Who will be the next GG

[Fat Red]

The rumours about Paul Keating were false and had a ludicrous origin.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by Roylion


Paul Keating stated otherwise. On April 9th 1991, he made the following observations about Sir John Kerr.

"Sir John Kerr was a person of substance. He was very interested in public affairs and public life. He is like a lot of frustrated people of quality: they want to be in public life, but never ever make the jump; they never quite take the chance. He was such a person. For him it was always a dalliance at the edge of public affairs. He became Governor-General on the recommendation of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam because he was known to him and known also for his interest in public life and public affairs. It was with that in mind that I think the government of the day had great expectations of him at least having a role in public life, a role which otherwise had been denied to him over the course of his career. It was not that it had been a public life without distinction, because his service as the Chief Justice of New South Wales and as a barrister of note meant that he was a very well regarded person. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said earlier, he was well regarded legally in all quarters.

Anyone who has made a contribution to this country is to be admired. In a personal sense, Sir John Kerr did not come from privileged circumstances, but he surmounted any difficulties in those circumstances. He was a person of substance."

Elitist? Pompous? Out of touch? Doesn't sound like it to me. Ambitious? Probably? Is that to be regarded as a character flaw?

How was he weak after the event?

I've never met him so can't comment personally - I just watch the TV and read the history.

Nothing you've said above, especially after considering the source of the comment, Keating, makes me want to take back anything I said though. Having said that, I don't really know.

My understanding was that he never recovered from the crisis and died a broken man. By weak, I meant that he could never come out and say "I'm sorry, I stuffed up" or "I made the wrong decision for the right reasons" or "I think I made the right decision and stand by it, whatever you think".

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Roylion


Well I'd have to dispute this on a couple of counts.

1) Prime Ministers who were subject to an appointment process don't appear to have had a squeaky-clean reputation when they were elected. It appears that being subject to an election process has made little difference whatsoever in subjecting the candidate's views or personal judgement to the populace.

Some examples:
Edmund Barton - a scandal over the shoddy affairs of his law practice that forced him to resign from the NSW Parliament in 1893. He was accused of corruption and a conflict of interest. He was also a little too fond of the good life, in particular alcohol. "Toby Tosspot" was his nickname.

Joseph Cook - vocal opponent of Asian immigration into Australia. Today I would suggest the epithet of "racist" would have been attached to his name by now.

John Curtin - sentenced to a three month prison term in 1914, from memory. He was also a heavy drinker and probable alcoholic.

Bob Hawke - heavy drinker. Was in the Guinness Book of Records for drinking 1 and a half litres of beer in twelve seconds. He revealed on a 1975 program that he had a problem with alcohol. Reputed womaniser, revealed that he had been unfaithful on several occasions.

Billy Hughes - a notorious temper. Volatile, unpredictable. Undisguised militarist who looked on war as a glorious pastime. Used the war to fight an election. Childish, selfish, self-serving ambitious man.

George Reid. Bluff, aggressive, heavy drinker and eater, shocking manners.

They're just the things I can remember. There are possibly more dark secrets held by our elected representatives. What were the rumors going around about Paul Keating after he lost the Prime Minstership?

What on earth has whether a bloke has a bad temper or likes a drink got to do with his capacity to perform in the role of Prime Minister? Comparing that to covering up child abuse is ridiculous. Look at the US, JFK was a womaniser, yet he has gone down in history as one of the best presidents ever....

And did you vote for John Howard to be our PM? I didn't and to my knowledge it was the rest of the liberal party that elected him to the top job. The same has gone for any PM.

When the day comes that the people of Australia get a chance to vote for the leader of their nation, these people will be put under alot closer scrutiny during the election process than they are currently or have been in the past.

Originally posted by Roylion

2) Hollingworth's previous record and that of most former Governor-Generals have been impeccable. In fact there was nothing to suggest about Hollingworth, before the election, that he was an unsuitable candidate...in fact the opposite appeared to be the case. If Hollingworth's name had been put to the Australian electorate as a possible Governor-General, there was every chance he would have been selected/elected. Perhaps the allegations would have surfaced during the election process...perhaps they wouldn't have.

What election? Do you mean the day you elected the person to representent your electorate? What scrutiny did the GG come under during that?

Our electoral system is an out-dated relic of pre-industrialisation that does not provide the people of Australia with the basic democratic right of voting for the executive leader of the nation (PM) OR our offical leader (GG).

The GG crisis shows that the current system of "mates club" employment of the GG position is fundamentaly flawed as it hides the appointment process from the people it is meant to serve.

 

[RoosLuver]

Andrew Gaze

 

[Roylion]

Originally posted by Briedis


What on earth has whether a bloke has a bad temper or likes a drink got to do with his capacity to perform in the role of Prime Minister? Comparing that to covering up child abuse is ridiculous. Look at the US, JFK was a womaniser, yet he has gone down in history as one of the best presidents ever....

