That Scott Morrison’s secret assumption of various ministerial offices in 2020 and 2021 was a bad thing is matter of uncommonly unanimous agreement. It violated many of the precepts of our system of government, even if they were not the ones that are legally enforceable by virtue of being written down. While most of the powers he assumed were not acted upon, Morrison did scuttle a gas project off the coast of Newcastle against the wishes of Keith Pitt, whom the public and parliament understood to be the one and only Minister for Energy, and his colleagues in the Nationals. This Morrison was able to do without going through the appropriate channel of overruling Pitt in cabinet, making it distinctly the act of a President rather than a Prime Minister.
The more contentious question is the extent to which the Governor-General, David Hurley, erred not only in signing the instruments that conferred the ministerial offices upon Morrison, but in passively acquiescing to Morrison’s determination to keep the matter quiet even from the affected ministers. In a statement issued on Wednesday, Hurley said he had “no reason to believe that appointments would not be communicated”. A common sense response would seem to be that this might have made sense when Morrison was appointment to the health and finance portfolios in March 2020, but not when he further assumed industry, science, energy and resources in April 2021 and home affairs and Treasury a month after.
However, Anne Twomey, professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, stressed in the Financial Review that the publication of ministerial appointments is a convention rather than a legal requirement, however unfortunate a state of affairs that may be. The Australian quoted another academic authority on constitutional law, Greg Craven, offering the orthodox view that Hurley was “bound by constitutional convention” to follow the advice of the Prime Minister, with whom the responsibility lies entirely.
Anthony Albanese would seem to concur, although it might be thought he is doing so with a view to keeping the heat concentrated on the Coalition. For what it’s worth, it seems clear to me that Gough Whitlam would agree if he were alive today, given his vehemence about the Governor-General’s duty to act exclusively on the advice of the Prime Minister. A former Prime Minister with a contrary view is Malcolm Turnbull, who said he was “astonished that the Governor-General was party to it”.
Writing in The Guardian, Jenny Hocking, emeritus professor at Monash University and author of multiple books on Gough Whitlam and his dismissal, describes Hurley’s actions and inactions as “troubling” and says he “must now consider his position”. Hocking draws attention to the following passage from the parliamentary handbook:
The approval of the Governor-General to the composition of the Ministry, the creation of departments, the allocation of portfolios and any ministerial and departmental change is notified publicly and announced in the House. The principal areas of departmental responsibility and enactments administered by the respective Ministers are notified publicly by order of the Governor-General.
The first of these sentences unhelpfully lacks a direct subject, but Hurley is evidently of the view that it falls to the government to follow through here. A footnote clarifies that the second sentence refers to the Administrative Arrangements Order, which lays out in general terms which ministers have which powers derived from various acts of parliament. A more transparently minded Prime Minister might have availed himself of the powers he desired through a change to this instrument, but Morrison’s adoption of already established ministerial powers left it undisturbed. In any case, Hocking indicates that Hurley would have been correct not to have made a public announcement if directly advised to that effect by the Prime Minister, and says he “should now make this clear”.
Can we please keep this thread relevant to the matters raised in the post. The general discussion thread is here.
Hurley’s position is weak at best and untenable at worst. Hoping that the PM would have communicated the changes and then doing nothing when he realised that the PM didn’t, doesn’t speak well of the GG.
On the other hand, I agree that Albo wants to focus on Morrison, not on the GG (let alone both at the same time). Morrison’s position is even more untenable than that of the GG, even though no law has been broken. Our Westminster system relies heavily on conventions and past behaviours, not just written laws. Accepting that on the one hand, only to suddenly break those conventions and excuse yourself by saying that you haven’t run against any written law, is disingenuous at best…. simply dishonest at worst. A dishonest politician should be dismissed by his own party.
So, it’s up to Dutton and the Liberals. So far they are closing ranks and supporting Morrison. Time, opinion polls, and the result of future state elections will suggest to Dutton the path ahead…. In the meantime, the Teals (and I am sure the ALP as well) must be laughing out loud at their good fortune.
