What's
it about?
Let me declare my hand from the start. I knew the present Governor-General, Dr. Peter
Hollingworth, when he was the Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St. Laurence and an
Anglican Bishop. We sat on a Management Committee for five years and he was, as anyone
from that time would acknowledge, a compassionate, driven advocate on behalf of children
and the poor. He was also fearless in his ability to stare down anyone, from the Prime
Minister to a local councillor. No doubt he was a man for his times.
Now, all these years later, he is the Head of State and embroiled in a wholly unlikely
controversy that may see him out of office. Dr. Hollingworth has been denounced by an
assortment of politicians and advocacy groups: the Leader of the Opposition; the
Queensland Premier; rape crisis and child abuse advocates and many others. What went
wrong?
What happened
No one takes issue with advocates who toil to stop the evil of sexual abuse. In fact,
it is no credit to anyone to emphasise the need to do everything to stop child abuse and
offer support to the victims. Dr. Hollingworth was plainly wrong when he suggested, in a
television interview, that sex between adults and children can be understood in a way that
is sympathetic to the perpetrator of the crime. But it is the suggestion that is
at fault, not the actuality of what he believed he said. He immediately retracted the
imputation and explained that he had misunderstood the question. Certainly Dr.
Hollingworth was clumsy, and he would never be a poster boy for a slick PR company, but
clumsiness is not a hanging crime - it is, however, a public relations disaster. And in
some respects it goes to whether he was a suitable candidate to be Governor-General in the
first place.
Unfair dismissal
Out of the mouths of babes…a friend of mine was listening to talkback radio, and
related that one of the callers had questioned the Opposition's readiness to declare the
Governor-General unsuitable for his office. Was Dr. Hollingworth given a hearing? Has he
been accorded any legal right of response? Isn't it true that the Opposition is fervently
in favour of strict unfair dismissal laws, she asked.
It is interesting that, though he has no legal rights under any federal employment
laws, the Opposition Parties have fettered the Governor-General because there is no longer
bipartisan support for his office. In other words, the position of Governor-General relies
on the confidence of all parties and an ability to be perceived as a fair umpire in a
constitutional crisis. This has now been effectively stymied. Translate this into any
workplace governed by employment laws (and that's all of them). If your boss announced to
anyone within earshot that she no longer had any confidence in your work, and without
benefit of a hearing effectively ended your ability to undertake your duties - well, I bet
you would be in a lawyer's office in a flash. Besides recourse to the employment laws, you
can also bet that a writ would be issued for defamation.
Clearly many believe allegations can be made about Dr. Hollingworth's character with
impunity, presumably because of his vice-regal position. It is worth noting that not one
single charge made against Dr. Hollingworth has been the subject of a legal hearing. And
if anyone believes the media is just another court, well, we must be living in altogether
different legal systems.
The real issue
The problem is with the Constitution, or at the least, if we do not wish to become a
Republic, with the way we choose the Governor-General. Can it be satisfactory for one man,
the Prime Minister, to hire and fire the Head of State? If Dr. Hollingworth was not
suitable, as so many clearly believe, who is to blame? What would happen to an employment
consultant responsible for the appointment of an incompetent CEO? Or A Board of Directors
that elected a Chair who was clearly unsuitable for the position?
Given the scrutiny that has attached to Dr. Hollingworth in the past month, it has to
be likely that he would not have been deemed a suitable candidate for the
Governor-General's office had he been subject to a thorough investigation. It is ironic
that many of the critics of Dr. Hollingworth have attacked the man and not the legal
process that in many respects is the source of the problem. Even the most minimalist
Republic model allowed for a list of nominations and the approval of a joint sitting of
Parliament.
What we think
Dr. Hollingworth has been judged and sentenced without any evidentiary hearing, when
there are too many questions that have not been answered, and he is not in a position to
exercise an authentic right of reply. And there is a context. Dr. Hollingworth has a
lifetime career as a campaigner for the poor and homeless, especially those in the inner
cities. And it is too convenient for media and commentators, who have not achieved a
fraction of the totality of Dr. Hollingworth's accomplishments for the community, to
pander to a culture of blame instead of addressing a systemic constitutional problem. As a
country we are poorer because we have failed to undertake the constitutional legal reforms
that would have averted this latest crisis. We may not wish to become a Republic, but at
the least we should ensure that the Head of State is no longer chosen without a realistic
investigation and mandatory bipartisan consultation.
By Geoffrey Winn
Creative Director
www.law4u.com.au