So what of the governor-general now that the Albanese government has backed away from funding his favoured charity?
The Australian Future Leaders Foundation (AFLF) might have been well intentioned — aimed as it was at creating a network for young Australian achievers — but it reeked of the monarchy. There is ample evidence that the foundation, proposed by people with links to the royal family and promoted by the queen’s representative in Australia, received special treatment from Scott Morrison, whose government was prepared to back it with $18 million and special tax status.
The idea was always out of kilter with Australia in 2022. For months the funding decision sat there as just another example of Morrison’s trademark abuse of process. But that all changed with revelations of Morrison’s secret ministries, signed off by Governor-General David Hurley. That raised a perception that the prime minister and the governor-general gave special treatment to each other. (The G-G’s office has firmly rejected the allegation.)
The grant is gone, but we are left with a host of serious, unresolved questions — not only for the incumbent governor-general but also for his office.
It’s the connections, old boy
Proponents of the AFLF were able to gain the kind of access to the governor-general’s office that other charities would kill for. The record shows there were a dozen meetings between the G-G’s office and the foundation’s executive director, upper-crust Englishman Chris Hartley. That then translated into access to the Prime Minister’s Office as the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet took the running on backing Hartley’s regal idea with taxpayer money.
The conflicts of interest
As Crikey reported earlier this week, the governor-general was ultimately in the position of signing into law two legislative amendments that had been passed specifically for the benefit of the AFLF. One was to enable the payment of $18 million (with a guarantee of more) and the other was for the much coveted Deductible Gift Recipient tax status.
These conflicts are separate from the perceived conflict of Scott Morrison, the prime minister of the day, overseeing the funding of a charity promoted by the governor-general. The legislation enabling the multimillion-dollar, multiyear funding of the foundation describes it as “an initiative of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in consultation with the Office of the Official Secretary of the Governor-General”, a description that places it perilously close to being a joint venture.
Does this not, in theory, compromise the independence of the G-G’s office?
Truth to be told, what are the connections?
Citizen journalists who go by the Twitter names Ronni Salt and Jommy Tee have produced deep research showing a series of interactions between Chris Hartley and Governor-General David Hurley, raising the suggestion that their relationship is more than portrayed in Senate estimates hearings earlier this year. This may or may not be the case, but it does call for an answer.
There are also the ties that bind Chris Hartley LVO and the secretary of the governor-general, Paul Singer MVO.
Singer is a former officer in the Royal Australian Navy. Relevantly for this saga, Singer is an alumnus of CSCLeaders, a program for Commonwealth leaders. Chris Hartley is listed as a non-executive director of CSC Global alumni.
Singer was appointed a Member of the Royal Victorian Order, a royal honour he was granted in 2016. Hartley received his royal honour in 2000.
An office besieged by politics
The actions of the governor-general and his office may not be illegal, but they are a bad look.
On another level, the foundation saga also represents yet another chapter in the former Coalition government’s assaults on the integrity of government institutions. The Coalition destroyed the independence of the AAT by stacking it with political mates. It routinely appointed political friends to boards and agencies.
When it came to the governor-general, the Coalition used the Order of Australia awards relentlessly to stack the awards body and to reward its political friends with honours, rubber-stamped by the G-G. Ultimately Scott Morrison believed it was totally acceptable to use the G-G’s office to give himself more and more power, not even bothering to front up to the governor-general in person, so disdainful did he become.
Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue found that Morrison’s actions with respect to the G-G were legal but breached “the principle of responsible government”.
There are calls for the governor-general to step down or to explain himself more fully.
At the very least the net result is that the office of the governor-general has been left tarnished from its dealings with Morrison. It is an open question if the incumbent can repair it, having failed to confront it.
There is enough now to show a pattern. At the least, Hartley has several times shown poor judgement and has not preserved the detachment that is required for a Governor General. His best option is to resign and save further embarrassment.
The G-G is Hurley.
Yes. Sorry, my mistake.
No, his best option is head down, do the job. Resigning just brings further tarnish.
Too late for clinging on to work. Resigning now is not as much tarnish as ongoing opprobrium, likely further revelations and being sacked. Better to go while the going is good.
Agreed. His term expires in a couple years & he will be on best behaviour in the interim.
Respect is very hard to win back and this man has shown a number of times that he does not understand the responsibilities of the position.
And hewill be a reminder of a plant like Howard’s GG which while it still illustrates the nonsense role of GG, was a pathetic example of foolishness
“Best” behaviour? I suggest his willingness to cooperate with Morrison’s trashing of conventions suggest we have seen (than heavens) the last ex-ADF type as GG. hard to imagine Quentin Bryce agreeing to sign whatever Morrsion put in front of her and then brazenly carrying on as if “what a dazzling job of work I
‘ve done”.
Admit your mistake and go quietly.
I disagree. Many people resign from office when the optics are bad. Hurley could state something like “whilst I have done nothing wrong in the process of funding of the AFLF, I understand that there could be a perception of conflict of interest, and Australia is better off without a cloud hanging over the office of GG; I wish every success to my successor”. Hurley then leaves the office with dignity, and we can all move on.
That it’s the current fashion for resignation to be seen as an effective exorcism of all demons is a good reason not to do it, in my book. It’s all just for show, isn’t it?
Hurley has made 2 decisions showing of bad judgement. The renovations thing, and the charity. Neither are hanging offences. Nobody had yet convinced me why they should be considered such.
In the other, Big One — the Ministries thing — he did his job. He followed the lawful advice of his Prime Minister. I know the so-called “citizen journalists” like to ignore this constitutional inconvenience entirely, but ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. The Solicitor-General’s advice was clear. There was never any doubt — if one had doubt, then one misunderstands entirely our system of constitutional government.