The original comment by BSA was that the Governor-General's questionable judgment and outdated views would have been exposed in an election campaign and the inference from that is that he wouldn't have been elected. My point was that there are many leaders of political parties that have been elected and that they have had significant character flaws, poor judgement and outdated views....and still been elected.

Originally posted by Briedis

And did you vote for John Howard to be our PM? I didn't and to my knowledge it was the rest of the liberal party that elected him to the top job. The same has gone for any PM.

Oh, come on! Are you saying that the majority of the Australian public voted in the Liberal Party and then it was a complete surprise that Howard ended up being our PM? The Australian community knew that if the Liberal Party was elected, that John Howard would be the PM.

Originally posted by Briedis

When the day comes that the people of Australia get a chance to vote for the leader of their nation, these people will be put under alot closer scrutiny during the election process than they are currently or have been in the past.

The Head of State is the Queen, who is not elected. The leader of the elected government is the Prime Minister, who recommends the Governor-General to the Queen. Any popularly elected head of State, will result in a US style election campaign and will have several far-reaching, negative effects on our stable Australian political system.

Originally posted by Briedis

What election? Do you mean the day you elected the person to representent your electorate? What scrutiny did the GG come under during that?

No, I meant to say "appointment" not 'election'.

Originally posted by Briedis

Our electoral system is an out-dated relic of pre-industrialisation that does not provide the people of Australia with the basic democratic right of voting for the executive leader of the nation (PM) OR our offical leader (GG).

I disagree. If Australia was to become a republic, the worst sort of republic we could have is a directly elected President, who could conceivably be in directo political opposition to the government.

Originally posted by Briedis

The GG crisis shows that the current system of "mates club" employment of the GG position is fundamentaly flawed as it hides the appointment process from the people it is meant to serve.

The governor-general is the Queen's representative in Australia and as such is appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. As the Queen is not elected, why should her appointee and representative be elected? He/she is meant to be ABOVE politics, not IN politics.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
If the selection process of our ceremonial haed of state was a truly transparent and inclusive process where all the community get to have a say about who should be appointed - then it is highly unlikely that somebody like Hollingworth would ever have gotten the job in the first place.

The very same selection process also gave us Sir William Deane as Governor-General, and most people seemed to feel that he did an excellent job in the role.

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Roylion


The original comment by BSA was that the Governor-General's questionable judgment and outdated views would have been exposed in an election campaign and the inference from that is that he wouldn't have been elected. My point was that there are many leaders of political parties that have been elected and that they have had significant character flaws, poor judgement and outdated views....and still been elected.

Yes, but at least they have been through the process and "approved" by the Australian people.

Originally posted by Roylion

Oh, come on! Are you saying that the majority of the Australian public voted in the Liberal Party and then it was a complete surprise that Howard ended up being our PM? The Australian community knew that if the Liberal Party was elected, that John Howard would be the PM.

No, of course not. But how do the Australian people know that they have not voted for Costello or Abbott? The fact is, that the Liberal party will decide the next PM of Australia and not the Australian people. How would you feel if Howard stepped aside for Bronwyn Bishop?

Originally posted by Roylion

The Head of State is the Queen, who is not elected. The leader of the elected government is the Prime Minister, who recommends the Governor-General to the Queen. Any popularly elected head of State, will result in a US style election campaign and will have several far-reaching, negative effects on our stable Australian political system.

You say stable, I say inflexible and un-democratic....depends on your viewpoint I guess on that one.....

What makes you think that the Australian system is so stable? All systems can be abused if the wrong people get into power. Which aspects of the system do you think make it a stable system?

Originally posted by Roylion

I disagree. If Australia was to become a republic, the worst sort of republic we could have is a directly elected President, who could conceivably be in directo political opposition to the government.

So, it's better to have a "yes" man who does whatever the government wants? Surely, it is better to have a non-partisan person in that position, which is difficult to get with the current system.

If there was a non-partisan person in that position it would mean that he could oppose the government if he chose to.

Originally posted by Roylion

The governor-general is the Queen's representative in Australia and as such is appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. As the Queen is not elected, why should her appointee and representative be elected? He/she is meant to be ABOVE politics, not IN politics.

The GG role is not a monarchy. He/she is a people's representative TO the queen and therefore should be elected by those he/she represents.

It would probably be better if there was no involvement from the PM or the government to make the GG an unbiased figurehead. Perhaps a better solution would be for a list of candidates be voted on and submitted to the queen, or the Australian people, by the parliament as a whole.

 

[Portia]

Club loyalty

Not entirely relevant, but I didn't want to start a new thread on this.

Brisbane have dropped Hollingworth as their #1 ticketholder this year.

