So much for Governors-General staying "above politics": the outgoing Australian Governor-General, appointed by the staunch monarchist Prime Minister John Howard, has waded into the republic debate by declaring that Australia becoming a republic is "too risky". In particular, Sir Michael Jeffrey focussed on the prospect that Australia might adopt a directly elected president to replace the Governor-General. In his interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, Sir Michael said:
"I'm concerned about the potential for friction between the prime minister and the head of state"
A statement which makes little sense when one looks at, for example, the actual friction in the 1975 dismissal of Gough Whitlam by Sir John Kerr, or the numerous times governments have clashed with Governors-General over specific policies. The reality is that such friction exists already, even when the Governor-General is de facto appointed by the Prime Minister. The only question is how a future head of state would use the reserve powers - we can go by the experience of other countries in this regard.
On this issue, Sir Michael states:
"People will say they have elected heads of state in this country or that country and it seems to work. Maybe."
There is no "maybe" about it - every properly democratic country which elects its head of state but has a Prime Minister derived from parliament works well. The states that haven't are those which struggle with democracy anyway. Sir Michael claims that it is "no accident" that Australia has remained a democracy for 100 years - of course it isn't. The people of Australia are imbued with a democratic ethos. That's why their constitution has worked, not because of an absentee head of state.
Sir Michael's further defence of the current system in Australia makes little sense also. For example, Sir Jeffrey states:
"I think the beauty about our present system is that governors and governors-general are not elected and therefore are bound to act on the advice of ministers provided that advice is constitutionally correct and legal."
And then states his role is:
"...to be the constitutional guarantor … to ensure at the federal level that the prime minister of the day behaves himself or herself constitutionally"
These two statements do not actually sit together. While it is true that the Governor-General could ignore unconstitutional or illegal advice, the political reality is that if the Governor-General is not elected, they have no "mana" to refuse such advice. Further, if they are bound to always does as he or she is told by the government of the day, it makes little sense to state the office is the "constitutional guarantor".
How can that be - because they always do what they're told to do? The reality is the only way a Governor-General can act as a guarantor is to sack prime ministers before they themselves are sacked. This is not by anyways a good way to act as a constitutional guarantor.
Meanwhile, Major General Michael Keating of the Australian Republican Movement has declared Sir Michael's comments to be "pure arrogance":
"Should we choose to have an elected person I'm sure the Australian who's elected would be equally capable of doing the job as Michael Jeffrey"
Indeed - Sir Michael is essentially stating that an unelected official, appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, is more capable of acting as a constitutional check than an independently elected president. Experience shows otherwise. He also appears to be implying that no-one is possibly better for the job than someone selected by an elite clique.
