| Review of: | Head of State: the Governor-General, the Monarchy, the Republic and the Dismissal by David Smith |
|---|---|
| Reviewed By: | Peter Boyce |
| Reviewed in: | Australian Journal of Public Administration |
| Date accepted online: | 25/09/2006 |
| Published in print: | Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 110-124 |
Book Reviews
Several of the polemical but well argued essays on the office of governor-general in this collection have been published elsewhere, and there is some repetition of argument from one chapter to the next, but the compilation into book format was well worth the effort.
Sir David Smith is possibly the most vigorous and authoritative defender of Australian monarchy in the public arena today, even allowing for the higher media profile of David Flint. Smith brings to the debate the fierce conviction and loyalty of a long-serving official secretary to the governor-general, but some of his passionate argument is idiosyncratic, most notably an insistence that the governor-general is already the
Recent occupants of Yarralumla have consistently denied that they assumed the formal status (as distinct from the powers) of head of state. In any event, Smith's argument carries little weight with republicans, who seem more concerned with the symbolism of a monarchy headed by an absentee non-Australian than by any argument about the legal powers of the monarch's Australian representative. Clearly we have a bi-partite head of state, and it is probably too late in the day to try to convince pro-republic Australians that any meaningful distinction can be drawn between the functions and status of a monarch who is the 'sovereign' and a governor-general who is the 'head of state.'
Sir David holds strong views on how a governor-general should behave, both during his tenure and in retirement. They deserve to be taken seriously, even if one is not entirely persuaded by them. Although the old orthodoxy would endorse his claim that a governor-general should avoid any public comment that implies criticism of the national government, it is increasingly apparent that a large segment of the population (and not merely those favouring a republic) these days expect the governor-general to stimulate public discussion, especially in the realm of values and national ideals. Smith is unforgiving of Sir William Deane's brinkmanship in this sphere of vice-regal activism, while readily forgiving Bill Hayden's outspokenness on several issues. Sir David argues that Deane was clearly aiming his bullets at the national government, whereas Hayden was not. I suspect, however, that Smith's disapproval of Deane relates also to the fact that he seemed to be preparing the ground for a smooth transition to a republic, whereas Hayden, the former republican, became a vigorous proponent of the monarchical status quo.
Sir David does not evince much interest in seeing the vice-regal office reformed, either in the method of a governor-general's appointment or in the manner of his or her performance of duties, yet one would suppose that any serious defender of the Australian monarchy would acknowledge current weaknesses in the system. For example a prime minister whose increasingly presidential style deprives his governor-general of some of his traditional ceremonial opportunities to be seen and heard is condemning him to an even lower public profile than the one he has had to bear since federation. Yet John Howard, the professed monarchist, has, intentionally or otherwise, achieved precisely this outcome for Yarralumla's current occupant. The dilemma for monarchists, but seldom acknowledged, is how to ensure that a governor-general whose public persona is increasingly distant from that of the monarch, is able to sustain enough public interest to command respect and deference. Smith would appear to think that an uncontroversial discharge of the formal constitutional and ceremonial duties is all that is required.
Sir David offers some legitimate criticism of media reportage and analysis of vice-regal matters, and the autobiographical segments in this unusual treatise are unfailingly interesting, especially the author's blow by blow account of the Dismissal. It is just a pity that he is labouring a theme which seems to miss the main concerns of monarchy's critics.