“TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE”
A DEFINITIVE EXPOSITION OF THE POSITION OF HEAD OF STATE IN AUSTRALIA

Amidst the intrigue and infighting of Shakespeare’s[1] Hamlet, the phrase “to thine own self be true” is one of the greatest ever examples of wise and astute advice given by a father to a son.

“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!”

In many ways these words have been the maxim by which the Australian Monarchist League has existed. When the League was re-organised in 1993, to be better able to fight the battle against a republic, some members were insistent that we should change our name to ‘constitutionalists’ or some other phrase which did not include the words ‘monarchy’ or ‘monarchist’, so as not to offend.

However, these people did not appreciate that the only people offended by the word ‘monarchy’ or ‘monarchist’ were the very people we were fighting against – those who supported a republic.

These perceptive words of Shakespeare were in use a lot during those days. The prime purpose of the League was to defend our Constitutional Monarchy and, as such, I never allowed us to forget that we are what we are, and that is a monarchist organisation committed to retaining the Crown in our Constitution. “To thine own self be true” indeed.

OVER 100 YEARS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY

“To thine own self be true” also applies to every facet of our Constitution, warts and all, of which, due to those brilliant Australians who wrote it, there are surprisingly few.

The third line of the wisdom imparted by Shakespeare’s Polonius: “Thou canst not then be false to any man”, or, as Bacon[2] in his Essays 1625 ‘Of wisdom for a Man's Self’ wrote: “Be true to thyself as thou not be false to others”, would have perhaps been better followed by all those engaged in the debate on Australia’s constitutional future, than the ploys to purposefully confuse the issues which were widely adopted. monarchists continue to accuse republicans of twisting the facts as do republicans similarly accuse monarchists.

The Australian Monarchist League, I am proud to say, has never engaged in deception of any sort, nor have we ever sought to obscure the issues. We have always stood up to defend the Constitution as it is, because we believe implicitly that ‘as it is’ is brilliant and what is more important, ‘as it is’ works and has worked well for over a hundred years.

It was sometime around the 1970s or perhaps a little earlier, that the term ‘head of state’ began to be used as a description of the Queen’s and latterly, the Governor-General’s position. At the time no one really cared about who was or who was called ‘head of state’. The term was not to be found in Australian terminology nor in Australian dictionaries, however, it gradually came to be more accepted as international diplomatic parlance. Australians, however, continued to be comfortable with the nomenclature of the Queen and the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General.

However, when republicans hit upon the phrase ‘an Australian for head of state’ some monarchists were thrown into a complete panic and came up with all sorts of absurd suggestions, such as changing the name of the Governor-General to President and even the contention that ‘the Governor-General and not the Queen was head of state’. Some (supposedly) on the monarchist side even went so far as to deny publicly that they were monarchists, but merely opposing a republic! There is a background to all this and that background is essentially based on not having a proper understanding of our constitutional and monarchical system of government and perhaps even lacking the courage to openly admit that we are a nation established ‘under the Crown’

Conservative republicans opt for what they call a minimalist republic, which is merely removing the Queen and the Governor-General and replacing them with the office of president. One former Labor Premier had even suggested keeping the title ‘Governor-General’ as ‘an easy way to get a republic[3]’. In reality, these people want to retain our constitutional monarchy, but without the Queen at its head; a ‘crowned republic’ without the Crown. As former Governor-General Bill Hayden4 wrote in his autobiography: “The predominant objective of the republican movement is to eliminate reference to the Crown in the Constitution and with that to change the title of head of state from Governor-General to President.”

In the early 1990s, at the commencement of the republican campaign, it was felt by some that the difficulties experienced by members of the Royal Family (in the words of the Queen, an ‘Annus Horribilis[5]’) would prove to be a hindrance. They felt that having to acknowledge that we are a constitutional monarchy and using the terms, ‘Queen’, ‘Crown’ and ‘Monarchy’ would disadvantage their campaign.

Whilst our system of governance is far more important than the actual individuals involved, it is nevertheless true to say that people are undoubtedly influenced by personalities and our campaign must take account of this, but instead of running away from this and other similar issues, we should rather be true unto ourselves and not only face these criticisms full on, but more importantly, turn them to our advantage.

The rationale to downplay the role of the Crown and the Queen was the underlying reason for the polling booth material which made no mention of either but: “This Republic: Don’t risk it’ ‘if you want to vote for the President Vote No to the Politician's Republic”[6], which we believed opened wide the doorway for republicans to counter that the 1999 vote was not for the status quo but merely against ‘this republic'.

This thinking has ever since played an underlying part in the contention that it is ‘NOT the Queen but the Governor-General who is head of state.’

However, it became clear from the voting patterns of the 1999 referendum that the bulk of the ‘no’ vote came from monarchists (mainly National and traditional Liberal and Labor voters) with only a smaller number of direct electionists and others not happy with the model.

THE CROWN PROTECTS THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE PEOPLE

Traditional monarchists, whether Labor or Liberal, were never concerned about ‘which model’, but voted for the Queen, as it is in Her Majesty that they place the trust of maintaining the Constitution. These voters would not be influenced by the catchphrase ‘An Australian for head of state’. After all, most consider the fuss about a ‘head of state’ to be a giant public-relations furphy. Heads of state within the Westminster system are not so particularly important. They do not execute treaties or other similar agreements as designated plenipotentiaries, who are usually the relevant Ministers of State, do.

Furthermore, we, in Australia, have an unobtrusive monarchy which means that the Queen does not interfere in the governance of the country.

