G-G Crisis in Australia

Great Debates
1

Australia is currently undergoing something of a ‘constitutional crisis’ regarding our Governor-General, Peter Hollingworth.

Hollingworth, the former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane was appointed by the Howard government in 2001. He has been embroiled in controversy since the appointment, largely over his alleged mishandling of child abuse allegations against Anglican priests in his diocese during his tenure as Archbishop. Hollingworth thus far has refused to resign, despite up to 75% of the population supporting a resignation. Howard has ruled out sacking the G-G (essentially reccomending to the Queen that he be removed), but he and his ministers have begun to distance themselved from the man.

Yesterday, a new development broke. It was revealed that an action against the G-G has been occuring in the Victorian courts. Previously, the names of the parties had been suppressed, but after the suicide of the plaintiff a couple of weeks ago, it was revealed that the G-G was being sued for improper assault at a youth camp in the late 1960’s. I cannot comment on the merits of the case, but it adds another element to the inability of the G-G to perform his role. I think that he’ll resign in the next week or so, probably on the pretext of his wife’s illness.

I believe that this crisis demonstrates the need for constitutional reform in Australia. We need a head of state that has the authority of the people, and has clear guidelines for appointment and removal. I would prefer the old ARM model of a president appointed by 2/3 majority of a combined sitting of the houses.

The present system is weak, in that the G-G is appointed or removed by the Queen on the advice of the PM. It is not a transperant process, as the process for a 2/3 majority or popularly elected head of state would be.

This is the second ‘constitutional crisis’ involving a G-G in 30 years. Unless we have constitutional clarification, they will continue to occur.

  • Bubba.
2

Someone else started a thread about this today.

What’s the role/duties of the G.G.? If he’s appointed by the Queen, it can’t be too important, right?

3

Ummm, care to define “constitutional crisis?”

I ask that question because without the definition, as you see it for purposes of this debate, we have no baseline from which to start.

Having said that, and to carry forward, the G-G refuses to quit and the PM has thus far refused to demand his removal. There is no “constitutional crisis” as of yet. After all, how many PM’s, Howard included, refused to follow the wishes of the People and no “constitutional crisis” was involved, before or after the fact?

However, if the PM asks the Queen for his removal, does so, and the G-G refuses to leave, then you have a “constitutional crisis.”

Referencing your other “constitutional crisis,” with the Whitlam sacking, I think you’ve bought into the Labor clap-trap. Kerr exercised his authority and Whitlam was sacked. There was no “constitutional crisis” with respect to this authority. If there was any potential for a crisis, it should be did the Senate have the constitutional authority to defer a money bill? If yes, everything is kosher. If not, the crisis has to do with the Senate and not Kerr’s subsequent decision.

When you consider the Whitlam government was very unpopular with the electorate, the Whitlam government itself had serious and deep conflicts, and the Whitlan government policies were not helping the economy at the time, the Senate made a decision to stop supply and force the issue as allowed by the Constitution. Kerr followed and Whitlam was gone. Quite simplistic but I’m only playing with highlights.

That “constitutional crisis” exists in the minds of the labor top brass in order to hide it that they were inept in the first place. They have just been so successful to hoodwinking the electorate for 30 years that they shot their own foot, and not anyone else shooting them.

The current issue isn’t a constitutional crisis. Yet.

4

I used the term ‘constitutional crisis’ for want of a better term. The problem is that there are no guidelines for the removal of a governor general set out in the constitution. It is at the Queen’s discretion that he represents her, and she is not going to remove him without the reccomendation of the PM, who has thus far indicated that he will not make such a reccomendation.

Hollingworth is a lame duck at present, and regardless of his guilt or innocence, cannot undertake his duties as the representative of the Queen.

I would state that a system where the G-G can essentially sack a PM, and a PM can essentially sack a G-G, without any parliamentary oversight, as fundamentally flawed.

5

Section 2 of the Constitution states :

There are various powers in the Constituion provided to the G-G, most of which are exercised at the advice of the PM/Cabinet. The most important of these powers are :[ul]
[li]May dissolve the House of Representatives (S28)[/li][li]May dissolve both houses of parliament in the event of a deadlock between them (double dissolution) (S57)[/li][li]May appoint Ministers (S64)[/li][/ul]

The G-G is also the Commander in Chief of the defence force.

Pretty broad powers for an unelected Prime Ministerial appointment, who is not answerable to the citizens.

  • Bubba.
6

Wow. Does any monarch appointee in Britain have anywhere near that power?

7

The thing is, the G-G derives his powers as the Queen’s representative, so in effect, the Queen also has those powers as Queen of Australia. In practice, however, a monarch would not exercise those powers without the recommendation of the PM/Cabinet.

Obviously I would prefer that the Queen did not have any authority over Australia, and we became a republic with specific, defined powers for an Australian head of state, codified in our Constitution.

I am not sure of whether the Queen has any similar reserve powers over the British government, especially since the whole Charles I affair. I understand that the UK does not have a written constitution.

  • Bubba.
8

There has been something of an overestimation of the powers of the Governor-General in Australia in this thread.

