Republican fingerprints all over G-G’s ‘presidential’ swearing-in

Of Mostyn and her formal swearing-in ceremony, there is much that must be scrutinised.

But, first, I need to begin with a clarifying preamble that underscores both the scope and intent of this article:  

I am, proudly, a monarchist.

What I am not is a royalist.

It is because I am a monarchist, as opposed to a royalist, that I feel entitled to write this column, the purpose of which is to defend the stability of the Australian nation state.

In previous ages, and even not so long ago, the prevalent, unspoken adage among my associates has been that the person of the Governor-General, as the King’s representative, can do no wrong.

That adage must now, by necessity, be challenged.

Governors-general are not above errors of judgement; indeed, there already exists recent evidence of this fact.

In 2022, David Hurley, then Australia’s 27th Governor-General, appeared in an advertising campaign for a Canberra-based builder, Homes by Howe.

Hurley later admitted of this commercial participation, “I made a mistake.”

More significantly, Hurley held office during the period in which Scott Morrison secretly appointed himself to administer the departments of Health, Finance, Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Home Affairs, and Treasury. 

By convention, the governor-general acts upon advice from the government of the day – that was certainly what Government House later argued when it defended Hurley’s involvement in the affair – and the government’s advice, expressed by Morrison himself, was that he be sworn into the above-listed portfolios.

But, also by convention and as Professor Anne Twomey noted at the time, the governor-general’s appointment of ministers is “ordinarily done publicly.”

Government House further argued that “responsibility” did not lie with Hurley to “advise the broader ministry or parliament (or public) of administrative changes” and that the governor-general “had no reason to believe [Morrison’s] appointments would not be communicated.”

However, during the Bell Inquiry, Professor Luke Beck submitted – quite fairly and logically, I think – that Hurley “must have realised something was amiss when, after five very strange appointments over two years, nothing had popped up in the media.” 

All this contributes definitively towards the assertion that governors-general are susceptible to errors of judgement.

The reason I have qualified this assertion at length is because, fundamentally, a monarchist aligns their loyalty to the governor general’s office, not their person.  

In other words, whereas the royalist blindly falls in behind the governor-general (and, indeed, the Royal Family), the monarchist does not.

This is not at all to contend that the monarchist is, actually, disloyal to what he or she purports to believe in, or that contemporary monarchists are, by today’s standards, only constitutionalists.

I am not a constitutionalist in a similar way that I am not a republican: I feel that printed words alone cannot get the job done and that, intrinsically, the physical realisation of monarchy imposes a vital aesthetic value upon the nation-state and its people.

Ultimately, what I am contending is that the monarchist is a responsible citizen.

The monarchist knows that constitutional monarchy is the most effective, secure, prosperous and evolved form of government that humanity has yet devised.

Naturally, then, the monarchist wants to preserve this system of government to the advantage of his or her nation.   

It is because I want my nation to benefit that I now engage, with confidence, in public criticism of Samantha Mostyn, our 28th Governor-General.  

To begin, it cannot be understated that Mostyn is an avowed and acknowledged republican.

Indeed, less than one hour after her swearing-in, the ABC’s Gemma Veness broadcast this fact, capturing well its antithetical reality: “Despite accepting the position [of governor-general and serving] as the King’s representative, [Mostyn] is also an advocate for Australia to become a republic.”

Mostyn’s republicanism is an activist’s republicanism; I comprehensively detailed as much in a previous article in April for SkyNews.com.au.

In sum, she has devoted her working life to developing industries – the term “industries” is an appropriate one, I think – such as gender equality, climate change and reconciliation, and her background as a businesswoman across many sectors has exposed her to far-reaching corporate interests.

During the Voice to Parliament referendum, she was a fervent supporter of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which, as I wrote in April, immediately suggests she is unqualified for the post of governor-general; whereas a governor-general must protect the sovereignty of the Australian nation, the Uluru Statement, as a casus belli, seeks the redefinition of that sovereignty along race-based lines.