Under our system, it is the Prime Minister, as head of government, who makes the day-to-day decisions. Temporary power is vested in him as leader of the political party which has the confidence of the House of Representatives, but he is always subject to constitutional checks by the Governor-General, himself subject to the check of appointment and dismissal by the Queen, herself subject to the will of the people.

These checks and balances are the whole basis upon which our system of constitutional monarchy rests, always ensuring that it is the people who ultimately make the final decision.

Republican governments, both State and Federal, have stripped away all semblance of our monarchical system of government, resulting in allegiance to the Monarch being replaced by a pledge to the State, pictures of the Queen and crown insignia have been removed and the title ‘Royal’ discreetly dropped and even our colonial history re-written. However, even though these nihilists may obliterate everything that is a reminder of our British heritage; they can never remove the essence of our constitutional stability, which is the Crown, without having to go to the people.

Republicans can do little but accept that there is no real interest amongst the people in constitutional change. The problem that they face is that our constitutional monarchy has been so successful that all attempts to bring on a republic, including the 1999 referendum, have not simply failed, but have failed miserably.

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby[34] had expanded on the defeat of the 1999 referendum in a speech in March 2000:

“On Saturday 6 November 1999, 12.3 million electors of the Commonwealth of Australia participated in a constitutional referendum. Two questions were asked. One of them concerned the introduction into the Constitution of an additional Preamble, although one which would have no binding legal force. More important was the question which asked whether the electors approved a proposed amendment:

“To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament”.

“Both proposals were defeated. The national vote of the electors in favour of Australia's becoming a republic was 45.13% with 54.87% against. The proposed Preamble was lost even more decisively. It could muster only 39.34% in favour with 60.66% against. The proposed republic was rejected in every State . It secured a majority only in the Australian Capital Territory. However, whilst the votes of the electors in that Territory counted towards the national aggregate, they were not relevant to the other requirement of the Constitution concerning amendment. Under s 128, to secure the passage of a proposal to alter the Australian Constitution it is necessary to obtain not only a majority of the electors nationally but also an affirmative vote in a majority of the States. Far from obtaining a majority of the States, every State rejected the proposed republic. The margins varied. The only other self-governing mainland Territory of the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory of Australia, also voted against the republic.”[7]

The Clerk to the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, who supports a republic, had written in his 1996 article ‘Putting Republicanism into the Republic’[8]:

“The problem is that official republicanism is only a nationalist and anti-hereditary movement to remove the British monarchy from Australia. It does not seek to foster or to build upon a republican culture. Historically there have been two essential ingredients of republican theory and practice: institutions so structured as to provide a balanced system of government capable of avoiding the growth of monarchical power, and a reliance on the people as a whole as the only repository of sovereignty. A republican culture is one which recognises these central tenets of republicanism, and seeks to build upon them. Australian official republicanism, however, is characterised by a neglect of questions of institutional structure and constitutional balance, and by a positive aversion to involving the people in government to a greater extent than they are now involved. It is in relation to the head of state issue that these characteristics are most clearly exposed.”

BEWARE CLOSET REPUBLICANS

We have ‘democracy of the people’ in Australia, but unfortunately, this has led to some of those opposing a republic, possibly because they may have been misguidingly influenced by republican propaganda, to claim that we are a ‘crowned republic’. This sort of thinking has led to these people elevating the Governor-General to the absolute position of sole head of state, even though he is appointed as the representative of the Queen.

Some even go so far as to claim that we are not a monarchy, but a ‘res publica’! They and, similarly, republicans fail to appreciate that ‘res publica’ means not ‘a republic’, although it is held to be an origin of that word, but, as Cicero[9a] meant in his De re publica: ‘public affairs’. Tacitus[9b] in his Annals refers to it as: ‘constitution’.

Section 128[10] of the Australian Constitution vests power for change into the hands of the people. However, just because we in this country have government by the public within a Commonwealth (meaning ‘the public good – the whole body of people in a state’) this in no way means that we have a republic. Even though a ‘republic’ is used to mean ‘government of the people’ it also means a system in which ‘supreme power is vested in elected representatives’. In a republic, the ‘head of state’ is not hereditary.

Because we, in Australia, enjoy all the ingredients that may be considered to be most desirable in a republic does not mean that we are, in any way, a republic. We are not. We are a constitutional monarchy, with the sort of checks and balances which only an hereditary ‘Head’ can provide.

The seeds of our modern constitutional monarchy were sown with the ‘Presentation of the Declaration of Rights’ to William[11a] and Mary[11b] on the 13th of February 1689, to which they were jointly required to consent before accepting the throne. In the words of the 17th century jurist, Sir Edward Coke[12], the legislative supremacy of the Parliament at this time became: “transcendent and absolute”. The provisions of the Declaration were later enshrined into the Bill of Rights[13] which was enacted by the English Parliament in December of that year.

Modern republics, even that of the USA, are founded on the principles of the French First Republic[14] established in 1792, over one hundred years after the embryonic founding of our own modern system of constitutional monarchy.

Many republicans are, actually, closet constitutional monarchists, in that they accept that our system of a ‘crowned democracy’ is more effective than the politicised republican systems found in other countries. This is why they endeavour to retain the principles of our system but fail because they want to remove the soul of the system, which is, of course the Crown.

DEMOCRACY THROWN OUT WITH THE CROWN

Most of Britain’s former colonies, upon their independence, likewise sought to retain the Westminster system, but removed the Crown. The result is that there is no former colony of the British Empire which removed the Crown and which was able to maintain the democracy of the people intact in a similar manner to that which we have achieved in Australia as an independent and sovereign nation under the Crown.

