well, he’s stood aside.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/11/1052591671921.html
I’ve had a bottle of Jacobs Creek and am in no condition to construct a coherent post longer than three or four wines… lines, sorry…
Just thought I’d give the thread a bit of a bump due to recent events.
You’ll get no sympathy from me BYK … gah … you know that stuff is only good enough for export to the POMs. 
Back on topic, this is the first time since Federation (Jan 1901) that the Australian Head of State has been has stood down from duties.
I know bugger all about the caretaker G-G, Sir Guy Green, who gets the gong on seniority … he’s the longest serving state governor (Tasmania). You can bet he’s not going to do anything dramatic. So we can rule out an election being called until after the Victorian civil action has run it’s course.
If Hollingsworth stands down most will be pretty much satisfied. Howard’s luck is unbelievable.
The Reserve is pretty good. Heavy in vanilla. Mmmm.
Skill, not luck. Here is the text of the PM’s statement. It’s as plain as day that Howard has done an appropriate deal: the GG can stand aside until the action is struck out. Then he will resign. That is what I take this to mean:
The question as to whether it is possible to meaningfully stand aside is apparently going to be dealt with by an amendment to the Letters Patent. I don’t find this wholly convincing, but it’s a good deal: the GG doesn’t have to look like he resigned over the rape allegations (which is fair enough) but will resign later.
[Seppelt’s '97 Harpers Cab Sav for me this evening: Dan Murphy must’ve bought too much of it and it’s no longer cellarable: they’re flogging it at $13.95!]
This totally sucks. By standing down until the rape allegations are cleared, when those allegations are inevitably dismissed, Hollingworth will return to his position and both him and Howard will pretend that everything’s fixed. Hollingworth will still be G-G, ignoring the real reason why he should be standing down: his inaction over the child-abuse allegations in his diocese. It’s classic Howard - pretending to do the right thing, but only obscuring the real issue.
This is the problem with the position: it has no meaning, and hence we don’t have any proper “checks and balances” to keep the parliament in line.
The only effective means of removing the G-G are for the PM to sack him. Which is unlikely to happen in many circumstances, as the PM is the one who appoints him.
It’s a constitutional crisis because it illustrates massive flaws in our constitution.
Now if the Queen’s representative actually made use of the powers given to them in the constitution, the crisis would be solved, though not necessarily in a desirable way. Then again, maybe it would be a good thing to put the monarchy back into constitutional monarchy - after all, it’s what we voted for.
hawthorne, I concur with your reasoning. The luck comes courtesy of Lindsay Tanner who over-egged the pudding by having the suppression order lifted.
This has bought Howard the elbow room he’s exploited so well, and why Crean’s distancing himself.
If Tanner had kept his powder dry, right now the ALP could have cornered and be slowly roasting Howard over his G-G appointment, tertiary education, Medicare and taking all the media oxygen during budget week. That’s a monumental own goal.
This way clears the decks. Costello gets the limelight without interference and then the media blowtorch gets put on Crean’s speech in reply … which must be the first time since Federation that anybody gives a toss what the Leader of the Opposition says about the budget. That’s consumate political skill.
Not up to a bottle of red on my Todd Malone so it’s Cooper’s Vintage Ale (Oct 2002) for me this evening. Dammed nice drop.
Indeed. Not a bad idea at all.
TBU, how was Hollingworth a lame duck any more after these allegations came out than before? What duties of the G-G could he not have undertaken?
They should have thrown Hollingworth in a pond. If he’d have floated, he was clearly guilty and could have been fished out and burned at the stake. If he’d have sunk and drowned he was clearly not guilty.
The jury’s still out on that IMHO. It leaves Howard with some awkward questions to answer: if the allegations make it appropriate for the GG to stand aside, why wasn’t it appropriate for him to stand aside when they were raised? And why wasn’t the Opposition briefed? We’ll see whether Tanner’s intervention keeps the issue burning or not - my guess is that it has made the GG’s resignation inevitable and tied him more closely than ever to Howard. It has also exposed leadership tension in the Liberals, with Costello very pointedly distancing himself from the “personal appointment” of the GG.
There are also of course leadership machinations within the ALP - Tanner (along with Latham and the impressive Craig Emerson) positioning themselves as the next generation leadership.
One comment about witch-hunts: there were no witches. This might be looking to find a scapegoat for decades of eminent persons putting stability and respectability ahead of the welfare of their flock, but it’s no witch-hunt.
And whilst Hollingworth has not done anything wrong in his term with respect to the exercise of his powers (because of course he hasn’t done anything) his behaviour as a Bishop as found by the Queensland church inquiry does not suggest he can do the job in the unlikely event that he is called so to do. He put business as usual ahead of doing the right thing. Not the sort of person you want holding the Reserve Powers.
Actually as I understand it, there were witches. However, the extent of the witchhunt vastly exceeded the extent of the witches.
Not the sort of person you want holding the Reserve Powers, is what you mean, I guess. If I were PM, I’m not sure that he wouldn’t be exactly the type of person I’d want holding the Reserve Powers.
Besides holding the reserves powers, the G-G has that traditional ‘head of state’ role of fete openings and speech making. As I understand it, there were a large number of withdrawals of invitiations to the G-G to perform these duties since the allegations arose. It is a pretty unimportant role, but what’s the point of having de facto head of state in the country if he holed up in Yarralumla?
Yes, but now Howard can answer them at a time of his chosing. He’ll stonewall any discussion while the Vic supreme court case runs it’s course (which could be months) with *“I’m sorry Kerry, you’re asking me to prejudge the legal process, and I won’t be drawn on that”*and then, assuming Hollingsworth stands aside, say “Kerry, the matter has been resolved, what else do you want me to do?”. I know the two issues are completely separate, but when did JWH last give a sucker a break?
The ALP is starting to show worrying signs that they truely believe Howard is invulnerable. Hell, it was less than three years ago he was considered “dead man walking”. We’ve just has an election budget, the ALP is at 100 year lows in support and a double dissolution will spend the end of the Democrats. The Greens will make solid gains but won’t win the balance of power. I think the ALP hard heads will decide that to win (or keep in contact) they need as much time for the security/immigration issues to fade in the electoral memory. So they’ll squeal and groan but will allow the budget measures through the Senate, rather than present an election trigger.
If Labor doesn’t find a policy platform and a consistent, appealing message with their heartland issues of health and education then it’ll be a bloodbath followed by a conservative agenda being rammed through … perish the thought.
The Tanners, Rudds, Latham, Emerson etc of wannabe next generation leadership can position all they want, but in the process they might bugger up the coming election so badly they’ll need a landslide to win the one after that off Costello.
Just to bring closure to the OP.
The civil proceeding against Hollingsworth over the rape allegations were expedited and were dismissed.
Today, circa 5pm G-G Hollingsworth resigns.
woolly, should’nt that be POME for Pour Old Mother England ???
"pour… where the hell did that come from???
G-G crisis? those damn Brumbys!
Small correction: The civil proceedings against Hollingworth were withdrawn, not dismissed.
Hollingworth has formallyresigned his position as G-G.
Woolly says that the G-G Hollingworth has resigned but TBU says that Hollingworth has resigned.
Now I’m totally confused. Has he resigned or not?
[sub](Obligatory 
for the 'Mericans)[/sub]
At the risk of being whooshed, “pom” is not an acronym.
So, who’s next?
Tim Fischer? David Boon? John Laws?
I’m thinking I’ll send my resume to John Howard.