In what was an extraordinary manoeuvre, April saw Mostyn’s social media professionally expunged, leading many to wonder just what other expressions she or stakeholders were so eager to bury.

Then, there is this scandalous salary increase, which bears some discussion.

Prior to July 1, the Albanese Government announced that the governor-general’s taxpayer-funded remuneration would increase by 43% to $709,017 per annum.

This increase, in my opinion, is very wrong – but Mostyn, herself noting Australia’s “cost-of-living challenge” during her swearing-in address, has seemingly not objected to it.  

Mostyn is, in all probability, a multi-millionaire.  

To provide just a snapshot, annual reports reveal that between June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2008 she earned just more than $4.36 million in remuneration from Insurance Australia Group (ASX:IAG).

By 2007, she had accrued 130,507 shares in the company.  

As of June 30, 2022, she held 28,196 shares in Transurban Group (ASX:TCL), where, as a former non-executive director, she received a salary of $250,000 per annum.

As of June 30, 2023, she held 74,045 shares in Mirvac Group (ASX:MGR); there, as a non-executive director, she earned $213,000 per annum.

If she still holds these volumes of IAG, TCL and MGR shares, that slice of Mostyn’s portfolio alone would be valued today at approximately $1.41 million.

Her portfolio may contain additional positions; in 2011, for instance, she held 100,000 shares in Virgin Blue Holdings.

Katy Gallagher, in responding to timely questions from Malcolm Roberts, repeatedly told the Senate that it was because Mostyn would only have “one income stream” and not receive a military pension when she was governor-general that the Albanese Government had proposed the 43 per cent salary increase.

But if Mostyn still does have a share portfolio, and especially if such a portfolio derives income through the payment of dividends, then Gallagher – who is also Vice-President of the Executive Council and therefore, one hopes, closely associated with Government House – may have misled the Senate.

Though not required to by law, Mostyn should publicly declare her assets, ending speculation as to her commercial interests and solidifying the people’s confidence – after all, she has committed to leading with integrity.

There seems to be a need for parliament to seriously consider the adoption of laws or practices that would better scrutinise governors-general and their assets – not unlike, for instance, the Register of Members’ Interests – and especially if there are to be future governors-general of corporate pedigree.

The other query to raise is this: did Mostyn negotiate her salary increase with Albanese prior to her appointment, as a condition of her acceptance?

If so, this would not be unprecedented; in 1974, Gough Whitlam “put to” Sir John Kerr (according to the latter’s biography) the need to adjust the governor-general’s wage from £10,000 to $30,000, so as to cater to “inflationary times.”

Importantly, it must be noted that General Hurley had the power to exercise Section 58 of the Australian Constitution.

Inevitably knowing of Mostyn’s wealth and when presented with the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024, he could either have: 1) returned the bill to the House of Representatives, recommending an amended and lesser salary increase; or 2) withhold the King’s assent entirely, entitling Mostyn to receive the $495,000 per annum set out by the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019.

An appropriately indexed salary, relative to the next governor-general’s financial position, could be considered.

What a legacy that could have been left, if self-indulgence had been rejected and the interests of hardworking Australian taxpayers been upheld.

Ultimately, a pernicious reality seems to underpin this salary debacle.

$709,017 per annum is not the wage of a governor-general.

It is a president’s wage, calculated by those who seek a president.

Nearly every aspect of Mostyn’s performance during her swearing-in on Monday was presidential.

The moment she appeared, my eyebrows lifted, because affixed to the lapel of her coat was a sprig of wattle. 

Now, the wattle is, of course, Australia’s national floral emblem, and it features in the governor-general’s badge of office.

But the flower is also a symbol of Australian republicanism.

In 1981, historian Manning Clark wrote that the wattle “is a symbol of…the uniqueness of Australia” and that “every spring holds out the hope that it won’t be long before Australia is completely independent.”

Certainly, the Australian Republic Movement began appropriating National Wattle Day to suit its own ends in 1993.

And, strikingly, thirty years since then, the movement’s chief executive officer, former National Party chief-of-staff Isaac Jeffrey, said this in a speech to Canberran republicans in September 2023:

“The majority of Australians believe that our Head of State should be one of us…happy to don the green and gold…or wear a sprig of wattle on the lapel.”