When some monarchists came up with the proposition that: ‘NOT the Queen but the Governor-General is head of state’, our leadership recoiled in horror, as did a majority of our membership. However, at the time, we did not want to create an open conflict among monarchists which could be used by the republican media to their advantage. The fact that republicans had hitherto complimented us on being ‘honest’ on this issue was no comfort.

I therefore took the step of consulting with Sir Walter Campbell[35 ]and Sir Harry Gibbs[15], both now sadly departed. Sir Walter was former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland and former Governor of Queensland and Sir Harry was the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

Following Sir Walter’s advice, we thereafter accepted the stratagem that the Queen was the formal, or prime, head of state, and that, upon appointment, the Governor-General became our effective head of state. In Sir Walter’s words: “I do consider that the Queen is the Head of State and the Governor-General in fact has the operative powers of Head of State”[36].

This was a position essentially held by the Government of the then Prime Minister, John Howard MP[16], as later intimated in correspondence dated 1st December, 2006, the salient paragraph of which is reproduced below:

The Australian Government's view is that the Queen is Australia's constitutional head of state. In practice, however, the Governor-General performs functions and powers traditionally associated with the head of state. The Governor-General can therefore be regarded as the effective head of state.

The passage of time has meant that the term ‘An Australian for head of state’ now has little impact and is widely seen as an excuse by republicans not to detail what model they propose to subject us to.

The real argument for an ‘Australian as head of state’ relates mainly to the fact that the Queen does not reside in Australia, that she is a ‘foreigner’, that no one else can become the Monarch and that the Queen is not solely Queen of Australia but also of the United Kingdom and fourteen other Realms.

We, in Australia, have, what we term an ‘absent monarchy’, which means that the Monarch is not resident in the country but is represented by a Governor-General who, upon appointment, becomes tantamount to being the monarch in Australia.

Whilst the Queen as a person does not live in Australia, as Queen of Australia, she is an Australian institution, just as in Canada, as Queen of Canada, she is a Canadian institution.

In this Orwellian world where political correctness pervades the intelligentsia and the wealthy in particular, to inherit a position, whether the throne or a title or even entailed property, is anathema. It is against this background that monarchists, unable to present a logical case, due mainly to a lack of understanding of our constitutional arrangements, made, from time to time, various proposals to ‘republicanise’ our system of constitutional monarchy and to down-play the role of the Queen in our Constitution.

THE QUEEN KEEPS ABSOLUTE POWER OUT OF REACH OF POLITICIANS

What people generally failed to appreciate is that it is the hereditary factor which ensures that absolute power is kept from the hands of politicians for they, the politicians, have no say or influence whatsoever in who is the monarch. The monarch cannot be corrupted, whether for material gain or for the offer of a continuation of power. Furthermore, our system of governance, in so far as the Queen and the Governor-General are concerned, is exceedingly cost-effective. We do not pay the Queen an allowance, nor do we cover her day-to-day expenses in dealing with Australian matters. The cost of our Governors-General is absurdly small, especially when compared with that of presidents of other nations with a similar GDP and particularly in comparison with the Prime Minister’s budget.

Whilst the Queen is Queen of fifteen other Realms, these positions are now all totally separate. The Royal Style and Titles Act of 197317 changed the title set by the 1953 Act and made Queen Elizabeth ‘Queen of Australia’. The Schedule on page 1 states the new form in full as: “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.”

The Queen is described as head of state of ALL Realms, including Australia, in the Commonwealth section on the Royal website (www.royal.gov.uk). To quote:

The Commonwealth celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2009: from Australia to Antigua, Canada to Cameroon, it is a remarkable international organisation, spanning every geographical region, religion and culture. It exists to foster international co-operation and trade links between people all over the world. The Queen is head of state of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK. (My bold) She is also Head of the Commonwealth itself, a voluntary association of 53 independent countries.

However, in the separate section on Australia the Queen is described as Sovereign: “Australia is a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as Sovereign.” Similar descriptions appear in the sections on Canada and New Zealand.

The Queen is accepted, indeed welcomed, as head of state in all of her Realms, except by some people in Australia. Granted, our Constitution is unique in the powers it devolves upon the Governor-General, but we should never be ashamed to acknowledge the Queen, just because Her Majesty’s family may, from time to time, be the subject of sometimes actual, but generally media invented, scandal, or because some polls may show a perceived decline in support for the monarchy.

In 2004, Major General Michael Jeffery[18], then Governor-General, made the following comment: “Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role.” (Bruce Stannard: Canberra Times 6/11/04)

In an interview by Greg Turnbull on the Ten Network’s ‘Meet The Press’ dated the 29th May, 2005 Mr Turnbull asked: “Governor-General, we’re just about out of time. I thank you for your time. But help me out with this one just before you go. Are you in fact our head of state or in fact a representative of our head of state?” General Jeffery responded: “Well, the Queen is the Monarch and I represent her, and I carry out all the functions of head of state.”

The December 1999 fact sheet of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation Series 2: ‘head of state’ pronounces that: “The formal head of state of Australia is Queen Elizabeth II, in her role as Queen of Australia. But the effective head of state in terms of power is the Governor-General, who performs his or her tasks on the advice, or instruction, of the Australian Prime Minister.”

The reason for the success of our democracy in this country is not that constitutional power is ultimately vested directly in the Governor-General, but because we are a constitutional monarchy which is vested in the people and not in politicians.

THE QUEEN AND CONSTITUTION GIVE ABSOLUTE POWER TO THE PEOPLE

In Australia, the people’s democracy is absolute for they have the power to remove a government at election and they can remove the Monarchy at a referendum.

