An argument raised regularly by some people opposed to an Australian republic suggests the change is not needed because we already have an Australian as our Head of State.

They claim that the Governor-General is Head of State and because since the 1960s the office has been filled by an Australian we don’t need to become a republic.

Eric Abetz, former Tasmanian senator and former federal minister, now campaign chair for the Australian Monarchist League, is a serial offender when it comes to spruiking this discredited line.

Another declared monarchist recently making the claim is News Corp Australia columnist Peta Credlin.

In her column appearing in various outlets on 7 May (pictured), the day after the coronation of King Charles III, Credlin cited comments by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese while he was in London for the event.

When asked by UK media why a republic was needed, Albanese said: “Australia should have an Australian Head of State.”

Credlin responded in her column by saying: “This assertion that we don’t have and never have had an Australian as our Head of State that is the basis of the republicans’ argument.”

She said the term “Head of State” does not appear in the Australian Constitution and argued that it belonged to the world of diplomacy and not constitutional law.

“It is part of the ‘precedence rules’ that officials use to determine who gets the highest recognition, country by country,” she said.

Credlin then pointed to a 1907 decision by the High Court of Australia (HCA) in an attempt to support her claim that the Governor-General is our Head of State.

The HCA case involved a dispute over filling a Senate vacancy for South Australia. Because the Senate is meant to be “the states’ house”, filling vacant seats requires certain actions to be taken by both the Governor-General and a state Governor, in this case the then Governor of South Australia.

While the central issue of the 1907 case is not relevant to the republic debate in 2023, some monarchists wrongly cite some of the wording in the judgement to assert their claim about the Governor-General being our Head of State.

The Credlin column notes that the HCA judgement says that the SA Governor “must be regarded as acting in the capacity of the constitutional head of the state”. It also referred to the Governor-General as “the constitutional head of the commonwealth.”

But the relevant sentence from the HAC judgement reads in full: “So, in certifying to the Governor-General the names of the senators elected, chosen, or appointed the Governor must be regarded as acting in the capacity of the constitutional head of the state, being in that capacity the proper channel of communication with the officiating constitutional head of the Commonwealth, the Governor-General.”

The HCA judgement was designed to settle a dispute about the process for filling a Senate vacancy. It did not make any assessment on who is or is not our Head of State.

The words extracted by Credlin about the role and actions of the then SA Governor – “as the constitutional head of the state” – clearly refer to their role in such matters as provided for under the SA constitution.

The words “constitutional head of the state” mean something entirely different to “head of state”.

Similarly, the words describing the Governor-General as “the officiating constitutional head of the Commonwealth” do not bestow the status of Head of State. They simply mean that the Governor-General is the person designated by the Constitution to ensure the processes it outlines are followed.

The claim made by both Abetz and Credlin have been previously authoritatively discredited, yet they still spread it. But a big problem for Ms Credlin and others who cling to this argument is that Buckingham Palace itself and strong monarchists like ex-PM John Howard have totally dismissed it.

A story by Troy Bramston of The Australian newspaper on 18 January last year about the correspondence between various Governors-General and the late Queen Elizabeth II’s advisers included this paragraph: “When Sir David Smith, the former official secretary at Government House, argued the governor-general was actually head of state, Buckingham Palace made it clear in January 1999 that this argument, often propagated by monarchists, was nonsense and the Queen was indeed Australia’s head of state.”

Another Bramston article about Mr Howard in on 13 August 2022 contained this line: “An ardent royalist, Howard praises the Queen and the virtues of constitutional monarchy, rebuking those who argue the Governor-General is actually Australia’s head of state.”

David Flint, convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, always embellishes the bogus argument by claiming that although King Charles III is the Sovereign, the Governor-General is Head of State.

He makes it sound as if the monarch has outsourced or franchised his role. But the truth is that there is no House of Windsor labour-hire operation at work. The British Sovereign is our Head of State.

The argument to the contrary is not only wrong, it also belittles and misrepresents the role King Charles III has as Australia’s head of state under our current constitutional arrangements.

While the words “Head of State” do not appear in the Constitution, Section 2 clearly says that the Governor-General is the monarch’s representative.

Yet the logical conclusion of the argument put forward by the likes of Credlin, Abetz and Flint is that the King and our Governor-General are on an equal footing.

If nothing else convinces them, surely the term “vice-regal” applied to our Governor-General should give them a hint.

Lindsay Marshall is Director of Communications for The Real Republic Australia.