Wednesday’s Age quotes the Australian Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, as strongly supporting the introduction of statutory paid maternity leave for Australian women, and paid parental leave in general.
Ms. Bryce is also reported by the ABC to be “optimistic about the future of the Murray-Darling Basin”.
Both of these issues are highly topical in Australia at the present time, and Australia’s public and major political actors are far from unanimous about them. Each of Ms. Bryce’s statements would be strongly contested from different points of the political compass. Not surprisingly, the Governor-General’s statements have therefore been seen by some as breaching the convention that Australia’s head of state should be “above politics” - an issue which invariably arises in debates about the form of an Australian republic.
As has often been noted, the formal letter of the Australian Constitution places no limitations whatsoever on the Governor-General’s power to make political statements. Indeed, a literal reading of the Constitution, in the absence of any knowledge of how Australia’s political system actually works, would lead one to conclude that the Governor-General wields the executive power of the Commonwealth. In practice, and in ordinary circumstances, the Governor-General and State Governors abide by the Westminster Convention that executive power is actually exercised by the Prime Minister and Cabinet (and their State equivalents), and that the Governor-General’s role is largely formal and ceremonial, except in unusual circumstances such as those of November 1975 when the GG is required to act as a Constitutional “umpire”.
This concept of the limited conventional role of the Governor-General is also held by some to include the principle that the GG should not make statements of a political nature. Be that as it may, Ms. Bryce is not the first Governor-General to make statements and speeches on topical questions. Her predecessor Sir William Deane often spoke on the issue of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians (to the annoyance of former Prime Minister John Howard), and Deane’s predecessor Bill Hayden also made a number of speeches putting forward potentially contentious socially liberal and economically neo-liberal perspectives. Another former Australian Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen, argued that one of the GG’s most important roles was “To help interpret the nation to itself”. Of course, such “interpretations” must be made in the form of public speeches and statements, and will inevitably be contested in a democracy.
There is, then, no unanimity or anything approaching it on whether the Governor is bound by convention to avoid making statements on political questions. If no consensus exists on a purported constitutional convention, the convention itself is arguably non-existent.
Nonetheless, if one of the roles of a non-executive head of state (whether the GG or the president of a future Australian republic) is to be that of a constitutional umpire in fraught circumstances, it is clearly desirable that their public statements stop short of being seen to favour one or other political player in such circumstances. The problem here is threefold: where the line on the Head of State’s “interpretations” should be drawn, whether any such line can be effectively drawn either by convention or by codification, and what constitutional mechanisms should exist for keeping the HOS on one side of this line and redressing any trespasses over the line.
I don’t profess to have a well-developed view on these issues, apart from the view that democratic public debate would benefit from the kind of interventions by a non-executive Head of State which would not be aimed at supporting one or other side of party politics or of a polarised debate, but would seek to raise new angles and air novel perspectives on issues, and draw attention to issues not usually the focus of political attention. For example, I’m told that the debate on ecological sustainability in Sweden got a major kickstart when the King agreed to publicly endorse and publish a non-partisan, but clearly worded, statement on the issue assembled by a group of concerned scientists.
What do others think?
The GG is already under attack by the thought police at the Opposition Gazette led by the odious Christopher Pearson who wrote a truly offensive column a few weeks ago. http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/09/christopher-pearson-on-rudds-gg-and.html But I doubt any of that pathetic mob will shut her up. She a goody
I think a GG would clearly cross the line on convention if they explicitly criticised the policies of a political party. I don’t see them highlighting
an issue, by saying visiting an aboriginal community or the Murray Darling basin as particularly controversial (there will always be people who complain).
I don’t think these conventions are at all easily formalised. And I’d rather see the office abolished (say merged into the PM) than have a directly elected president which can lead to the confusion to who is the real leader, the GG in practice really just being a figurehead at the moment.
Paul, I think you’ve summarised the issue fairly well.
The trouble with the Governor-General taking positions on controversial issues is that if they regularly start to conflict with one side of politics, they might well lose the trust of that side of politics when it comes to their most important role as the tiebreaker when parliament chucks a tanty. That would be a very, very bad thing.
