The only viable path

Paul Kelly
Editor-at-Large
The Australian
26 May 2003

Peter Hollingworth resigned because he lost the confidence of the country, taking the only viable path open to him.

The man who made so many misjudgments deserves recognition for his final sacrificial judgment.

The Governor-General was left without any foundation of support: he incurred the hostility of the Opposition, the media, the community and finally lost the confidence of the Prime Minister who appointed him.

John Howard's appointment of Dr Hollingworth is confirmed as a serious blunder of judgment. But Howard managed the Governor-General's demise with skill and there was no constitutional crisis.

The Labor Party has a political win but no credit and its demand that Howard sack Hollingworth, if implemented, would have damaged the office and our system of government.

The Hollingworth fiasco suggests the claim of public ownership of the office is growing – the notion that the governor-general is responsible to the people. That means, in turn, the office is being politicised.

The price Howard will pay is the demand of greater public consultation in the appointment of a successor, a demand he will surely reject. It is an issue that deserves consideration, since this unhappy chapter shows the office continues to evolve.

The irony, however, is that the present constitutional provisions worked well in giving effect to public sentiment. They were subtle and flexible. Dr Hollingworth stood aside until the rape allegation was finalised and then resigned.

The problem for constitutional reformers (which they will deny) is that the crisis would have been worse, the potential damage greater and the removal less smooth if this power were vested in the parliament with a two-thirds voting requirement.

The contrast with John Kerr should be drawn. Kerr's 1977 resignation arose from his divisive misuse of the Reserve Powers, and his inability to manage that legacy.

But there is a common feature in the early retirement of Kerr and Hollingworth. The decisive factor in each case was loss of prime ministerial support.