Be extremely careful when interpreting the seemingly simple language of the Commonwealth Constitution. Our system of government relies heavily on unwritten conventions to flesh what appears to be a straight-forward, simple Constitution.*

With regard to the G-G, what appear to be wide-ranging powers are in practice hobbled by custom. There is a convention that the G-G only exercises his Consitutional powers on “advice” (read, “direction”) of the Government of the day. This reflects the principal of “responsible government” – sovereignty is vested in Parliament, which is subject to the people, not in appointed offices.

However, there are certain powers that the G-G may exercise without “advice”: the “reserve powers”. Without going into detail, these powers are only relevant in very rare circumstances (for example, if the Lower House passed a vote of no confidence in the PM, the G-G would have “reserve” power to dismiss him or her).

  • The Consitution doesn’t even mention Cabinet, the executive arm of government.

PS:

**I would add the power to appoint judges to the High Court. Again, this is ONLY exercised according to the “advice” of the government.

9

Probably because the system of government is not a pure parliamentary system but a hybrid between that and the American (written) constitution federal system.

As told to me by an Aussie politics professor, it’s called the “Western Hybrid” system.

10

I would side with Duckster in this regard; there is no “Constitutional” crisis here because Mr Howard could simply sack the G-G if he chose.

The G-G is appointed by the Government and holds office at the Government’s pleasure. That the Government has the power to remove the G-G is clear; simply because they haven’t chosen to exercise it in response to public opinion (and it wouldn’t be the first time this government has refused to be swayed by opinion polls)* doesn’t amount to a Constitutional Crisis.

**In terms of “Constitutional crises”, why not?

**

**“G-G can essentially sack a PM” is an overstatement. The reserve powers of the G-G which would provide for the dismissal of the PM apply only to VERY limited circumstances. The situation where it would come to a “whoever draws first wins” shootout is unlikely to occur.

(Tangentially, in response to the rumour that Whitlam would have preemptively sacked Kerr if he had forewarning that Kerr was about to sack HIM, Whitlam himself has stated that he WOULDN’T have dismissed the G-G, since it would have made him look even worse. Take this with a grain of salt, or not.)

  • Which, despite my political leanings, is something I actually admire about the Howard government.
11

Labor clap-trap or Liberal glorification, Duckster? You’re making it sound as if the valient Senate, alongside the heroic Sir John Kerr gallantly fought to topple the evil Gough Whitlam, PM. Anyway, the '75 Constitutional crisis centred on the Qld government replacing dead/retiring senators with politicians from parties that differed from those of the dead/retiring senators. That’s what gave the coalition the numbers in the senate to block supply, triggering the double dissolution. This is why the later 1977 referenda dealt with deceased/retiring senators and not the passage of supply.

this site has the full story, and is relatively objective:

Did the senate have the authority to refuse supply to a TWICE democratically elected government? Constitutionally, it’s a possibility but not by Convention: Constitutional crises demonstrate ‘loop holes’ in the constitution, and aren’t necessarily the result of people acting unconstitutionally. Usually they’re the result of conflict between Convention and the Constitution, neither being inheritly superiour. Imagine if a GG decided to ignore the PM’s request for cabinet ministers and appointed their own choice. By Convention they don’t do this but Constitutionally they are permitted to do so. If a GG did all hell would break loose. It wouldn’t be unconstitutional but it would certainly be a constitutional crisis.

Onto the current GG. He’s currently in a world of shit, no doubt about it. Scandal 1, the pedophile priests; scandal 2, the rape charges. Neither of these things have much to do directly with the role of the GG, except for the fact that they provide negative publicity to the person in that role and by association to the role itself. No-one says “Dr. Peter Hollingworth today revealed he is a defendent in a rape case”, they say “The GG revealed today that…”

In Australia the GG is an unelected figurehead with certain constitutional powers which by Convention are not used. His role in Australian society is pretty much ceremonial: opening hospitals and schools, providing patronage to charities, visiting disaster sites, opening parliament, the olympics, etc. He is the social, non-political face of the Australian government. If the PM turns up to an event, chances are it will be politicised in some way by him, his party, his supporters or his enemies (protests and so forth). Pretty much anything the PM does will be viewed with suspicion and cynicism by some people, or as an opportunity to advance their own political agenda.

The GG must be above all of this. He has to (at least appear to be) non partisan on politics and political issues, not easy for a political appointment, fulfill all prime ministerial requests, sign off on all legislation that has been passed by parliament regardless of his own views, and he must avoid scandal that can cause damage to the position of GG.

I don’t know if Hollingworh is innocent or guilty or the rape charges. If this had occurred as an isolated incident I would be willing to allow him the benefit of the doubt and wait till the details were out and the trial was over. Anything less than a complete acquital or the case being thrown out of court would be good enough to avoid scandal, and so I would expect a resignation if there was any ambiguity as to the verdict (eg, getting off on a legal technicality). I would also expect the GG to step down until the verdict was known.

