The Role Of The Viceroys In Australia

The Role Of The Viceroys In Australia

Until 1931, the government of the United Kingdom considered itself to be in overall control of the British Empire including those countries which had their separate constitutions and separately elected governments and which, constitutionally if not totally practically, operated independent of authority from the UK government.  These countries were called Dominions, now classified as Realms.

Between 1907 and 1937 the Dominions would meet on a regular basis at what were termed ‘Imperial Conferences’.  In the conferences of 1926 and 1930 the Dominions ceased being submissive participants and asserted their independence from any sort of control by the British government which, realising that such independence was a reality, instituted what became known as ‘The Balfour Declaration of 1926’ and then legislated the Statute of Westminster of 1931.  The main effect of the Statute was to repeal the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 and thus removed the legislative ability of the British parliament over the Dominions.

In Australia, the Statute of Westminster formally recognised the sovereign right of each Dominion to control their own domestic and foreign affairs and recognised their legislative equality with Britain.  Essentially, it clarified what had actually always been the case in Australia ever since Federation in 1901, but which had not really been recognised or accepted by the British government nor, in many instances, by the previously compliant Australian governments themselves. Whilst Australia did not legislate the Statute until 1942, its provisions were essentially operative since 1931.

The fact is that, from the moment that Federation came into being, Australia became a sovereign and independent nation choosing to remain under the Crown of the United Kingdom.  Over time, it was recognised that the Crown was divisible and, in Australia, was subject only to the Australian Constitution and to the Australian people.

The preamble to the Australian Constitution opens with the words “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.”

Being established “under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” in no way means that Australia is subservient to the government of the United Kingdom as the Crown has always operated as a totally separate entity from any sort of governmental control. 

It is thus that both the King and the Crown in Australia are subject to the Australian Constitution and thus to the Australian people.  Were this not so, how could the people themselves have voted, under Section 128 of the Australian Constitution, on whether to retain or remove the Crown in 1999?

As the embodiment of the Crown, the monarch, presently King Charles III, is separately the King of Australia.  However, since we have what is called ‘an absent monarchy’ meaning that the monarch does not reside in Australia, the King is represented by a Governor-General who is nowadays nominated by the Australian Prime Minister and appointed by the King.  It should be noted that Australia does not contribute anything towards the monarch’s personal upkeep or official expenses, even in regard to his duties as King of Australia.

The Australian Constitution sets out certain obligations to be exercised by the Governor-General and the Governor-General’s website has a full list of ceremonial and official duties. This is all very well, but the website misses the point that, in every respect, the Governor-General is the representative of the King and that, in essence, it is as though he, or she, is ‘the King in Australia’. 

This is why, it is proper for the Governor-General to move to the sidelines during an official tour by the King.  Something that should have occurred, but regrettably did not occur, during the recent Royal Tour.

As the King’s representative, the Governor-General is far more than a ceremonial and official figurehead but has an overall responsibility of care and duty to the King’s people. As such, whatever personal considerations and political attitudes the Governor-General has or had must be put aside as all Australians are under his or her care. 

Indeed, it is the Governor-General’s duty to ensure that no one is harmed or adversely affected by government legislation, even if agreed to by the Parliament, and that all of the King’s subjects have the right of free speech and movement within the country.  The Governor-General, as the King’s representative, must maintain the highest personal and official standards in the country and must treat all equally with the utmost tolerance and without fear or favour.

Put simply, the Governor-General should not merely be a ceremonial and official figurehead, but also a father figure in every regard showing compassion, giving hope and providing belief to all people.

Whenever the late Queen was faced with a problem on which she had to make a decision, it was said that she would ask herself “what would my father have done?”  I put it to the King’s viceroys in Australia that they should at all times follow the lead given by Her late Majesty and ask themselves continually “what would Queen Elizabeth have done?” 

END
NOTE: although the comments in this article generally refer to the Governor-General, they also apply to the State Governors, who are all separately appointed by the monarch and who separately operate under the constitutions of their relevant States.