I can understand Albo being wary of ascribing too much discretionary or review power to the GG, given Labor’s extreme suffering at the hands of a GG who claimed those powers in the 70s. It would suit Labor in the short term to point some blame at the GG, but run against the historical narrative. Clarifying the GG’s ability to shut down such an unethical anti-democratic action by a PM could potentially plug an unsavoury loophole in our democracy.
The whole thing should be very helpful to the republican cause – GG being either ineffectual OR collusive with a corrupt PM, and with some whiff of a suggestion the GG could have taken advice from a foreign monarch again.
From a practical / future point of view I also think it shines a spotlight on the questionable practice of appointing military people to civil positions. People who have worked in a heirarchy with central control, with everyone below them incapable of questioning them are not at all qualified for understanding or respecting democracy. Hurley may well have a blind spot when it comes to leaders wanting to be able to have whatever they desire undertaken by their underlings.
Why do we keep expecting people who have worked their way up through a notoriously bullying misogynistic power structure to be the guardians of ultimate political power?
I for one always thought Scomo was a boofhead, that he was dishonest and consistently called for a thorough investigation of his religious views. But, that he was this dangerous has surprised even me. What of two journalists knowing this all along, one of whom was and is the partner of a high ranking member of the same government? This is just the beginning.
Morrison, a devout monarchist, no less, turned himself into the President.
Imagine, perish the thought, he had actually won the last election!
The US is not the only country in the Anglosphere flirting with authoritarianism.
Dutton, you might need to demand his resignation before the next Morrison land mine goes off.
In terms of the credibility of the role of GG Hurley’s position is already untenable. As William said, his explanation of the secrecy is reasonable in 2020, but not in 2021.
As with Hockey’s comment, if Morrison instructed Hurley to keep the appointments secret Hurley should say so. Otherwise Hurley appears at fault.
The question of legality is a bit of a fig leaf in this case IMO. There are lots of jobs where you can be sacked for behaving unethically or against the organisation’s interests, even though it may have been legal.
Regardless of the outcome for Hurley, there has never been a better time to tighten up the relevant laws and parliamentary instructions. This loophole in our system is a recipe for a dictatorship, and can’t be allowed to stand.
This incident is also further proof that “relying on conventions” is not good enough in an era of cynical machine politics. The rules need to be written and unambiguous. Even the UK, where most of our constitutional practice descends from, has commenced writing down all those conventions and making them binding. The UK Constitution is not codified as a single document, but it is now mostly written.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-uk-constitution
Alpo says:
Friday, August 19, 2022 at 6:07 am
Hurley’s position is weak at best and untenable at worst. Hoping that the PM would have communicated the changes and then doing nothing when he realised that the PM didn’t, doesn’t speak well of the GG.
_______________________
There’s no reason to think that the GG would be checking that the PM had or had not communicated the changes in the Administrative Orders. I don’t think the GG or anyone in his office would be following through on a detail like that.
There are some interesting coincidences to all this. ON 14th March 2020 Morrison got himself appointed as a second health minister, on the 2oth March the Ruby Princess was allowed to dock at Sydney with a large contingent of passengers who’d previously attended the Hillsong summit and also Alex Hawkes parents.
On the 4th May Karen Andrews announced she was considering releasing the Murugappan family into the community. On the 6th May Morrison secretly got himself appointed as the second Home Affairs minister and this decision was retracted.
The above are two “coincidences” which may not have any relationship to Morrison’s self appointment to those two ministerial positions. Effectively we see an event which is not what Morrison wants, he gets secretly appointed and then magically things come out just as Scott envisioned they would.
The GG’s job isn’t just to sign what is put in front of him/her. The GG’s job is to certainly to sign into law any bill that has made it through parliament as it’s been through the parliamentary process and as such can be considered the will of the people.