However, this isn’t an isolated incident, it’s another chapter of a continuing saga that has plagued Hollingworth from the start. He may be completely innocent, and is entitled to the assumption of innocence until he’s proven guilty as a private citizen. The role of GG is bigger than that of a private citizen, however, and it is for the good of that role that he must resign. This doesn’t make it a Constitutional crisis, of course. Just some weird shit surrounding a scandal-prone-soon-to-be-ex GG. If he refuses to resign, however, it could well become one.

12

My argument is that this situation, and, despite Whitlam’s claims, the 1975 situation, demonstrate that the system at present is flawed.

Sure, the right result may have occured in 1975, and Hollingworth will probably resign and head off any crisis, but I have a problem with the system.

Surely a better alternative would be to have a transperant selection process where the G-G (or president or whatever) was nominated, decided by a majority (of citizens by elections, or 2/3 of both houses), and should they breach their duties, have an impeachment process.

After reading the posts here, however, I do realise that even with an improved system of approving a head of state, a similar problem to the present one can occur, as Hollingworth has not breached any duties. However, I feel that this situation could had been avoided if a more open nomination process was undertaken, as I seem to recall that there was a questionmark over Hollingworth’s handling of the pedophile situation prior to his ascendancy.

  • Bubba.
13

I am thinking what a very difficult situation he is in.

He should have resigned over the priest-abuse report. That way he would have looked like he’d done the decent thing, and the shame would not be so great, because after all he didn’t actually abuse anyone himself.

Now if he resigns over the latest allegations, it will look like an admission of guilt. Knowing this court case was coming up, he should have resigned well in advance, IMO.

And whereas other people in prominent positions can “stand aside” or temporarily step down, go into suspension etc, I don’t see how he can do that as the GG.

But - I really don’t see how he can weather the storm.

14

Some mild speculation: the rape allegations will STRENGTHEN Hollingworth’s hand.

This is his denial:

**
He elaborates in this article:

**That’s a pretty strong denial. Denying ever attending an event or knowing a person would be easy to disprove. To me, it’s difficult to see why Hollingworth would lie in this case when he could so easily be caught out.

My speculation is that the rape charges will be thrown out. Hollingworth will become a more sympathetic figure to the public: a man unfairly hounded by terrible accusations while supporting his sick wife.

OTOH, I very much doubt it will be enough to save him from the shame of the findings of the abuse report. I think he’s a goner in any event.

15

I’m with Narrad and istara on this.

I think Hollingworth should have stood when the claims were in the public arena around this time last year. He toughed it out then, but the signals are that he doesn’t have anywhere near the support now.

However the civil action (and it’s being brought on by the estate of the women involved, who died last month) muddies the waters for a time.

I expect that he’ll stay in Yarralumba until he get the opportunity to defend the action … if it goes that far.

Hollingworth gives all the signals of somebody who is thoroughly enjoying the pomp of vice-regal office and won’t go on his own accord. So it’s a matter of Howard’s political antenae. My guess is there’ll a quiet word and the GG will stand down then but I haven’t called Howard correctly for years.

The political play is whether Howard would like to keep him on ready to sign the papers for an early double dissolution election.

16

If the Governor General has such limited de facto power, then why not just proclaim a potted plant to be Governor General? Sounds to me like a thoroughly disposable position.

17

woolly: When the Hollingsworth issues first started coming up two years ago, it might have been possible to forgive Howard’s supportive stance. Not wanting to bring the office of GG into disrepute over unproven allegations and all that.

However, simultaneously, Howard was supporting his mate Bill Heffernan who had made false allegations against Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of the High Court. Howard refused to support Gleeson, who it could be argued, also held an office undeserving of such smear.

18

Heffernan’s ill-founded sledge was against Justice Michael Kirby, but, notwithstanding, your point is valid.

To a certain extent, defence of the High Court should have been the bailiwick of the Attorney General, but Williams has consistently played partisan.

Howard has been despicable in the way he’s handed any number of issues. What concerns me even more is that his calling of the attitude on Mr & Mrs average Australia has been rarely faulted.

19

This is where some subtle and interesting changes have crept in over the last few years. Retired High Court judges have been typical appointees to the position. They have been distinguished but generally unknown to the public. Zelman Cowen and Ninian Stephen were very quiet in the job.

But the republic debate and the surprising performance of another retired High Court judge (Bill Deane) have changed the publci perception of the GG’s role. During the republic debate, a criticism made of the appointed president model made by both the direct electionists and the constitutional monarchists was that the president would be a creature of the government of the day, diposable on a whim. The fact that this is true of the current system was rather downplayed. In addition, the monarchists ran a line that said that the GG is effectively the head of state (rather than merely the Queen’s representative). The effect of this has been to build up the role in the public perception beyond
that of “potted plant”. This is a difficulty for the PM, because there seems to be no suggestion that there are grounds to sack the GG and Howard would not like to be seen to admit that he is quite entitled to sack him without grounds.

The other thing is the performance of the last GG, Deane. He turned out to be a bit of a Mary Robinson figure - although without actual political power, he was able to invest the office with substantial public influence. He was able to help the nation in times of grieving and say unifying things about reconciliation. Hollingworth has - to put it mildly - suffered in comparison.

20

Kirby. Sorry. I’m getting senile. :smack: