The choice of a clergyman as the next Governor General is radical

There is no reason to believe that Archbishop Peter Hollingworth will not do a good job. Aside from being a successful religious leader, he is a former Australian of the Year, Father of the Year and is presently Chairman of the Government’s Council on the Centenary of Federation.

While the Governor General is primarily a constitutional figurehead, Sir William Deane, sometimes described as ‘the national conscience’, brought a welcome dimension of moral leadership to the position. The appointment of Hollingworth, known for his frank compassion for the disadvantaged and concern for reconciliation, should continue this style.

The role of Governor General encompasses many ceremonial functions and a fair bit of ribbon cutting, which is not unimportant. One of the memories I will hold is of Sir William Deane throwing wattle sprays into the icy Switzerland waters where 14 young Australians died. As he comforted their loved ones it was clear Sir William Deane was a very human figurehead. Most Australians would know of his stance on indigenous issues, fewer would know he is a committed Catholic. You do not, of course, have to be religious to be compassionate.

The rise in moral dimensions of the position of Governor General is partly because of the vacuum in government and in part because Governors General have not particularly flexed their constitutional muscle for the last quarter century. Sir John Kerr briefly brought the Governor General’s role to the political centre stage to mixed reviews. He may have done more to encourage Republican sentiment than any other single Australian.

In 1901, the first Prime Minister of Australia (everyone should now know that was Edmund Barton), signed off as ‘most obedient servant’ in official correspondence to the Governor General. It is unlikely Hollingworth will receive such submission from PM John Howard or Kim Beazley.

The Governor General now stands as a symbol of the nation. Their nominal command of the armed forces and the sweeping reserve powers are not the focus of the office these days. The focus is the Governor General’s moral leadership and ability to represent a young, thriving democracy.

Yet, this symbol of a sovereign people is chosen by one man, the Prime Minister, and responsible to one woman, the Queen of England. The decision is not ratified by Parliament and is not reviewable. Regardless of the qualifications or credentials of the man who will be Governor General, the office of Governor General does not speak for contemporary Australia. We are a mature independent nation that values democracy and shuns autocracy. The representative of an hereditary monarch does not symbolise our values, dreams or aspirations.

I am still optimistic that the next Governor General will be the last, and that the next head of state will not be answering to a foreign monarch.