How eerie, then, that Mostyn did just that, not least of all because she is an activist, Canberra-based republican, entangled in republican circles and fluent in republican inferences. 

Further, the fact that her husband, Simeon Beckett SC, and every member of her family also wore sprigs of wattle seemed all the more choreographed and thus symbolistic.

Leaving behind her motorcade and having received a general salute from the Federation Guard, Mostyn and her entourage – which included Beckett, Albanese and Jodie Hayden – were then performatively processed through parliament, led by the primordial cries of an Aboriginal honour guard.

Not even when the King opens the United Kingdom’s parliament does he process, in the stylised sense of the word, through the Palace of Westminster. 

And yet, now, an Australian prime minister has paraded side-by-side a governor-general designate, as if to suggest equality of rank, and his partner has escorted the vice-regal spouse, and this act has been broadcast across the entire nation for all to swallow. 

Mostyn and Albanese’s joint march was, I am certain, an attempt to evoke dynasticism. 

It was the imperial stuff of Napoleon and the Caesars of Rome, and it was thoroughly in opposition to the disdain Australians have historically held towards decadent displays of authority.  

In 2019, when he was sworn-in as governor-general, David Hurley delivered an acceptance speech that ran for six minutes.

Before him, General The Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK CVO MC was even more succinct, speaking for five minutes – and Sir Peter, in fact, went so far as to stress that he entered Government House “agenda free.”

Mostyn spoke for, by my count, 18 minutes and 22 seconds.

In what felt far less an acceptance speech and far more a miniature State of the Union address, she outlined her political views – that is, she expressed her awareness of policy issues, noting matters such as refugee settlement, aged care, social media and “gender diversity.”

She offered strange and selective praises, admitting: “I often reflect upon the words of Cape York leader Noel Pearson… Noel’s words capture so much of what is mighty about this country.”

As for Mostyn’s words, they bubbled with republican subtext; she committed to Australia’s “fundamentally democratic spirit” and assured all that she was “alive to changing expectations and needs.”  

Following her swearing-in, in the Members’ Hall, there was (unsurprisingly) a five-minute Welcome to Country and (shockingly) a second verse of the National Anthem that was performed in a language other than English.   

There, before a yahooing congregation of supporters, Mostyn declared that “Australia is capable of great change.”

And, readers, I think we have immense cause to be concerned as to what Her Excellency imagines that change may be.

Government House, as a proud and functionally stable institution, is worth preserving; as a monarchist, I shall always champion this fact.    

But the one thing that the office of the governor-general cannot defend itself against – that no institution, political or otherwise, can defend itself against – is its steady, peaceful erosion by those who, having occupied it, mean to steadily and peacefully erode it from within.

And Australians no longer have legal recourse to protect them against this movement; the Gillard Government passed its National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which repealed the Commonwealth’s sedition laws by (in essence) replacing the word “sedition” with the words “urging violence” – when, in fact and obviously, those are two very different crimes.

I seriously worry that the ideologues who have marched long through Australia’s institutions, perfectly mimicking the peaceful yet radical objectives of the British Fabian movement, are now steaming up Dunrossil Drive, bound for Yarralumla.  

I also worry that I and monarchists are not doing enough to alert Australians to the republicanism that, by my estimation, is so stealthy that it is occurring in plain sight.

So, when in his remarks Peter Dutton offered what seemed to be a kind of measured warning, I felt just ever more hopeful for the future of our country.    

Dutton, directing his comment at Mostyn, said, “May our Sovereign, King Charles III, be well served by you.”

May all our governors-general and governments formed in our King’s name serve well our Crown, our Constitution, our nation and us, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

Alexander Voltz is a composer. As well as contributing to SkyNews.com.au, he is the founding Music Editor of Quadrant, and writes also for The Spectator and The Epoch Times. In 2022, he directed The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Concert, Australia’s largest musical tribute during the Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II. His music has been performed across the country and abroad.