Personal narratives? You mean by that she’s strictly expressing a personal opinion right?

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 third most over-used word or phrase behind ‘Oh my God’ and ‘Are you serious’.

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.

In an interview with The Age, Ms Bryce recalled her own health failing so badly when she had three children under the age of five that she contracted pneumonia and felt she would not be able to get out of bed to return to work, though she came from a generation that was taught “you just get on with it”.

“All women need support when they’re having their babies and their little families are in formation,” she said.

“I have to say I have a lot of concern about the numbers of women — and men, now — who are not getting the support that they need. There are not the families and the communities around that there used to be.”

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.

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.

Deal with it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

EMEMBER. Her predecessor Sir William Deane, was one of the most respected GG`s
we have ever had.

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.

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.