The GG should NEVER just accept what comes down to an individual’s predilection without question. A detailed justification should be provided whenever such a request is made, in writing. Hurley knows this, he was a senior military officer, as far as I’m concerned his position is untenable.
His defence that it was up to the government to announce these things is rubbish as he is the senior position, he can easily insist on such matters being published in the Gazette unless the justification includes proof that national security is involved and he has been briefed on said matters in advance (it’s not like he, as GG, is not the Command in Chief of the defence forces or anything).
‘There’s no reason to think that the GG would be checking that the PM had or had not communicated the changes in the Administrative Orders. I don’t think the GG or anyone in his office would be following through on a detail like that.’
I’m pretty sure there would have been follow up given the importance. However, even if not there are plenty of Administrative Orders junkies in government. I think there would have been someone in the GGs office who, if not tasked with checking, would at least have been curious about the lack of publication.
Also, it was such an unusual set of appointments that there would have been a lot of interest in them in the Office. The staff would naturally have been thinking how the appointments would go down in the media and among officials. They are discreet but this is their job so a lot of natural interest!
“nath says:
Friday, August 19, 2022 at 7:38 am
Alpo says:
Friday, August 19, 2022 at 6:07 am
Hurley’s position is weak at best and untenable at worst. Hoping that the PM would have communicated the changes and then doing nothing when he realised that the PM didn’t, doesn’t speak well of the GG.
_______________________
There’s no reason to think that the GG would be checking that the PM had or had not communicated the changes in the Administrative Orders. I don’t think the GG or anyone in his office would be following through on a detail like that.”
There is a very good reason for the GG (or somebody in his office) to check what he expected to be communicated. Not checking is a dereliction of duty to follow up on his own expectation. Don’t forget that the swearing in ceremonies are usually filmed and broadcast. In that case, of course no further communication is required. But when they are secret, people should be informed. After all: “The Governor-General of Australia is Her Majesty The Queen’s representative. In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State”.
Socrates says
Yes and further, I am reminded of a quote by Tim Minchin. “I don’t believe just ‘cos ideas are tenacious it means that they’re worthy.” However, I’m also reminded that evolution is littered with failure, meaning that careful thought should precede change, and it not be pursued its own sake.
Politically, Albanese is presenting and demonstrating mature government. Reminding people of the chaos of the last 9 years is not just a necessary political strategy it’s also necessary to show people who might have forgotten, or who never knew, what government actually means. I think that’s the relevant framework for interpreting Albanese’s actions regarding the GG or anything else.
(I think I’ll repost this on the general thread.)
This whole dichotomy of “it was the rubber stamp or a constitutional crisis” is a furphy.
There is no reason whatsoever that the GG couldn’t sign the instruments AND have a follow up conversation. When secret commission number IV landed on his desk did he call the PM? Ask him to explain? Ask some basic questions about why? Provide some advice?
None of that would cause constitutional vapours but would involve using some judgement and care.
And if the answer to any of the above is “yes” then SM is even more implicated as a tinpot dictator-wannabe as it blows his farrago of pollywaffle out of the water. If the answer is no then the GG is a dozy clothes horse with nothing under his hat who needs to have a think about whether he is up to adult cutlery, let alone a pretty vital constitutional office.
This is why we need a further and a more formal inquiry – was anything said? If so, what did the PM say?
GoldenSmaug @ Friday, August 19, 2022 at 7:53 am
A thought provoking post. Thank you.
I struggle with this a bit. It seems to me there are functions that the GG performs that are clearly part of the vice regal job – appointing ministers falls into this category – and that the GG should generally be expected to simply follow the advice of the PM of the day (*not as a rubber stamp, though – see below).
But the notion that the GG job includes doing absolutely whatever the PM ‘advises’ I think is nonsense. If the PM of the day ‘advised’ the GG to run around Lake Burley Griffin with his underpants on his head I don’t see why the GG would be obliged to do so: it’s clearly not relevant to his vice regal role.