Our written Constitution is exceptionally logical and makes it very clear that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. When we talk about ‘the Queen’ we are actually talking about the Queen as the institution or ‘body politic’ of the Crown. Whilst the Constitution does empower the Governor-General with specific powers not available to the person of the Queen, he is so empowered as the Queen’s representative and not as though he were an appointed President.

It is in this capacity, not as an ultimate head of state nominated by, and responsible to, the Prime Minister, that the Governor-General ensures that responsible government works and intercedes when it does not, as Sir John Kerr did in 1975.

The Constitution sets out quite clearly in its Preamble that we are established ‘under the Crown’ and under para 2, that the Constitution is vested in ‘the sovereignty of the United Kingdom’[19].

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established.

The Crown was something of which Sir Robert Menzies[20a] had a perfect understanding. In his book Afternoon Light he wrote, “The Crown remains the centre of our democracy” [20b]. I do not believe that, at any time during the entirety of his political career, Sir Robert ever made any reference to the Governor-General being our head of state, whether effective or absolute. He did, however, on several occasions make reference to the monarch as head of state[20c]

As can be seen from the following extracts from the Australian Constitution, it is a monarchical constitution establishing the Queen as the embodiment of the nation as a whole:

Section 3 empowers the Queen to proclaim that the people of the Colonies “shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia” and further empowers her to “appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.”

Part I 1. specifies that the Federal Parliament shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and Part 1 2 states that the Governor-General “shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.”

Part 1 3. stipulates that the salary for the Governor-General shall be paid to the Queen and not to the Governor-General himself.

Part 4 42. requires “Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution.”
The schedule reads: “OATH. I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD! “ (There is provision for an affirmation of this Oath).

Part 4 44v talks about the Queen's Ministers of State: and the Queen's navy or army and Part 4 58 states that the Governor-General assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.

Above all, Chapter II 61. specifies that: “The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.”

Part 4 58, empowering the Governor-General to reserve a bill for the Queen’s assent was inserted as a precautionary measure and is only used now in the event the Government wishes the Queen to give assent personally when in Australia. The last Australian bill to be so reserved was the Royal Style and Titles Act 1975.

DUTIES OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AS THE QUEEN’S REPRESENTATIVE

The website of the new Governor-General has been updated and describes the duties of Governor-General in exhaustive detail which, in view of their relevance to this Paper, can be found in full in the endnotes to this Paper at [21].

The schedule of duties makes particular reference to the fact that: “In addition to being the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by the Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.”

“In 1975 the then Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Mr Maurice Byers (later Sir Maurice Byers QC) gave the following legal opinion in relation to the powers of the Governor-General:

‘The Constitution binds the Crown. The Constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General although vested in the Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in the Queen by Section 61. And it is exercisable by the Queen’s representative, not her delegate or agent. The language of Sections 2 and 61 had in this respect no contemporary parallel ...’”


The schedule concludes that: “…the Governor-General’s role is to protect the Constitution and to facilitate the work of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government.”

THE QUEEN IS THE PEOPLE’S GUARDIAN.
THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL ADMINISTERS THE CONSTITUTION.

What is explained above are the two separate and distinct roles of the Governor-General, namely that of the Queen's representative and that of the occupier of what actually becomes, following appointment, an office independent of the person of the Queen, but always at the Queen’s pleasure.

At ‘the Queen’s pleasure’ means that the term of office of the Governor-General is not fixed and can be terminated at any time, although only at the request of the Prime Minister. Although an Australian Governor-General has never previously been dismissed, the power to do so is, nevertheless, a vital check within our constitutional arrangements.

‘The Queen’s pleasure’ does not mean the person of the Queen, but the Queen as the body politic or institution of the Crown. As an individual, the Queen obviously has likes and dislikes, but the Queen, as body politic, can have no personal opinion.

To the non-legal mind, this may appear to be somewhat complicated, but do not forget that, even after nearly twenty years of debate, republicans have still not been able to duplicate the checks and balances which are an integral (and non-negotiable) part of the current Australian Constitution. That our Constitution is continually evolving can be seen in the manner in which the British Government came to accept that it had lost political control over the ‘Dominions’.

In 1901, right up until around 1930, the Governor-General was nominated by the British Government and acted as its chief liaison with the Australian Government. As a result of the matters raised by the ‘Dominion’ Prime Ministers at the Imperial Conferences, it was formally recognised that the ‘Dominion’ Governments were constitutionally and politically independent from the British Government.

This change led to the appointment by the British Government of High Commissioners, who thereafter, instead of the Governors-General as was previously the case, represented the diplomatic interests of Britain. The first British Commission was established in Canada in 1928 and in Australia, eight years later, in 1936.

The proceedings and memoranda of the 1926 Imperial Conference22 is a report of the Conference at which it was recognised that: “...it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Governor-General of a Dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that Government”.

These principles were enshrined in the Statute of Westminster23 of 1931, adopted by Australia in 1942.

That the Governor-General has specific constitutional powers which only he can exercise is unquestioned, as is the fact that, in terms of protocol, the position of Governor-General is higher than any Australian Office, other than the Queen herself.

For instance, when, in preparation for the 1954 visit of the Queen which was the first by a reigning monarch, it was found that the powers of giving Assent, and even the formal Opening of the Parliament, fell within the province of the Governor-General and it became necessary to enact special legislation empowering the Queen personally to perform constitutional duties in Australia.

The consequential Royal Powers Act 1953[24], stipulated that: “When the Queen is personally present in Australia, any power under an Act exercisable by the Governor-General may be exercised by the Queen”.

