JONES:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
JONES:
Was the appointment of Dr Hollingworth in retrospect an error?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well retrospective thoughts are as the words imply. At the time I thought it was a very good appointment. Obviously things emerged which I was not aware of and I suggest with respect to those who are suggesting that some kind of vetting procedure would have turned them up, I'm not sure that it would have. But at the time the appointment was seen, although some had reservations about the possible blurring of the line between church and state. Overall the quality of the man was universally applauded including by the then Labor leader Kim Beazley who said he had an outstanding past life of commitment to underprivileged people.
JONES:
Labor attacked you yesterday for not sacking the Governor-General after the adverse findings about his handling of the child sexual abuse case when he was Archbishop of Brisbane. Again I know you've responded to that before . What is your response to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well they attacked me for not sacking him last year and then of course when the report came out you'll recall I was going overseas that day and obviously while I was away the rape litigation emerged. That was subsequently discontinued. Then of course we fast forward to where we are now and the Governor-General has tendered his resignation. The reason I decided last year not to sack him is that I did not believe that grounds, proper constitutional grounds existed for me to recommend his removal. You can't recommend somebody's removal from a position like that purely on the grounds that they've made a gross error of judgement in a previous job. Now it was a bad mistake and he's copped a lot of criticism for it but it was in a previous job. Even the Anglican Church report when it came out acknowledged he had acted in good faith. Now I think he made a mistake. He obviously recognises that now and all of us are united in our opposition to any child abuse. We're all strongly opposed to that, so is he. But obviously he dealt with that matter in accordance with the practise of the past which a lot of people regarded as inappropriate in the early '90s and certainly people regard as completely inappropriate now.
JONES:
It has been hasn't Prime Minister a ferocious attack? The perception, whether deliberate or not, is that this man by his own volition sitting as a committee of one decided on this course of action, but there were other bishops present, there were psychiatrists, there were a range of people consulted, then subsequently the same man has faced a rape allegation based on identification in a newsletter of the Brotherhood of St Laurence dated June 1964 when his picture didn't appear in the newsletter. He will never be given a chance to defend himself against that, it's just that the matter has been withdrawn. Do Australians worry about the direction in which we're taking in devouring one another in order to claim for whatever agenda a particular prey?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have tried to prevent that occurring in this case. That is why I took the view last year, despite the opinion polls and despite the commentaries of many that I should remove the Governor-General, I tried to look at it objectively. I felt I had a responsibility to do that and looking at it objectively I didn't think the grounds existed. Now the Governor-General in the end has made a judgement he should resign because he clearly accepts that he can no longer command the support of the public for whatever reason and whether it's fair or unfair he's nonetheless reached the conclusion that he can no longer command the support of the public and therefore to go on risk damaging the office. Now that's a mature responsible correct judgement that he's reached and that's why he's in fact, that is why he's decided to go.
JONES:
It still leaves Australia though the subject of an inquiry which was a private inquiry where the appropriate rules of evidence didn't apply. [inaudible] he wasn't given an opportunity for cross examination.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is all of that. There is no doubt about that and these are some of the things that were pointed out at the time by him and whether he pursued that matter further and whether he can pursue that matter further will now be a matter for him as a private citizen. He is entitled to fair treatment like anybody else. In saying that I don't want for a moment to sound in anyway insensitive or unsupporting of people's concerns about child abuse. You do have the separate the two. I mean after all the man himself has not been guilty of any personal wrongdoing. Unfortunately because you are dealing with such a distasteful subject there's a danger in the minds of some in the community the two sort of morph together and we don't want that happening.
JONES:
You did discuss his appointment did you with senior colleagues before you appointed....?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I discussed it. I accept responsibility for it. It was my decision in the end and I'm not trying in any way to shift responsibility but I was asked who I took counsel from and amongst those I took counsel from were four of my senior Cabinet colleagues.
JONES:
Will you be changing in any way the process of appointment of a new Governor-General?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to alter the convention that has been followed by all Australian prime ministers since 1931 of making the recommendation to the Queen. Now I will obviously talk to a few people. I've already done so. I've talked to my senior colleagues and I reserve the right to confidentially talk to others as I'm sure other prime ministers have done. I mean I am certain that the procedure I followed in relation to the appointment of Peter Hollingworth was the same as Paul Keating followed in relation to Sir William Deane, and Malcolm Fraser followed in relation to Sir Ninian Stephen. I'm sure they didn't have formal vetting procedures and in fact if anybody had suggested it they probably said well that's ridiculous, we've appointed people who are well known in public life, they've been on the Bench, they've been through the public mincer already, if anything was around it would have already come out.
JONES:
When do you expect the new appointment to be made?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would expect quite soon. I don't mean within the next few days but it's not something that I would want to leave unattended to for several months.
JONES:
But contrary to the headlines there is no constitutional crisis.....
PRIME MINISTER:
There has never been a constitutional crisis.
JONES:
It's not much difference from the Governor-General that died in office.
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly, exactly. There is no crisis. I mean we are dealing with the ceremonial head of state. It's an important position but political authority in our country rests with the elected government headed by the prime minister and the cabinet. That's our system. Bob Carr put it very well yesterday. I agree with him. He said that he doesn't want the system changed. He in fact is on record as a republican of even saying that if we became a republic we should retain the description Governor-General and that person should continue to be appointed in the same was as the Governor-General is now.
JONES:
Yes I think Premier Carr said yesterday on the selection of the Governor-General I believe in prime ministerial government. If you have the Governor-General effectively selected by a vote in the House or a joint sitting you are giving the Governor-General an independent mandate.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is right. I mean people can favour a change in our whole system to a presidential system if they want a quasi-presidential system, but our system is the power and therefore the responsibility presides with the prime minister because I'm elected. I mean the people elected me into a seat and my colleagues elect me to lead their party. That is our system, and the Governor-General performs a ceremonial duty. It's important but I think it's a valuable separation of the ceremonial from the real roles of government and I think that's why our system works well and why it's passed through this without damaging the institution. Institutions are very resilient. They survive things like this very well. I mean years ago when we had the abdication crisis in the 1930s people said that was the end of the British Monarchy. I mean it didn't turn out to be the case at all. It probably was strengthened as a consequence and you just have to be very careful if you actually look at what is occurring. What has occurred here has been a seamless dealing with the issue. He stood aside, an administrator was appointed, he decided to resign, the administrator continues, when a new Governor-General has been chosen then the Governor-General takes over from the administrator - seamless, uninterrupted, no crisis, life goes on, government goes on.
JONES:
Okay. Thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]