Hence if the PM advises the GG to remain quiet about ministerial appointments that – to me – would fall into the second category. It is not a part of the GG’s ‘job description’ to keep ministerial appointments secret (I think quite the opposite), and it’s very hard to envisage a case where it ever makes sense for ministerial appointments to be kept secret. I am willing to say that it is potentially conceivable that there might be an exceedingly unlikely circumstance where there is a legitimate national security consideration that means it would be important to keep a ministerial appointment secret (although I can’t imagine what that circumstance might be outside of actual wartime), but if that’s the case the GG is entitled to hear the argument and make their own decision because, once again, it’s not a built in part of the GG’s role to keep ministerial appointments secret when advised to do so.
As to the GG ever being an automatic rubber stamp: I’ve never been of this view. The Australian constitution simply doesn’t make sense to read with ‘the GG’ crossed out and ‘the PM’ inserted. There is necessarily a meaningful distinction between the PM ‘advising’ something and the GG automatically accepting whatever the PM advises. The Australian constitution wasn’t written that long ago – Westminster had already basically neutered the ability of the monarch to interfere with parliament or the executive so it would have been clearly understood by everyone at the time that the GG was not to be an active participant in the political process in any but the most extreme conditions. But it would also have been clear that the GG had a role to play with their own agency to make sure that the mechanisms of parliament and government were operating within reasonable expectations.
A dedicated thread on Hurley says it all really. That he’s being publicly discussed is the reason he must go. Personally, I thought he should’ve gone after the ad he & his wife appeared in – very poor judgment indeed. And no wonder he looked a little down at the swearing-in of the Albanese government for he must have known that his little secret would become public knowledge. If he does the right thing, his replacement should be from the law, academia, or a First Nations candidate; but definitely no more modern major-generals, lieutenant-generals, generals, or field marshalls (eg, Viscount Slim).
“Socrates says:
Friday, August 19, 2022 at 7:36 am
…This incident is also further proof that “relying on conventions” is not good enough in an era of cynical machine politics. The rules need to be written and unambiguous.”
I hope that’s exactly the message that the democratic side of parliament (which I am confident is the majority) takes on board. Assuming that unwritten conventions will be always respected in a honourable way by all leaders, just doesn’t work in the era of Morrison, Trump, Johnson, etc.
nath at 7.38
Alpo says:
Friday, August 19, 2022 at 6:07 am
Hurley’s position is weak at best and untenable at worst. Hoping that the PM would have communicated the changes and then doing nothing when he realised that the PM didn’t, doesn’t speak well of the GG.
_______________________
There’s no reason to think that the GG would be checking that the PM had or had not communicated the changes in the Administrative Orders. I don’t think the GG or anyone in his office would be following through on a detail like that.
____________
If the GG doesn’t ‘check’ – what’s the point of having a GG? Hurley ‘represents’ our Head of State, which surely involves paying some attention to the good, democratic order of the State. If Hurley wasn’t concerned about Morrison’s at-best-unorthodox action, he should’ve been, and he should’ve ‘followed through.’
Otherwise, we should rename the role ‘Signer in Chief and Attender of Public Functions.’
Fully agree conventions should be codified and made enforceable.
It has been very unedifying watching the liberals ignore convention at will.
Things like “pairing” worked when honour left conventions intact, but trust is not a strong constitutional basis for a healthy democracy.
The American ‘founding fathers’ clearly didn’t foresee lunatics taking office – they though only honourable leaders would become president. Not sensible as it turns out.
We trusted, for example, Howard to preserve a bipartisan resistance to racism, then he went and weaponised it.
Voice Endeavour’s Three Laws of Governor Generalship
1) The Governor-General will prevent the establishment of a fascist dictatorship.
2) The Governor-General will obey all laws, except where such laws would conflict with the First Law.
3) The Governor-General will do as the Prime Minister says, except where such instruction would conflict with the First or Second Laws.