When Sir John Kerr[25] dismissed the Whitlam Ministry in 1975, he did so without consulting the Queen and using, not reserve powers of the Crown, but the specific powers vested in him, as Governor-General, under Section 64[26] of the Constitution.

On the 12th November, 1975, the day following the dismissal, Mr Gordon Scholes wrote to the Queen to ask: “that you act in order to restore Mr Whitlam to office as Prime Minister in accordance with the expressed resolution of the House of Representatives” On the 17th November 1975 the Queen’s Private Secretary, at the command of Her Majesty, replied that:

“. . . the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and the Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.”[27]


However, these powers, “which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act”, do not, in any way, add up to the Governor-General being the sole and ultimate head of state. All powers emanate from appointment as the Queen’s representative in an office which he holds at ‘the Queen’s pleasure’ Whilst he conducts his duties without any reference to, or interference from, the Queen, the powers he exercises are nevertheless the powers of the (body politic) of the Queen.

The fact is, we could have no Governor-General without the Queen. His (the legal references are always masculine) appointment does not somehow catapult him, after his nomination, into the role of ultimate head of state but he assumes the position of effective head of state as the Queen’s representative.

GOVERNOR-GENERAL NEVER STYLED HEAD OF STATE

In June 2008, Mr Malcolm Hazell CVO, then still Official Secretary to the Governor-General, gave an address at Wagga Wagga in New South Wales in which he outlined the duties and role of the Governor-General. No mention whatsoever was made that the Governor-General is any sort of head of state. In fact, there is no legislative definition or even any mention in any official description of the role and duties of the Governor-General, that he is even effective, let alone the supreme, sole and legal head of state that some would have us believe. On the other hand, the Constitution itself supports totally the status of the Queen as head of state and the Governor-General as her representative and, by assumption – and only by assumption, effective head of state.

Those who tend to play politics and promote some sort of downplayed role of the Monarch continually fail to appreciate that Australia IS a kingdom and that the Queen IS the head of that kingdom.

It has been argued that a High Court judgment delivered in 1907[28] is proof that the Governor-General is head of state. It is not. What the judgment of Griffith, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs and Higgins[29], who, incidentally, were all involved in the formulation of the Constitution, actually says is: “…the officiating Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth, the Governor General”.

‘Officiating’ means performing the duties of an office or acting as an officer and reliance on this term to assert that the Governor-General is sole and absolute head of state is totally erroneous. What the judgment means is that the Governor-General is the ‘officiating’ (i.e. in the name of the King - as it then was) ‘Constitutional Head of the (Australian) Commonwealth’ and, whilst it is interesting that they used this term within the Westminster system, long before it came into popular usage, it is a long bow to use this as the basis of what I believe is a flawed argument that the Governor-General is the supreme, ultimate and legal head of state.

Furthermore, in 1907 the convention was that Governors-General were appointed by the King on the advice of the British Colonial Secretary and, as such, reported to the British Government in much the same manner as the Colonial Governors had earlier done. This convention continued for three decades following Federation until 1926 as confirmed in the Statute of Westminster of 1931, when the position of the Governors-General of what were then termed the ‘Dominions’, but which are now called ‘Realms’, was changed.

The High Court, at the time, was not the final court of jurisdiction, for appeals were allowed to the Privy Council, a situation which continued right up until 1975. Appeals from State courts ended with the Australia Acts of 1986, and Australian appointments to the Privy Council ceased in practice in 1983 and in law (with the Australia Acts) in 1986. The last appeal heard by the Privy Council was in 1980[30]

A GOVERNOR-GENERAL MUST BE NON-POLITICAL

It is indeed a very dangerous ploy to contend that the Constitution rests in the hands of a Governor-General as sole, ultimate head of state. We have had many viceroys, most excellent but some who have been somewhat injudicious, a recent example of which is the comment by our current Governor-General, Ms Quentin Bryce, which was reported by the Herald-Sun and by AAP on the 2nd April 2009 as follows: ‘The republican movement has seized on comments from Governor-General Quentin Bryce that Australia will become a republic.’

‘Ms Bryce, who is flying home after three-week tour of Africa, says she agrees with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Australia will become a republic.’ “I think that that will happen in the future, yes,” she said. “I think that it is part of the development of our democracy in future decades.”

I immediately wrote to Her Excellency to say:

May I remind Your Excellency that even the Parliament does not have the authority to change our Constitution. Only the people at referendum can do this.

As Governor-General, appointed by and representing the Queen, you MUST have no opinion on political issues. Would it not be wiser to follow the example set by Her Majesty by always stating, when questioned, that 'it is a matter for the Australian people to decide?'

When giving evidence before the Senate Inquiry into the Plebiscite Bill before the Senate on 29 April 2009, Professor John Power had stated: “My own view is that it might be time to have a select parliamentary joint committee to liaise closely with Government House. I think that the new Governor-General might well be interested in getting involved in the process. But I might be wrong.” [37]

I wrote again to the Governor-General to advise: “that were Your Excellency to become personally involved in the debate on constitutional change, you would bring the very office of Governor-General into further disrepute and we would earnestly caution that, in future, you remain at all times strictly impartial on this and any other matter of politics.”

These unwise and improper comments by the Governor-General only serve to highlight the imprudence of putting all the eggs of the ‘head of state’ basket into the sole person of the Governor-General.

The Queen never puts a foot wrong. She never comments on matters of a political nature. She takes care never to offend any section of her people. Governors-General, on the other hand, lack the experience, the wisdom and the prestige of the Queen. We have experienced, on several occasions, Governors and now the Governor-General imprudently talking about a republic or on other matters of a political or sensitive nature. Some are openly republican and have, I believe, been purposefully appointed in an attempt to politically demean the office and thereby help bring down the monarchy.

