand that the best thing he can do to sustain the system he supports is to end this sorry episode and find another governor-general."

The united press campaign has made it untenable for Hollingworth to remain in the position. According to a May 4-5 Herald-AC Neilson poll, 76% of the population believes he should resign.

The question now is not whether he should resign, but when. Hollingworth has become a liability to the corporate elite who run this country. It is very likely that he will soon be jettisoned. (He would, of course, be allowed to keep his $150,000 a year pension from the position.)

The huge constitutional powers of the governor-general have been played down in the media furore in favour of arguments such the AFR's May 6 comment that Australia cannot lose the "symbolic role" of governor-generals, who have "represented the whole of society in an apolitical way".

It is, of course, impossible for anyone to represent the whole of Australian society. Kerry Packer has very different interests to those of struggling workers. What is good for him is almost certainly not going to be good for the majority.

Australia's previous governor-general, William Deane, won enormous respect from many Australians not because he "united" everyone, but because he spoke out in favour of some of the most exploited and oppressed in our society. (In appointing Hollingworth, Howard was attempting to avoid another "activist governor-general". One of Hollingworth's more ironic statements on taking the position on was that he would "avoid controversy".)

The rhetoric about "uniting Australia" is a crude attempt to appeal to Australian nationalism — the belief that all Australians have interests in common — while obscuring the real role of the governor-general, which is to act as a last resort to enforce the power of this country's corporate rulers.

The office of governor-general is inherently undemocratic, and not primarily because it is currently appointed by an elderly aristocratic woman who lives thousands of kilometres (and many worlds) away from Australian working people.

Contrary to popular belief, the reserve powers of the governor-general were not inherited from Britain along with the monarchy. They were inserted into the Australian constitution at federation by the Australian ruling elite.

The governor-general's "express powers" include the ability to command the armed forces and to appoint judges.

The governor-general's reserve powers are mostly undefined, but, according to 1997 federal parliamentary legal advice, "arguably" include the right to dismiss a prime minister in several circumstances, including when the government cannot obtain supply and will not call an election.

This reserve power was last exercised in 1975 when then-governor-general Sir John Kerr sacked the Whitlam Labor government. Panicked by the deepening 1974-75 worldwide economic recession, the big business media and Coalition politicians created a "crisis" to ensure the election of a government capable of halting wage increases.

While almost all politicians give lip service to ensuring that this "doesn't happen again", they continue to quietly insist that the reserve powers must remain with a head of state unconnected to government. In 1998, Labor prime minister Paul Keating ignored a recommendation from his own Republic Advisory Committee to abolish the powers.

The Australian corporate elite's ability to dominate politics could survive without these powers — it has a swag of compliant Coalition and Labor politicians to ensure parliament acts in its interests, not those of working people.

Moreover, the upper echelons of the civil bureaucracy, the armed forces and the judiciary are either drawn from the families of big business owners or are paid such high salaries that they identify their personal interests with those of the capitalist private profit system.

But the ruling class clearly wants to maintain the option of being able to have elected governments removed by an electorally unaccountable head of state. This is one reason that Australians were never given a chance to vote on a directly elected president, despite such a model having overwhelming public support.

Hollingworth will go, and no doubt Prime Minister John Howard will be more careful in appointing another "figurehead" — the name most frequently mentioned appears to be that of Major-General Peter Cosgrove — to guard the reserve powers.

But not only do we not need Hollingworth, we do not any unaccountable, appointed figurehead with enormous power — not even William Deane, who might have been a nice bloke, but was hardly worth the money. What we do need is real democracy; but I'm not holding my breath.

From Green Left Weekly, May 14, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.