Political Corrections

with Mungo MacCallum

While many of us would argue that John Howard is one of the most appalling things that has ever happened to Australian politics, few would deny that he is also one of the shrewdest.

The instinctive rat- cunning which showed him the way to appeal to the lowest common denominator in popular sentiment has been honed over the years by bitter experience and ruthless tuition into one of the most viciously Effective weapons of mass dysfunction ever to preside over the seventh circle of Canberra.

In recent years he has inspired the crassest jingoism and triumphalism among his supporters and fear, loathing and despair among his opponents, but as far as the opinion polls can measure, he has scarcely put a foot wrong.

So:how on earth did he make such an obvious mistake in his appointment of the turbulent Archbishop of Brisbane to the position of head of state?And why on earth didn't he do something about it 15 months ago,, when it rst became clear that Hollingsworth was not merely controversial - as a cleric of any denomination was bound to be as the gurehead of a multicultural and constitutionally secular nation - but completely unacceptable because of problems from his past, which were increasingly reverberating around his present and could be expected to intensify in his future? In the appointment itself many discerned the vigorous social climbing and inveterate snobbery of Janette Howard, who is said to exert some in uence over her husband in such matters.June 200 1 was also a time when the government looked to be on the way out; the promotion of Peter Hollingworth may also have been seen as a last, de ant thumbing of the nose at the politically correct elites whose approval Howard had given up hope of winning.And Howard's perseverance, in the face of all commonsense over the months of mounting outrage after the scandals rst broke and Hollingworth showed neither guilt nor, more importantly, remorse (yet another pig-headed politician who can' t say sorry), may have been no more than his habitual refusal to admit he was wrong.

But the fact remains that this is one of the few times when even he can't duckshove the blame onto his hapless colleagues or claim that he was badly advised and insist that the buck stops somewhere else.

The appointment is his and his alone, as are any bouquets or brickbats which may result.

Although this is being written before Howard's own maudlin self justi cation for his behaviour has been made public, one curious aspect has already emerged.

Howard has constantly insisted that nothing Hollingworth has done during his term as Governor- General warrants his dismissal.This is of course technically true - although some would argue that the repeated references to predatory fourteen year olds makes him un t for any public position whatsoever.On Howard's reckoning, the sins of the past - as always - simply don't come into it.

This position is of course untenable; it would justify the appointment of a mass murderer, provided no murders actually took place after he had moved into Yarralumla.

But more importantly it overlooks the whole raison d'etre for having a governor-general in the rst place.Our head of state exists largely to do something which our head of government can't ever do:represent all Australians.The prime minister, at best, will represent about 5 5 per cent.The G-G, theoretically at least above party politics, can speak for us all, always provided he exercises suitable discretion.

From the moment of his appointment Hollingworth ’s position as an Anglican prelate ensured that he would be unacceptable to a sizable minority; the revelations since, and Hollingworth ’s response to them, have seen that grow to an overwhelming consensus.In spite of the best PR team taxpayers ’ money could buy, he was at the end reduced to communicating with his subjects by carefully scripted video clips – in the manner,, as The Sydney Morning Herald ’ s Mike Seccombe perceptively noted, of Osama bin Laden.

And yet still Howard refused to act.He made it clear that he would be happy to accept Hollingworth ’s resignation if it was offered;he still refused to accept that it was his responsibility to demand it, if only because the man could no longer do the job for which he was being so lavishly rewarded.Now he has a new responsibility: to find a successor.He may or may not take the advice being offered and consult widely and publicly before doing so, but in the end the choice remains his and his alone.

Given that it is a four year term, and therefore (barring another stuff up)his last chance, he may as well indulge himself.

Why not satisfy the public demand for a woman and earn a few points at home at the same time:give Janette the job.They could then knock down the wall between Kirribilli House and Admiralty House and convert their joint residences into a handy duplex.And Janette could summon him to her come before her for a last swearing-in.

They ’d both love it, and what a great television grab.