When James Scullin[31] rejected the British Government’s nomination of Lord Birdwood, who had commanded the Australian Imperial Force during World War I, and insisted that his own candidate, the Chief Justice and former politician, Isaac Isaacs32, be appointed, he set the precedent that the Prime Minister nominates and the King consents.

The main objection of King George V to this arrangement was not that a Jewish person was being appointed as is wrongly claimed, but that, as representatives of the Crown, Governors-General should thereafter be independent of Parliament and that the process of nomination by the Prime Minister could weaken that independence.

From 1902, a time when Governors-General were nominated by and reported to the British Government, legislation was enacted for the Government to appoint, and pay the salary of, the Official Secretary. Although a necessary link between the office of Prime Minister and that of the Governor-General, Official Secretaries conducted their duties in an exemplary and unbiased fashion and their advice was particularly necessary on those occasions when former politicians had been appointed Governors-General.

However, in 2008, concern was raised when the employ of the then Official Secretary, Malcolm Hazell CVO (described in the Herald Sun of 01/08/08 as ‘resolutely non-partisan’) was irregularly terminated without cause and without any reasons given, for the purpose of facilitating the employ, in his place, of the former diplomat and long-time friend of Kevin Rudd, Stephen Brady, whose partner, Peter Stephens, is an adviser to the Prime Minister.


THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL IS THE PEOPLE’S FRIEND, NOT THE PRIME MINISTER’S

This is the first time ever that an Official Secretary has been arbitrarily replaced at the request of an incoming Governor-General. Furthermore, it is highly unusual for Government House to have such a close and even incestuous relationship with the Prime Minister. As it is now the convention for the Governor-General-ship to be within the gift of the Prime Minister, it is unsafe to vest the position of head of state solely in the person of the Governor-General, as this situation can lead to the potential of a Presidential Prime Ministership or at least an unhealthy alliance or duocracy of the Prime Minister and Governor-General.

To refer to the Governor-General as the absolute, the only one, THE head of state is somewhat akin to opening the illusory end of a magic box, which tells only a part of the story.

Under our current system, the Governor-General is chosen by the government of the day, is advised by the government of the day, and his removal can be requested by the government of the day, but the role that the Queen as formal head of state plays in the appointment and removal processes, ensures that the Governor-General's allegiance must be to the entire nation and not to the Prime Minister who nominated him. It is a necessary check implicit within our Constitutional arrangements.

My opinion is that we defeat our entire argument in defence of the Crown by elevating these sorts of people, particularly those who betray their Oath to “well and truly serve the Queen”[33], to the glorified heights of sole and ultimate head of state. A bit like making the Governor-General a member of the ‘politician’s gang’ whereas, the whole benefit of our Constitutional Monarchy is that the Queen is the people’s Sovereign and the people’s head of state and that, upon appointment by the Queen, the Governor-General becomes effective head of state, conducting his duties by right of his position and without further involvement by the Queen, but always subject to the right of dismissal remaining with the Sovereign. Such dismissal, by convention, is only exercised upon the advice of the Prime Minister. These are a part of the unobtrusive checks and balances within our system of governance. These are ingredients which have made our Constitution one of the most workable and most successful in the world.

The eminent British constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price CBE QC, has written that: “... the argument that the Governor-General and not the Queen is head of state is not important as a matter of law. The law is that the Governor General is appointed by the Queen, as her representative and exercises such of the Queen’s powers and functions as she assigns. Laws which pass both Commonwealth Houses of Parliament require the Queen’s assent and are presented to the Governor-General “for the Queen’s assent”; and if the Governor-General assents, that assent is given “in the Queen’s name”.

“The Ministers of State who exercise the executive power of the Commonwealth are exercising powers “vested in the Queen” in their capacity as the “Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth”.”

Mr Price concludes: “The important reality is that the position of the Queen as Queen of Australia is part of the history and identity of Australia. Those who would reject this and would like Australia to be a republic, with a President replacing the Queen, may pretend that the change would be logical and perhaps “modernising”; but the present constitutional arrangement works admirably well.
It is a tribute to the wisdom and foresight and practical sense of those Australians who were the promoters and founders of the Constitution, which ranks easily with (for example) the Constitution of the United States as proudly and resonantly part of the worldwide cleverness and idiosyncrasy of our Common Law.

“As an outside observer, albeit barrister and Queen’s Counsel in Australia, I think it would be tragic and silly to make the constitutional change which they would like and to discard the essence of their very Australian constitution, with the Queen distinctively part of it. She is also a unifying concept for many Australians making them very specially and uniquely ‘Australian’.”

Our constitution can be likened to a marble statue surviving intact from early times. Created with smooth curves with some sharp edges and all coming together to produce a simple, elegant magnificent creation that works.

Should we ever become a republic, the greatest epitaph that could ever be placed on the tombstone of our constitutional monarchy is ‘that it worked so very well, ensuring peace and stability within our nation for over a hundred years’.

That is the message that must be sent out to all the people, not one camouflaging the role of the Monarchy and not one seeking to create a ‘republicanised crown’, but one which is truly true unto ourselves.




