The past seven days of the Morrison ministries scandal have exposed the governor-general’s office to a rare bout of public examination, with questions over its role in allowing Scott Morrison’s power grab to remain secret.
Transparency? Secrecy? The governor-general’s office has forthrightly rejected that it had any obligation to ensure Morrison shared his secret news with others. At the same time, it has now said it would back change.
“The office supports a more transparent process to ensure that any appointments made under section 64 [of the constitution] are made public,” a spokesman said yesterday.
“Noting that these reporting responsibilities are the prerogative of the government of the day, the office will await the recommendations of the current process [the review ordered by Prime Minister Albanese] before commenting further.”
Whatever the findings of the review, the governor-general’s office is not accustomed to explaining its actions publicly. Indeed it is exempted by legislation from needing to respond to FOI requests, other than on routine administrative questions.
The question was clarified in a High Court ruling in 2013. A Brisbane nurse, Karen Kline, attempted to discover the truth of how an Order of Australia award is made but ran up against a wall of secrecy. Kline had nominated a man called Lawrence Laikind for his record of fighting disability discrimination. Laikind, who is vision-impaired, had just the sort of qualifications and achievements you might want in awards presented to an everyday hero. Yet he did not receive one — precisely why is not known.
Kline asked the Council of the Order of Australia’s secretariat for documents, processes and guidelines that informed its decision, but it refused to give any. Her freedom of information request was refused. She then took the case to the Federal Court and ultimately, in 2013, to the High Court where she was represented pro-bono by Ron Merkel QC.
The High Court ruled that documents relating to the governor-general’s “substantive powers and functions” were excluded from disclosure by operation of s 6A(1) of the FOI Act.
The Order of Australia is core business for the governor-general’s office. As Crikey‘s legal expert Michael Bradley explained it, the granting of an honour is “a prerogative of the crown, exercising a power [the Queen’s] granted herself under the terms of the instrument by which she created the order. She’s delegated the power to the G-G but it’s still hers.”
The opaqueness of decision-making in the governor-general’s office — whoever occupies it — has made it vulnerable to political exploitation, especially in the granting of honours. It also puts it at odds with the transparency demanded of executive government.
How defensible does that remain in 2022?
The Morrison secret ministries saga may have breathed new life into the republican movement, which can point not only to the impotence of the office of the governor-general but to the wall of secrecy which surrounds it.
Time for a republic? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
These occurrences previously were issued in the GG’s daily diary but some items have not been under Hurley. He needs to explain why
That is worth knowing and should be followed up.
Join the dots. Former head of the ADF which makes Morrison look like a paragon of openness. These people, after all, ignored the entire SAS debacle while telling us all what a fab job was being done. Hurley is another God botherer who was appointed from his gig as NSW governor (cushy post ADF gig #2 thanks to Mike Baird also a God botherer) as G-G by another God botherer. No surprises in his actions.
I know I’m showing my age, but whatever happened to vice-regal notices, eg:
10.30am- shot some grouse in the gardens
11.00 am- swore the PM into three new portfolios.
Has this practice fallen victim to the digital age as people don’t have to “visit” Government House for transactions?
I recall that on 11 November 1975, Kerr’s meeting with Barwick the previous day was listed in the notices (but no-one twigged). Now there’s a meeting that Kerr would surely have liked to keep quiet, but the then rules didn’t allow it, as I understand it.
Happy to be put straight by those with expertise in the area.
The defenders of the G-G’s role (ie the “he had no choice but to sign whatever a PM puts in front of him” line) by various people including here at Crikey leaves us wrth a bizarro situation. All a PM needs to do is assure the G-G that a proposed course is legal (app’ly not even in a written form from legal officers) and the G-G signs off. And if needs be stays sthum and cooperates in keeping the actions secret. So much for the fabled reserve powers that right wingers used to rabbit on about as q defence of our system. I still belive that Hurley will resign before Morrison does. His position is fatally compromised.
After watching this GG-Morrison shit show unfold I’m all for a republic. What does this GG do for the hundreds of thousands of dollars it is costing us to keep him him in presidential style? What does he do all day? What is he doing to protect our democracy from jumped up upstarts like Morrison, who reckons he is anointed by some god or other to fuck with us?
As I understand it the GG was Morrison’s pick. Since we hardly heard from or about Hurley since he was appointed it’s likely few Australians even knew his name. That wasn’t the case for his predecessors Quentin Bryce, or William Dean, for example. They were very much out and about, busy, involved and by all accounts well respected. Hurley? Not so much. Not even during the pandemic when you would think he should have shown some leadership.
I’ve assumed he was chosen exactly because he is a rather colourless individual and would be compliant. Ergo he’d do as Morrison asked, and few or no questions asked. So here we are. I hope he has the decency to resign.