Undermining Australia's secular national anthem

(2) What business is it of the office of the Governor-General to say that Dr Sharwood’s verse ‘may be used in the context of a church service as a hymn’? Why should it involve itself in what might be sung as a hymn in a church? Why make any comment about this at all?

I suggest this part of the answer to our queries reveals more than was intended: namely, the office of the Governor-General feels comfortable involving itself in religious matters, as you would expect in a country that is a constitutional monarchy, where the head of state, the Queen, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England in England.

(3) The letter didnot say the Christian verse may be sung in a school.

Not totally satisfied with this response, on 18 March 2014 we faxed another letter to the Governor-General’s office, a Freedom of Information request, asking to see the correspondence between Dr Sharwood and Sir Ninian Stephen.

On 30 July 2014 our request was denied on the grounds that the documents relate to the ‘substantive functions of the Governor-General.’ They were not ‘administrative in nature’. There were three avenues of appeal.

Analysis

If this was a matter to do with confidential matters between the Governor-General’s office and the parliament, one could understand the refusal. But correspondence concerning the National Anthem? What is the big secret?

Why did Dr Sharwood think a former High Court judge would fly in the face of the constitution and amend the National Anthem to allow Christian verses? Why did Senator Watson believe that had happened?

Perhaps what the current office of the Governor-General does not want us to read is Sir Ninian’s rejection of Dr Sharwood’s Christian verses. That would imply, as noted above, Senator Watson’s speech in the parliament was wrong. It would also somewhat undermine the image of the office of Governor-General being associated with Christianity.

On the other hand, if Sir Ninian Stephen said the verse could be sung in a church, this would be an instance of a Governor-General, and former High Court judge, giving advice that was incorrect.

The word ‘God’ does not appear in the constitution, except in the preamble where it has no legal force. The reference to ‘God’ in the preamble has never been used as a basis for interpreting the constitution. In other words, the constitution is inherently secular.It would seem unlikely Sir Ninian Stephen would have approved the Christian verses, because, under the constitution, as noted above, he does not have the power to amend the national anthem.

In passing, it is worth noting that much was made of Bill Hayden’s atheism when he became Governor-General. However, he followed Sir Ninian who was also, surprisingly, an atheist. No one picked up on this fact as it appears Sir Ninian kept his atheismto himself for decades until an interview with his biographer on 20 December 2011, when he was aged 88. So Australia had two atheist Governor-Generals in a row.

Protocols

There have been other attempts to get God back into the National Anthem. According to Wikipedia, another Christian verse was sung during the global March for Jesus in 1998 and again duringWorld Youth Day in 2008, the latter with the eye-opening qualification that ‘This is not the official verse, but a Catholic adaption of the Australian National Anthem’.