^© Philip Benwell MBE
Sydney. May 2009



ENDNOTES
[1]William Shakespeare (1564–1616)
[2]Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban KC (1561–1626),
[3]Comment by former NSW Premier Robert Carr in an interview with ‘ActNow’ 28/04/2008 “An easy way to get a republic, by simply making the Governor-General the Head of State of Australia. That resolves all the arguments about presidents and elected presidents or non-elected presidents.” A similar comment had been made by Mr Carr on TEN 10 (Sydney) 11.10 p.m. news, 23 February 2000.
[4]William George Hayden, AC (born 23 January 1933) was the 21st Governor-General of Australia. Hayden, an autobiography Angus & Robertson, 1996. ISBN 020718769X
[5]Used by Queen Elizabeth II in a speech to the Guildhall on 24 November 1992, marking the 40th anniversary of her Accession, in which she described the closing year as an ‘Annus Horribilis’.
[6]National Museum of Australia ref: 2000.0020.0003
[7]Extract from an Address by The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG Justice of the High Court of Australia to the Faculty of Law, University of Buckingham. 3 March 2000.
[8]Papers on Parliament No. 28 - November 1996. The Australian Head of State: Putting Republicanism Into the Republic
[9]Marcus Tullius Cicero. (106 BC–43 BC) a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman Constitutionalist.
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca.56–ca.117) was a senator and an historian of the Roman Empire.
[10]Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act. An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th July 1900]. Chapter VIII Section 128. Alteration Of The Constitution
[11]William III (1650–1702 Reigned 1689–1702. Mary II (1662–1694) reigned 1689-1694
[12]Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) a seventeenth-century English jurist and Member of Parliament.
[13]The Bill of Rights. Full title ‘An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown’ otherwise referred to as the English Bill of Rights.
[14]The French First Republic (Republique Française) was founded on 22 September 1792 by the newly established National Convention. The First Republic lasted until the declaration of the First French Empire in 1804 under Napoleon.
[15]Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE, QC (1917- 2005) was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1981 to 1987 after serving as a member of the High Court between 1970 and 1981.
[16]John Winston Howard, AC (born 1939). The 25th Prime Minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.
[17]The Royal Style and Titles Act of 1973. Schedule—Royal Style and Titles Section 2 “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.” Also see Style and Titles Act of 1953 No. [32] of 1953
[18]Major General Philip Michael Jeffery, AC, CVO, MC (born 1937). 24th Governor-General of Australia from 2003 to 2008. He had previously served as Governor of Western Australia from 1993 to 2000.
[19]Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act. An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th July 1900]. Para 2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