The Dismissal failed laws 1 and 3. The GG supported a CIA coup against the legitimate Government of the country, against the advice of the Prime Minister.
But Hurley’s actions were worse – they failed all three of the Three Laws.
Supporting the PM’s decision put us further along the path towards fascism.
The GG should therefore have disregarded the laws of Australia, and the instructions of the PM, because they conflict with the First Law.
Lets imagine a scenario where the PM proposes cancelling all elections and becoming PM for life. That’s perfectly legal to do, as long as the appropriate changes are made to the Constitution and Legislation. The correct thing for the GG to do in this case is to immediately dismiss the PM and appoint a caretaker PM the GG considers least likely to bring about a fascist dictatorship.
The reason the dismissal was wrong isn’t that the GG should always side with the PM, it’s that the GG sided with those trying to destroy democracy instead of the one trying to save it.
Snappy Tom @ #17 Friday, August 19th, 2022 – 8:55 am
Don’t forget: He who is driven up the Highway in Big White Car with Three Man Police Escort.
“Mavis says:
Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:48 am
….but definitely no more modern major-generals, lieutenant-generals, generals, or field marshalls”
I agree!…. Enough of men in uniform as GG, they can only damage the already unstable reputation of the ADF.
Further to Hurley’s responsibilities as Representative of the Head of State…in the UK, it is “Her Majesty’s Government.” She appoints the govt – by convention formed from the party with most seats as a result of the electoral process – but it is HER govt.
Our Federal govt is, constitutionally, also “Her Majesty’s”. Hurley “represents” Her Majesty. The good order and functioning of Her Majesty’s Australian Govt is a central question in his role as GG.
The GG should be aware of how HM Australian govt operates and, where necessary, provide advice to the PM. The PM may have the prerogative to ignore the GG’s advice.
Hurley may have been ignored, may have been spineless, may have been a co-conspirator…
“ Mavis says:
Friday, August 19, 2022 at 8:48 am
….but definitely no more modern major-generals, lieutenant-generals, generals, or field marshalls”
+1 and you can add archbishops and cardinals to the list as well. They are obviously divisive appointments in a secular society. Also, as Hollingsworth proved, they lack the appropriate understanding of the role.
I posted a lengthy explanation on the other thread of why Naths defence of the GG is nonsense. There is a detailed process to go through for how the instruments to appoint ministers get drafted, approved and gazetted.
Morrison’s secret ministries could only have happened if the individuals responsible for those processes were instructed to draft the instruments and then bypass the gazettal process.
Hurley must have known the ministries were secret. The GG office has over 70 staff, including lawyers.
Hurley’s public statements have gone from “nothing to see here, all normal” to “ok there was something odd but I had no idea it was being kept secret”.
If his position was consistently “I had no option but to follow the advice of the PM including keeping the appointments secret” I think he’d be OK. It’s the moving target that makes his position to me untenable.
Given how secretive Morrison has been about this including acknowledging he was deliberately keeping it secret from his ministers, it is not believable that he didn’t tell Hurley to keep quiet about it too. Which is consistent with Hurley not making any issue of the first appointments not being publicised in any way (I don’t expect Hurley’s staff to obsessively check the Gazette but the lack of media coverage might have been a hint). Or indeed the later appointments.
Not for following the advice of the PM but for weaselling about it now, that’s Hurley’s error for mine.
I love VE’s 3 rules – but there’s another rule that has never needed to be stated until now but is clearly presupposed by the relation between PM, G-G, Parliament and People: the first two don’t do anything together in secret! (Unless, perhaps, that’s *absolutely* necessary as a matter of national security). Once it became clear that Morrison had not revealed the earlier appointments, Hurley should have pulled him up and said “Hey, we don’t do secret deals – either you announce this or I will feel compelled to.”
