Behind Abbott's royal tug of war
Date
April 24, 2013
Jack Waterford
Editor-at-large, The Canberra Times
Tony Abbott has done us all a favour by placing anathema on the appointment of a new governor-general by the prime minister, Julia Gillard. That's by creating a useful diversion from the dreary and depressing business of the Gillard government suicide watch, with a conundrum in which there is no simple right or wrong.
Yet simply by raising the question, Abbott has put his Queen - if not Julia Gillard - in a very difficult position, and probably made his point. The Queen of Australia has been in this uncomfortable position before, though she was protected by generally sage advice from British not Australian sources. Left to herself, we have little doubt that she would have acted differently - diligently doing what a state premier advised - and would have been put in the position which Abbott threatens, of being asked to remove a governor-general he does not particularly want, whose appointment, by a previous government, he regards as being over the odds.
The present Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, is only accidentally a part of the problem. Her term would have come up around about the time of the election, which could have been tricky had she any complicated decision-making as a consequence - say in the event of a hung parliament. Seeing this, Julia Gillard asked her to extend her appointment by six months, so that the election would be well over, and the new government (of whatever colour, but almost certainly Abbott's) would be in power at the changeover.
What Gillard did was proper and protective of the office of the governor-general. But Abbott argues that the question of a replacement for Ms Bryce should now be a matter for the prime minister after September, not the present one.
Advertisement
He has a point. There is now no urgency about an appointment, and appointment is usually the prerogative of the government of the day. There was a time when the procedures about replacement began about a year before the normal end of term of the viceroy, whether so as to allow a replacement to disembarrass herself of any commitments, but, so far as that practice goes, Ms Gillard should have been initiating the process in the later part of last year, for announcement some time before September this year. Given that a governor-general strictly has no term at all, she could easily have arranged a slightly earlier departure by Ms Bryce so the successor had the full carriage of any transition. By extending the term, in short, there is an argument that she forfeited the right to choose, recommend and announce a replacement. Yet, if she presses her ''right'' to choose the person, a palace that will be the more reluctant now it has been made a public issue will take her advice.
It seems to be assumed that she has decided to make an appointment, though, so far as I am aware, she has not said so. It also seems to be assumed that whichever of Abbott or Gillard was to nominate, the successor would select a partisan likely to cause annoyance to the other side of politics. The name of John Howard has been canvassed, but I think it highly unlikely that Abbott would put him forward, or that Howard would accept. The Queen would accept the nomination, but would be bound to counsel against it, not because she has any problem with Howard but because her private office has, in her name, on previous occasions strongly opposed the translation of former first ministers to vice-regal offices. (My serious guess is that Abbott, by way of showing his cuddliness, sense of mischief and so as to shock leftie luvvies, will nominate his good friend Michael Kirby, a potentially splendid choice and also bound to be on Gillard's shortlist.)
In 1958, then Tasmanian premier Robert Cosgrove thought, and his likely successor Eric Reece agreed, that he, Cosgrove, would make a splendid next governor of Tasmania. Some think the then governor tipped off the British government, and the palace, about these ambitions. Both parties in London wanted to avoid the embarrassment of feeling obliged to refuse a formal nomination.
The British minister wrote to Cosgrove of ''the absolute undesirability and indeed impropriety of anyone of any party who had only just left active politics being appointed to the office of governor in any (repeat any) state. I could not put such a proposal to the Queen.''
Bob Menzies agreed, even though the Australian prime minister had no rights or duties in relation to state governor appointments. Professor Anne Twomey says in The Chameleon Crown: ''Menzies advised that in his view it was highly undesirable to say the least for a former state premier to be be appointed as governor of his own state, especially if he had only recently retired from public life.''
In South Australia in 1968, premier Don Dunstan faced an election on March 2. On February 26, he put in a formal recommendation to the British government that Sir Mark Oliphant, a distinguished nuclear scientist, be appointed governor, to take office before March 2.
South Australia still had a perfectly useful governor, Lieutenant-General Sir Edric Montague Bastyan, but he was a Pom and Dunstan wanted an Australian. The Brits and, probably, the Queen's private office, were horrified at the timing and thought Dunstan was trying to bounce them. It declined to process the appointment until after the election. Dunstan was told that if he were premier afterwards, the appointment could go through immediately.
On March 2 Labor and the Liberal Country League won 19 members each. The one independent said he would support Steele Hall as premier.
Twomey's account tells of Hall arguing he should be made premier because he had the numbers, but Dunstan said he should have the opportunity to test his support on the floor of the assembly: Bastyan agreed with Dunstan, who remained premier until Parliament met.
Meanwhile, the British secretary of state, anxious to resolve the question of the governor before Bastyan departed to become governor of Tasmania, asked him to ask Dunstan if Hall supported appointing Sir Mark. Hall said no; he wished to make his own nomination. Dunstan agreed not to put Sir Mark's name forward until the political situation was resolved.
Hall became premier. Dunstan, rather ungraciously, left it to Hall to tell Oliphant he was out. The Queen's private secretary, Sir Robert Adair, noted with relief how wise it had been to force delay on Dunstan.
(Oliphant later did become governor, with Don Dunstan, but three years later.)
The process for appointing state governors has been indigenised since the passage of the Australia Acts of 1986, but there is little reason to think that palace views of the proprieties has changed much. What is clear is that the Queen will ultimately accept the opinion of her political advisers of the moment (the prime minister, in relation to the governor-general, or premiers with governors). But her office will fight vigorously to protect the nominators, or their constituents, from the effect of seriously bad choices. A first minister determined to bring scandal on the vice-regal office will, of course, be indulged after being counselled against it.
Last week's Council of Australian Governments was diverted, for a while, by Joh Bjelke-Petersen-style grandstanding by Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, who wants a specifically Queensland process for changing the order of succession for the title of Queen of Queensland.
If Newman looked through the state papers and saw what the Queen herself thought of such pretensions from Queensland premiers and governors, he might shut up. Progress with the Australia Acts was not delayed so much by Queensland's filibustering but by the palace's determination that it never be put in a position of having to accept advice from any Queensland premier ever - other than the very minimum of rubber-stamping an appointment of the poor gel, or boy, mad enough to accept the post of governor.
The Queen must be given the credit not only for recognising clowns when she sees them, but for understanding that, in some climes, the tendency for delusions of grandeur is more pronounced.
Jack Waterford is editor-at-large.
Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/behind-abbotts-royal-tug-of-war-20130423-2id62.html#ixzz2RNhHIB5N