[20]Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, KT, AK, CH, QC (1894- 1978). Twelfth and longest serving Prime Minister of Australia. 1939-1941 & 1949–1966. Menzies, Sir Robert Gordon Afternoon Light Cassell Melbourne 1967 & The National Review No 788 October 1948.
[21]See: www. governorgeneral.gov.au or www .gg.gov.au
The Governor-General’s role is both complex and demanding. The following summary outlines some of the key features.
The office of Governor-General was established by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.
The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister (see the Commission of 21 August 2008). After receiving the commission, the Governor-General takes an Oath of Allegiance and an Oath of Office to the Queen and issues a Proclamation assuming office.
The Governor-General’s appointment is at the Queen’s pleasure, that is, without a term being specified. In practice, however, there is an expectation that appointments will be for around five years, subject on occasion, to some extension.
The Governor-General’s salary is set by an Act of Parliament at the beginning of each term of office, and cannot be changed during the appointment. (See Constitution, s 3 and the Governor-General Act 1974).
The Governor-General’s powers and role derive from the Constitution. Letters Patent from the Queen, dated 21 August 2008, also set out certain provisions relating to the Governor-General.
In several sections of the Constitution the Governor-General’s powers and role are expressed. Section 2 provides that:
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
Additionally and importantly, Section 61 of the Constitution provides that:
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
In addition to being the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by the Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.
In 1975 the then Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Mr Maurice Byers (later Sir Maurice Byers QC) gave the following legal opinion in relation to the powers of the Governor-General:
“The Constitution binds the Crown. The Constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General although vested in the Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in the Queen by Section 61. And it is exercisable by the Queen’s representative, not her delegate or agent. The language of Sections 2 and 61 had in this respect no contemporary parallel ...”
In other words, the Constitution does not describe the Governor-General’s power, it prescribes it.
When exercising the executive power of the Commonwealth, in accordance with long established constitutional practice, the Governor-General acts on the advice of Ministers who are responsible to the Parliament. That advice is conveyed largely through the Federal Executive Council. The Governor-General presides at meetings of the Executive Council which are attended by at least two members of the Council.
In addition to being the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by the Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.
In 1975 the then Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Mr Maurice Byers (later Sir Maurice Byers QC) gave the following legal opinion in relation to the powers of the Governor-General:
“The Constitution binds the Crown. The Constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General although vested in the Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in the Queen by Section 61. And it is exercisable by the Queen’s representative, not her delegate or agent. The language of Sections 2 and 61 had in this respect no contemporary parallel ...”
In other words, the Constitution does not describe the Governor-General’s power, it prescribes it.
When exercising the executive power of the Commonwealth, in accordance with long established constitutional practice, the Governor-General acts on the advice of Ministers who are responsible to the Parliament. That advice is conveyed largely through the Federal Executive Council. The Governor-General presides at meetings of the Executive Council which are attended by at least two members of the Council.
However, there are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include:
1. The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;
2. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;
3. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and
4. The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister.
In addition, the Governor-General has a supervisory role to see that the processes of the Federal Executive Council are conducted lawfully and regularly.
In essence then, the Governor-General’s role is to protect the Constitution and to facilitate the work of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government. For example, before giving assent to legislation, the Governor-General must be satisfied that the proposed law has passed both Houses of Parliament and that the necessary certification from the Attorney General has been obtained.
In summary, the Governor-General has many important constitutional, ceremonial and community duties to perform. For example, the Governor-General:
dissolves the Parliament and issues writs for new elections;
commissions the Prime Minister and appoints other Ministers after elections;
gives assent to laws when they have been passed by the two Houses of Parliament – the Senate and the House of Representatives;
acts on the advice of Ministers through the Executive Council to issue regulations and proclamations under existing laws; to appoint Federal Judges; to appoint Ambassadors and High Commissioners to overseas countries, to appoint other senior Government officials; to issue Royal Commissions of Inquiry; and other matters, as required by particular legislation;
authorises many other executive decisions by Ministers such as approving treaties with foreign governments.
Under Section 68 of the Constitution, the Governor-General is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force, although in practice he or she acts only on the advice of Ministers of the Government. The Minister for Defence is responsible for Australia’s defence policy.
The day-to-day administration and operation of the services are under the command of the Chief of the Defence Force and his officers. Through the Executive Council, the Governor-General:
appoints the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chiefs of the three Armed Services; and
commissions officers in the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force.
As Commander-in-Chief, the Governor-General has an important ceremonial role to play. He or she attends military parades and special occasions such as ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day, and presents Colours and other insignia to units of the Australian Defence Force.
There are many other duties performed by the Governor-General. For example, he or she:
receives and entertains visiting Heads of State, Heads of Government and other prominent visitors to Australia;
opens new sessions of the Commonwealth Parliament;
receives the credentials of Ambassadors and some High Commissioners appointed to represent their countries in Australia;
conducts Investitures at which people receive Awards under the Australian Honours system for notable service to the community, or for acts of bravery; and
meets many Australian citizens and representatives or organisations acting in the life of the community.
The Governor-General is Patron of a great many organisations and takes a keen interest in their activities.
Possibly the most visible role of the Governor-General, as the office has evolved over the years, is to encourage, articulate and represent those things that unite Australians as a nation. In this capacity, the Governor-General and his or her spouse:
travel widely throughout Australia visiting the capital cities, regional centres, rural districts, indigenous communities and disadvantaged groups;
accept patronage of many national, charitable, cultural, educational, sporting and professional organisations;
open and participate in conferences where topics of national importance are discussed – such as educational, health, cultural, welfare, defence, economic and rural issues;
attend services, functions, commemorations and exhibitions of local significance, lending their encouragement to individuals and groups who are making a substantial contribution to their communities and to the nation; and
issue congratulatory messages to Australians who achieve significant milestones in their lives such as 100th birthdays and 50th wedding anniversaries.
The role of Governor-General differs from that of a State Governor in three ways. The Governor-General alone:
receives the credentials of foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners to accredit them to represent their countries in Australia;
is Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force; and
is Chancellor of the Order of Australia, Australia’s unique system of honours and awards.”
[22]The proceedings and memoranda of the 1926 Imperial Conference22 (a copy of which is in the National Archives of Australia ref: NAA: A4640/32)
[23]The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (22 & 23 Geo. V c. 4, December 11, 1931)
[24]Royal Powers Act 1953 Act No. 74, 1953
[25]Sir John Robert Kerr, AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC (1914–1991). The 13th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales 1972-1974 and 18th Governor-General of Australia 1974-1977.
[26]Letter from Sir John Kerr to E G Whitlam dated 11 November 1975: “In accordance with section 64 of the Constitution I hereby determine your appointment as my Chief Adviser and Head of the Government. It follows that I also hereby determine the appointments of all of the Ministers in your Government “
[27]House of Representatives Practice, Fifth Edition, Chapter 13 Disagreements between the Houses)
[28]The King v Governor of South Australia (1907) 4 CLR 1497.

[29]Sir Samuel Walker Griffith GCMG QC (Chief Justice), Sir Edmund Barton GCMG KC (Justice), Richard Edward O'Connor QC (Justice), Sir Isaac Alfred Isaacs GCB GCMG QC (Justice), Henry Bourne Higgins (Justice),
[30]The Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v. Salmond & Spraggon (Aust) Pty Ltd case, which was decided in July 1980, the Appeal process having been commenced prior to the 1975 legislation.
[31]James Henry Scullin (1876–1953) Ninth Prime Minister of Australia.
[32]Sir Isaac Alfred Isaacs GCB GCMG QC (1855–1948), Australian judge and politician. Ninth Governor-General of Australia and the first born in Australia to occupy that post.
[33]Oath of Office of the Governor-General. See www .governorgeneral.gov.au
I, QUENTIN ALICE LOUISE BRYCE, do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. SO HELP ME GOD!
(Quentin Alice Louise Bryce)
Sworn, declared and subscribed by the abovenamed Quentin Alice Louise Bryce at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory before me on 5 September 2008
(Robert French) Chief Justice of Australia
[34]Michael Donald Kirby, AC, CMG (born 18 March 1939) is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, serving from 1996 to 2009.
[35]Sir Walter Benjamin Campbell, AC, QC (1921 –2004) was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland 1982-1985, Chancellor of the University of Queensland 1977-1985, and Governor of Queensland, 1985-1992 [36] Letter from Sir Walter Campbell to P. Benwell dated 4 September 1997 [37]Official Committee Hansard. Senate. Wednesday 29 April 2009. Page 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It should be noted that the comments contained in this Paper
are my personal thoughts on what has. I believe, become
the unnecessarily complicated issue of head of state.

That the Queen is Australia’s formal head of state
and the Governor-General, effective head of state
accords to the position adopted by the Howard Government
and does not conflict with advices on the Royal website.


Philip Benwell
Sydney May 2009