Still not convinced of the Morrison narrative that ‘nothing illegal’ was done. Seems to have been accepted by everyone far too quickly…. And this morning Turnbull agreed
Reading the governor general comment about waiting for the legal advice to be made this coming Monday seems to be an indication , this week may be his last offical duties as governor general
Arky @9:26
Agreed. A moving target lets us know he lacks a firm principle on the matter. Either he doesn’t understand what was and is both involved and important (and is therefore incompetent), or he does (and is therefore complicit).
I am still thinking about this topic.
One thing is for sure though, we have had enough ex-military men as GG. It is time to have some diversity in that role.
The GG’s roles and the conventions should be clarified, particularly if the position is changed to that of President after we become a republic.
I for one don’t wish to see what happened in Russia where Putin moved backwards and forwards between Prime Minister and President. Currently if the former PM and a mate hold the PMship and GG they potentially could subvert / destroy democracy in Australia.
This should be a good test case in addressing these issue before the Republic referenda
I think the GG will certainly reconsider his position if on Monday the solicitor-general advises that it was illegal (which I think is unlikely). If it is just ruled improper, Hurley will probably be under less pressure but I don’t think he is comfortable with much media attention.
He might ease himself out of the role but there is high probability of the Queen dying in the meanwhile so it all gets messy.
I don’t think it’s too much of an ask for the Governor-General to perform the basic due diligence required to confirm the appointments were actually being made public, especially by the time of the 2021 ones. Something as unprecedented as this would surely have received some coverage. I can’t imagine giving Scomo a quick phone call and asking, “Hey, you publicised those ministries I swore you into, right? I’m not seeing anything in the paper,” would take too much time away from the GG’s busy schedule of signing documents, cutting ribbons, and attended funerals. This is what we pay him for, after all.
Hopefully we can now finally dispense with the idea that investing all these powers into one random guy accountable only to the PM isn’t actually a great thing for democracy. This mess has really solidified my feeling that a future republic should just do away with the idea of a seperate Head of State and instead divide the Governor-General’s powers up between the parliament, the speaker, the public service, the High Court, and an expanded AEC, where appropriate, complete with far clearer codified rules as to how those powers should be exercised. I can’t imagine this would have happened if the swearing in of ministers was done by, say, the High Court or a dedicated bureaucratic department instead of the PM’s mate.
Of course, I realise I’m on a bit of an island on this one, and while I have some reservations about an elected head of state (mainly the risk that some totally unqualified populist ends up winning), it would certainly be a step up from the current situation. If so, the same point remains about the need to properly codify the powers and responsibilities of the Head of State. Relying on convention isn’t good enough.
Nothing like the desire to try and lance perceived old insults to energise Malcolm Turnbull.
What is being codified? An obligation for the GG to check that someone else has done their job.
Post Royal Assent, does the GG need to check the Act hits the books?
A minor clarification to William’s piece, and some commenters:
A footnote clarifies that the second sentence refers to the Administrative Arrangements Order, which lays out in general terms which ministers have which powers derived from various acts of parliament.
On its face, the Admin Orders – signed by the PM and GG of the day, don’t refer to named individual ministers, nor indeed their titles:
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ORDER
I, General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, revoke all administrative arrangements previously ordered and order that:
1.The matters dealt with by a Department of State include:
(a)the matters referred to in the Part of the Schedule relating to that Department; and
(b)matters arising under the legislation administered by a Minister of State administering the Department.
2.The legislation administered by a Minister of State administering a Department is:
(a)the legislation referred to in the Part of the Schedule relating to that Department; and
(b)legislation passed before or after the date of this Order, that relates to a matter dealt with by the Department, not being legislation referred to in another Part of the Schedule.
This Order will commence on 1 July 2022.
Signed and sealed with the
Great Seal of Australia on
23 June 2022
https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/administrative-arrangements-order-23-June-2022.pdf
These Admin Orders stand perfectly well whether there is 1,2,3 or a secret ScomoMinister having been sworn in by the GG. As has been pointed out by others, to find out who the named individuals are – you need to go to another standard listing of named individuals who have been allocated roles by the PM of the day, such as:
https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/ministry-list-20220601.pdf
This list with names was absent the ScoMo backup in the last Parliament, but as it is a list prepared by and tabled by the PM – you can’t criticise the GG for who is absent from the list.