On the specific case, she’s been a public advocate of paid parental leave for decades, so I think it would be silly of her to disavow any comment at all on the topic. Nor does it appear she weighed in to the specifics of a parental leave model - she was commenting on her own personal experiences by the looks. I think that’s probably acceptable, but I personally wouldn’t want the GG going any further.
I would agree with Paul’s excellent suggestions on how a GG might usefully contribute to the nation without devolving into partisan advocacy.
We have ex PM`s, Judges, Religous Leaders, Union leaders,all chipping in on what they think. Why can`t our GG, as she is more QUALIFED than most of them.
EMEMBER. Her predecessor Sir William Deane, was one of the most respected GG`s
we have ever had.
philip denham,
she may well be more qualified than most, but she has a new job now.
I agree with Paul N and Robert M: it’s difficult. Judges have to shut up as soon as they become a judge. Perhaps GGs are best to temper their public speaking somewhat. Not a vow of silence, just some moderation.
And she breaks droughts, as well.
A useful comparison might be this interview with Michael Jeffery, on which he expounds on some of his socially conservative views.
It seems he’s gone at least as far as Bryce did in expounding his views, though it was towards the end of his tenure, not at the start.
I think your last paragraph puts it well, Paul.
I personally wouldn’t have a problem with the GG professing personal views on certain issues, if that were to show a certain policy area or issue of note in a different light or a new angle. As Chris says, criticising one Party’s policies would be going too far.
The role of “National Thought Provoker” seems like an ideal part for a non-partisan Head of State to play. Partisan politics can make people very close minded and narrow viewed. If such comments simply made people resasses and reconsider a particular issue from another angle, that would be a good thing. Getting the average Aussie punter to stop and consider a new idea at all would be great.
Meanwhile, Andrew Bolt unloads about the Governor-General representing TEH LEFT.
The GG’s supposed to be like the queen, in that she can’t publicly express partisan political views and I reckon she’ll stay within those guidelines.
But she won’t be a pushover and she won’t tolerate mealy-mouthed rubbish from anyone and the fact that she’s got Pearson, Devine and Bolt foaming at the mouth already is a good sign.
Bolt’s latest rant confirmed my opinion that she’s a good choice. It’s no secret that she’s long been an advocate for paid maternity leave, so his attack on her for supporting it is hypocritical, as far as I’m concerned. And his knicker-knotting over “the promise to be open, responsive and faithful to the contemporary (my emphasis) thinking and working of Australian society” seems just a tad paranoid to me. Like his fellow RWDB commentwators, he needs to have a bex and a good lie down.
IMO, she’ll breathe fresh air into the position and give it the shake-up it needs. Yay, QB.
There is a world of difference between the GG expressing their own party partisan views as apposed to visiting communities so that people in those communities have the chance of expressing their experiences publicly. From the linked articles above it seems that this Governor-General is careful to stay with personal narratives, including her own, which I think is fine and totally acceptable.
Some sections of political class and media may be uncomfortable with real accounts of people affected by relevant issues when those personal accounts could show the dominant political understandings of issues and subsequent policy prescriptions as being way off the mark, to put it mildly. I think the unwritten rule during the Howard years was that there is a consensus about how issues are framed and hence how they are to be addressed politically, and the attacks by the right were about marginalising any dissenting voices and trying to contrast those dissenting voices individually with the bulk consensus. That isn’t how liberal democracies are supposed to work. The right commentary is presuming a political hegemony that isn’t there and that is only a fantasy. That’s why they have to bully.
But anyway, that effort to marginalise dissenting voices is more difficult when there is a smiling - stylish and respectable - Governor-General standing next to the person telling the rest of us how things really are for them in their life. Would you prefer to hear people’s real stories or the fantasies of those in the political class and media who persistently blow bubbles to the wind in their professional life?
Wednesday’s Age quotes the Australian Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, as strongly supporting the introduction of statutory paid maternity leave for Australian women, and paid parental leave in general.
.
Oh fab. Just what we need a partisan Gov-Gen. Here’s an idea Canberra people: Stop talking to Washington DC on the phone so much. I’m a little tired of this adoption of American methods. I don;t know whether you’ve noticed but their whole system is fucked!!!!