When you look at how clubs always ask people to hang on when they're in the doldrums and need people to stick by them, its ironic that Brisbane can't do the same for their #1 ticketholder, isn't it.

 

[topdon]

Originally posted by Docker_Brat
Kellie Hoggart from Hi-5.

Worth a shot.

She definitely has my vote!!!

 

[Roylion]

Originally posted by Briedis


No, of course not. But how do the Australian people know that they have not voted for Costello or Abbott? The fact is, that the Liberal party will decide the next PM of Australia and not the Australian people. How would you feel if Howard stepped aside for Bronwyn Bishop?

Frankly I couldn't care less.

Originally posted by Briedis

You say stable, I say inflexible and un-democratic....depends on your viewpoint I guess on that one.....

What makes you think that the Australian system is so stable? All systems can be abused if the wrong people get into power. Which aspects of the system do you think make it a stable system?

First of all Australia is a constitutional monarchy. A CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy helps to safeguard democracy by retaining certain constitutional powers, or at least denying them to others. A constitutional monarch is the safeguard against civil or military dictatorship. A monarch stands above politics, not owing allegiance to any political party or group and not beholden to any business interest which might fund a presidential campaign.
A monarch is able to unite a nation by representing all races, creeds, classes and political beliefs, because a monarch does not have to curry favour for votes from any section of the community.

Sir Winston Churchill once said that had the Kaiser still been German Head of State after 1918, Hitler could not have come to power, or at least not remained there. In Italy, when in 1943 he had the opportunity to do so, King Victor Emmanuel removed Mussolini from office. Romania's King Michael dismissed the dictator Antonescu and transferred his country from the Axis to the Allies, for which he was decorated by the great Powers, and in Bulgaria King Boris III (although obliged to enter the war on the side of the Axis), refused to persecute Bulgarian Jews and would not commit his forces outside his country's borders. Within the past few years, in both Spain and Thailand, monarchs have succeeded in defending democracy against the threat of permanent military take-over. Spanish historian Javier Tussel once stated: "Monarchy works in Spain because we are a very divided country. ... King Juan Carlos stresses respect for regional differences, so that now you feel Spanish, but you can also feel like a Basque or Catalan." The fact that the king recently gave his blessings to the marriage of his daughter to a Basque popular figure of course helped, as did the fact that the king spoke the Catalan language on a visit to Barcelona recently.

There is a similar situation in Belgium. When King Albert succeeded his brother, King Baudouin, he took the oath of office in French, German and Dutch." This may not seem like much to us, here, who are not as aware the long ethnic struggles between the Walloons and the Flemish who form modern Belgium, but for the Belgians it made all the difference and united the country as never before.

Originally posted by Briedis

So, it's better to have a "yes" man who does whatever the government wants? Surely, it is better to have a non-partisan person in that position, which is difficult to get with the current system.

If there was a non-partisan person in that position it would mean that he could oppose the government if he chose to.

See above. The Governor-General is the hereditary monarch's representative and as such is not a yes man. Only the Queen can sack the Governor-General. How is (or how has) the Governor-General ever been a 'yes' man to any Prime Minister or government? Any examples? Was Sir John Kerr? He was selected by the man he eventually sacked?

Originally posted by Briedis

The GG role is not a monarchy. He/she is a people's representative TO the queen and therefore should be elected by those he/she represents.

That's incorrect. The Governor-General is not (and has never been) the people's representative to the Queen. The Governor-General position acts as a de-facto monarchy and exercises all the monarchy's powers under the Australian constitution. That is the office's only role. The Prime Minister and the other Ministers of the Crown (also called the Queen's Ministers) are the people's representatives to the Queen.

Originally posted by Briedis

It would probably be better if there was no involvement from the PM or the government to make the GG an unbiased figurehead. Perhaps a better solution would be for a list of candidates be voted on and submitted to the queen, or the Australian people, by the parliament as a whole.

The Governor-General is not meant to be a politician. As soon as a list of candidates is submitted to the Australian people for sselection, the Governor-General position becomes politicised. God forbid, we have a US presidential election style campaign to select the Governor-General. They are (like the monarch) supposed to be ABOVE politics, not IN politics.

Margaret Thatcher once stated that anyone who believes a politician would be a better head of state than a monarch, obviously didn't know many politicians.

Has anyone ever suggested that the Governor-General is a biased figurehead? I believe our last two governor-generals Zelman Cowan and Sir William Deane carried out their job competently and impartially.

Gough Whitlam recommended Sir John Kerr to the Queen. Kerr later sacked Whitlam. Certainly no yes man.

I would argue that the people who have been Governor-General (no matter who they have been selected by) have their done their job and implemented the Australian constitution when required to as they saw best. Is anyone claiming the current set of checks and balances on politician's political power in our EXISTING system is not working well?