There’s the 35 Afghan (what do we call them?) he signed off on.
What about the fact that the ministeries’ appointments were not in his diary?
How very odd. It’s actually the opposite, the notion of resigning with honour is an old tradition that has fallen out fashion. These days the fashion is to hang on for as long as possible, regardless of the disgrace, no matter what.
You’re right there’s no hanging offence. Nobody says there is. But Hurley is bringing the office of Governor General into disrepute, and if he was a decent sort he would go now.
I acknowledge your submission (and that of Peter of Perth Hills to which I was immediately replying) is more of a suggestion about a dignified exit, which is fair enough though on balance I disagree. But you’re right, my rant should have been directed at those that are saying it is a hanging offence (worthy of sacking, I mean), here and elsewhere.
If he was a decent sort Morrison woud not have chosen him.
He remembered he went to a dog show, but on 5 separate occasions completely forgot he signed off on Morrison making himself minister of a different ministry.
That is really pushing believability.
He didn’t do his job properly with the multi-ministries. With something that contentious (especially the ones in 2021), he should have sought the advice of the Solicitor General, but didn’t. And if he didn’t think of it, his office should have strongly advised it.
But of course, his Official Secretary, Paul Singer, was part of the plans for the $18mil charity. So he wouldn’t want any obstacles in the way, hmm?
MayBee: the Solicitor-General in his published advice to Albenese cleared Hurley. Keep up.
He did not clear the GG. He said there was nothing illegal but acknowledged the violation of democratic conventions was a serious problem. Our democracy relies on conventions.
Spot on. If Morrison did wrong then so did Hurley. If Hurley did no wrong neither did Morrison.
Cleared Hurley? Trashing conventions is part of the job of GG? Not seeking advice on legality let alone does the proposed action fit our conventions? Hurley was central to the trashing of the conventions the SG outlined. The “no smoking gun cos it was legal” is just childish.
The official claim that “a GG is entitled to assume a PM’s advice will be lawful” is staggeringly wide open to abuse by a future PM with a suitably compliant GG. Just doing his job and signing off on anything put in front of him/her.
He kept it secret. He’s shifty. He should go.
Just because it’s within the rules doesn’t make it ethical
Would you forgive slavery?
Constitutional inconvenience? That would be agreeing to go along with actions that trashed conventions. Since our system relies on convention this is no small matter. He had a choice: go along with something that screamed improper conduct or resign. The threat of resignation (and a public explanation) would surely have stopped the nonsense cold. Instead Hurley, in your view, “did his job”. How did this benefit our system? I see how it benefitted Hurley directly. It startles me that some people (eg most Criley writers) casually claim that a GG is simply a rubber stamp. That is alarming.
Leaves with dignity? Only if you buy the Crikey line of “the GG had no choice but to sign Morrison’s forms”. He has zero credibility regardless of the disgraceful lobbying for a pet project. The man does not have a clue. But then the pattern of secrecy and contempt for the public shown by generations of ADF types helps explain some of this. Never again an ex ADF type for GG.
Disagree. Albo should grow a pair and sack him immdeiately
Stay on like holingsworth and be the enduring symbol poor judgement
it’s great for the institution
Our new King is a proven dill, going right back to his 1975 betrayal, with Kerr. The King’s representative in Australia is a proven dill. No-head-of-state is looking good right now.
and we still don’t know how these “future leaders” would be selected and trained (indoctrinated?) – and the fact that it has the stench of royalty about it is very concerning
when I think of all the hoops the average citizen has to jump through to get a few tax-payer dollars redistributed back to them, and then we see $18M (and more) just handed over with NO IDEA how it is to be spent and for what actual purpose … well, it makes one quite miffed
Does Tony “mother country” Abbott have his grubby fingerprints on this scandal?
I don’t understand what it’s for. Doesn’t the next generation of grifting parasites–otherwise known as corporate executives–come from private schools?
The trailer to the article said, “The G-G’s office has been left badly tarnished from its dealings with Scott Morrison”.
Surely responsible people would have sized the situation up and told the GG that what was mooted was unacceptable? Surely the GG had some inkling that what was proposed was borderline at best?
Just like they kept quiet over Scotty’s five secret ministries. Was it not recorded in the GG’s office documents?
Surely he knew? Either way he signed off and cooperated in the secrecy which the SG outlined trashed convention. As GG he is expected to uphold conventions not just do whatever a rogue PM might ask.
Should Hillsong connections between Chris Hartley and Paul Singer (and possibly David Hurley, not to mention Scott Morrison) be investigated and disclosed?
Sure let’s have a religious inquisition because some people don’t like a particular religious faith (I’m atheist, by the way — I don’t have much love for any of them).
Probably would violate Section 116 in spirit and black letter, but constitutional understanding doesn’t seem to have been a necessary prerequisite for most of the criticism levelled at Hurley, so why bother starting now?
Interesting view of criticism of Hurley. What view of our constitution holds that a GG does whatever a PM advises? Think it through. No limits at all? Just “it’s legal”?
The charge of “religious inquisition” would certainly be laid but on the other hand how do we protect our democratic institutions if we do not exercise vigilance against positive discrimination towards people of just one faith in key appointments? Consider what has happened to the US Supreme Court. We need to be able to believe that judicial and other significant appointments are fair and representative.
Arguably the most telling legacy of Kerr’s sacking of Whitlam wasn’t the dismissal itself, but the lie that the office of Governor General was always independent enough to remove a misbehaving Prime Minister. Clearly, with the mutual back scratching between Morrison and Hurley, that was unlikely to be the case. Who knows what evil Morrison could have undertaken as PM with such a compliant GG if the voters hadn’t removed him from office in May?