I agree he is a duffer to let the known loose unit get his way, and first time round with the Biosecurity Act and Christian Porter’s advice – and the extreme rights bestowed on the Health Minister in the ACT – like closing Australia’s borders – the proper action would have been to ask the Chief Justice for their opinion. We should know whether he did.
Subsequent ScomoMinisterial appointments – especially the 2021 ones for Treasury and Home Affairs – fall into a Vice Regal dereliction of duty.
Shellbell:
What should be codified (and clarified, where needed) are the conventions that already exist, along with any new ones that may be needed. If there’s no specific rule against what happened with these ministries, then there should probably be one – at the very least, the requirement to publicise these decisions and whose responsibility it is to do so (whether the PM’s office or the GG’s or whatever) should be made clear as day, rather than relying on constitutional experts to dig through and analyse over a century of convention and precedent.
It doesn’t need to be the Governor-General himself actually doing this (god forbid they actually do a proper day’s work, after all), just somebody working in their office. That he apparently didn’t even bother asking a staffer to check the appointments were made public, if nothing else to cover his ass when it all inevitably came out, suggests Hurley is either very careless, does not fully understand (or give a damn about) the responsibilities of his office, is simply lying about always assuming it would be public knowledge, or some combination of the three.
No, but somebody probably should be doing so. Again, the GG does have staff who can do this sort of busywork.
(All of this comes with the big caveat that I am not any kind of lawyer, let alone one specialising in constitutional law. So take it with the appropriate grain of salt.)
Me:
Just to add to this point, as I just ran out of time to edit:
Right now, Hurley’s excuse pretty much amount to, “I thought someone else was supposed to do that.” That’s frankly pathetic coming from one of the most powerful men in the country (a and former general too!) Would Hurley have accepted an excuse like that from a soldier serving under him?
Really interesting contributions, one of the best kinds of threads.
Firstly this is on us. So Howard worked hard to make sure the Monarchy and this vacuum of gray power remained in place, but we had a chance to mature as a nation take on all these things and create something that would work. Instead we chose to hide behind the crumbling remains of monarchy, an obviously failed and outdated form of government.
I did love VE’s three rules, but in practice, if we leave this vacuum of gray power in place, because we like cowering behind the ruins of a foreign monarchy, the reality is almost the opposite. The nature of the GG’s office and the interrelationships with executive power, and sourcing from judicial or military power and high office, the GG’s office is likely to support whatever whims the establishment has, and very unlikely to act to protect democracy and popular opinion against autocracy. The whole idea that an absurd vestigate of a Monarchy acting to defend democracy is as absurd as it sounds.
So given the right set of circumstances and the right support from the establishment, there is no reason at all to think for a moment the GG wouldn’t sack a progressive democratically elected leader again. The older and fewer of those directly scarred by the Whitlam stuff the more likely it is. The more stratified our society is between poor and wealthy the more likely any popular movement, even one reflected in a democratically elected Govt is likely to be quashed by the institutions including the HC and the GG.
There is absolutely zero reason to think the institutions, especially the HC and GG would step in a helpful way. More the HC in this lens but they’ll happily put the sword through legislation of a progressive nature and bow to legislation of an autocratic nature.
The right has made us hate democracy (‘big government’) and fear any reform, law, bill of rights, etc etc that might help our democracy and perhaps restrain the Parliament, even an elected Parliament from crimes against humanity, killing and torturing refugees for example. The slide away from the rule of law and the descent into a society eager to commit crimes against humanity and each other is well progressed.
While we are on transparency and conventions, or lack thereof- a few suggestions:
1. The Coalition Agreement between the Liberals and Nationals should be tabled in Parliament.
2. Any other minor party or Independent letter of comfort regarding Supply, provided to the GG should be tabled in Parliament.