.
A Gov-Gen is a rubber-stamp and ribbon snapper. That’s it.
And, um, dissolves governments occasionally.
Personal narratives? You mean by that she’s strictly expressing a personal opinion right? Narrative: the third most over-used word or phrase behind ‘Oh my God’ and ‘Are you serious’.
.
She’s the gov-gen right? She’s being quoted in a newspaper viz her views right? It ain’t personal it’s public and it’s totally inappropriate.
.
Please remember boys and girls that when you play partisan politics in the non-partisan part of the playground then the other side will do it too.
“A useful comparison might be this interview with Michael Jeffery, on which he expounds on some of his socially conservative views.”
What? That the Australian cricket team shouldn’t sledge? The self-aggrandising bastard!
I think Zelman Cowen’s inane observation about the role of the GG being to reflect us back to ourselves was indicative of the effect that Yarralumla and meeting the Queen in private has on previously quite well-balanced jurists.
The role simply requires the incumbent to cur ribbons, open things and sign Bills into law. It doesn’t require some sort of national bleeding heart to run a commentary on what the government should be doing more or less about. If the nominee finds that unacceptable, don’t take the job.
I think that Quentin Bryce is a good choice and more than most, she’ll understand that Australians elect a federal government to frame the national destiny.
The GG is there to represent the Queen (under our current arrangements) and the Queen doesn’t offer opinions on matters of political import. Neither should the GG.
Rudd et al should have realised. Newsflash, boys: QB is a matriarch. A fair dinkum, ridge-didge Antipodean warrior queen. No way is she going to keep her own counsel. The twee front is just that. fellas. Fooled ya didn’t we.
Deal with it.
“No way is she going to keep her own counsel”
Oh yes she is jinmaro. She’s already met the Queen and her stated deference to the awe and wonder of “Her Majesty’ was telling.
But I have to say, that if you’re going to have a National Ribbon Cutter, someone as elegant and soignee as QB is hard to beat.
Which was my original point, way back when, as to the reason for, and extent of, Ms Bryce’s “success”.
From The Age article listed above:
That is an observation starting from her experience and then noting that much of the family and community support that was available when she was raising her kids are not available in today’s society. I don’t see that as a party political stance. Support for people in community goes far beyond anything that a federal government can provide. Its a statement about life in our community - and she is making an effort to talk to a wide variety of people in her role as GG.
Contrast that with something you might see from a lobby group in Canberra - give us $$$ million for #### and you can put statement XXXXX about supporting the [environment/business/employment/blah blah] in your govt advertising for the next election. That is political. I don’t think commenting on the reality facing working people and making an effort to talk with the people involved is party political.
If there is a ground swell of support for government to help those most disadvantaged in the community then surely that is something an opportunistic opposition would take up - and then it would be inappropriate for a GG to lobby on behalf of one party or comment on the proposals. But the GG would still be within bounds to comment on the life experiences of people in our community even if there is a political difference being built around that issue - but in that case she probably wouldn’t need to because the media is on the case already.
So, Adrien, you think support for the parents of young children is ‘partisan’? What does that mean the other side believes?
Adrien @ 14,
Well no, not quite as I understand the word. The term narrative has been taken up in politics to mean something of a theme for a particular government and how that theme has been put into policy over time. I would associate the meaning of narrative more with story telling. Fictional movies have a structure around stories and narratives while a documentary presumes to present footage to support an opinion (by being selective about editing and the footage shown). The best documentaries also tell a story - like Rats in the Ranks for an example. You can never completely separate out the two. Its a bit like the difference between science with its opinions and humanities with its reams of texts and sources. Science still has its stories and some things in the humanities are beyond dispute.
A personal opinion is usually not a narrative, but a person may arrive at a personal opinion through their personal experiences and express a narrative as to why they hold that opinion.
Narrative - the story behind the policy - the context. There are a plurality of narratives and stories. People relate to stories more so than bald assertions of opinion, so it makes political sense to wrap policy in a narrative form. That does not mean that all expressions of narrative are directly political - or party political.