3. Should any future Labor government be formed in the minority, the agreement(s) to this effect should be tabled in Parliament. To be fair, the 2010 arrangement was, and ACT jurisdiction does this. But it should be mandatory in all cases.
We should know what has been promised.
Finally, to address the multiple ministers sworn in to one portfolio (legitimately), the PM’s Charter Letters to ministers, plus any side deals, could be tabled in Parliament.
One thing the ScomoMinister imbroglio has shown is that the polity is sick of the lack of transparency in the conventions.
Voice Endeavour @ #19 Friday, August 19th, 2022 – 9:01 am
Issac Asimov would love those rules 🙂
Got me thinking. An underlying reflection in all of this has been the character of the leader under discussion. So what of “dear Lizzie’s” character?
* aware of history
* aware of public mood
* orderly
* duty bound
* respectful
* pragmatic
When the time comes I expect she will stand down in favour of Charles and die gracefully 6 months later. (I assume she has the best medical advice.)
Our GG’s future should not be impacted.
EDIT: capital “Lizzie”
The Constitutional Monarchists will be none too happy with Hurley for drawing unwelcome attention to the role played by the GG under the current system.
A few of the more prominent ones might be having a quiet word in his ear.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one day a media release appears “… reluctantly resigned to spend more time with the family dog”.
Comments today remind me of the other guy in the USA, and the letters ETTD. Is it too soon to add EMTD?
“The Constitutional Monarchists will be none too happy with Hurley for drawing unwelcome attention to the role played by the GG under the current system.
A few of the more prominent ones might be having a quiet word in his ear.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one day a media release appears “… reluctantly resigned to spend more time with the family dog”.”
Yeah Morrison and Johnson both put a spotlight on the fact Westminster democracy minus the unwritten parts is not a viable democratic type of Government, Morrison and the GG have put a massive spotlight on the fact the ‘magic’ of the Crown is a farce, the Empress has no power, or she does but doesn’t use it when she should etc etc.
Anyone who supports the ‘status quo’ isn’t thinking about how it actually functions and how it could / should function.
“The Constitutional Monarchists will be none too happy with Hurley for drawing unwelcome attention to the role played by the GG under the current system.
A few of the more prominent ones might be having a quiet word in his ear.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one day a media release appears “… reluctantly resigned to spend more time with the family dog”.”
Yeah Morrison and Johnson both put a spotlight on the fact Westminster democracy minus the unwritten parts is not a viable democratic type of Government, Morrison and the GG have put a massive spotlight on the fact the ‘magic’ of the Crown is a farce, the Empress has no power, or she does but doesn’t use it when she should etc etc.
Anyone who supports the ‘status quo’ isn’t thinking about how it actually functions and how it could / should function.
opps apologies for the magic double post, not sure how I won that.
Hurley should have been aware of Walter Bagehot’s 150-year-old summary of the role of the monarch (or governor general) – to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.
Not even Gough Whitlam would have claimed that the governor general is nothing but a cipher when it comes to advice he gets from the prime minister.
Another point about Hurley is his personal lobbying of Morrison to fund a charity that’s close to his heart. Hurley should ask himself: were it not for the vice-regal office he holds, would $18m of public monies have been forthcoming? His representation was highly inappropriate, even if the instant charity is more deserving than Mother Teresa’s. That he doesn’t see it this way speaks volumes about his judgment.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-08/governor-general-lobbied-scott-morrison-leadership-program/100975582
Time the GG retired to spend more time in his newly-renovated kitchen.
And welcome the next GG, female and Indigenous.
What did the PM tell the GG? The detail matters.
For example, the PM had told at least 2 journalists. So, if the PM told the GG that he’d told the media, and he gave names, it’s quite different to the GG neither asking nor caring.
We know the media was told. Did the GG get told that at the time?