Time to quit, say top legal brains - The Hollingworth crisis: [1 - All-round Country Edition]
Stapleton, John.
The Australian [Canberra, A.C.T] 12 May 2003: 002.
Abstract
Constitutional expert George Williams, from the University of NSW, said Dr [Hollingworth] was clearly entitled to the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to clear his name.
"It is unfortunate and unfair but, nevertheless, his position has become compromised," he said. "I think Hollingworth is unable to fulfil his constitutional functions.
Adjunct professor of law at Adelaide University Geoffrey Lindell said he thought it was appropriate for Dr Hollingworth to stand aside, considering the serious nature of the allegation, "no matter how unlikely it is".
Full Text
Constitutional expert George Williams, from the University of NSW, said Dr Hollingworth was clearly entitled to the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to clear his name.
But he says there are entirely separate reasons why Dr Hollingworth should resign.
"At the end of the day he has lost the confidence of the Australian people and a significant number of senior political figures," he said. "His position has been compromised because he lacks popular and government support."
Professor Williams said there was no doubt there had been some unfairness in the way Dr Hollingworth had been treated.
"It is unfortunate and unfair but, nevertheless, his position has become compromised," he said. "I think Hollingworth is unable to fulfil his constitutional functions.
"If he doesn't have the support and confidence of the Australian people, it is impossible for him to do his job."
Adjunct professor of law at Adelaide University Geoffrey Lindell said he thought it was appropriate for Dr Hollingworth to stand aside, considering the serious nature of the allegation, "no matter how unlikely it is".
"My own view is that he should have resigned for the good of the office," he said. "But one can't help but be concerned about the implications of a person going because of a media campaign and public opinion polls, which have implications for the future. It highlights the difficulty we have with the office, because the appointment or dismissal of a governor-
general is so open ended."
Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies Cheryl Saunders said questions over the appointment and removal of a governor-general were more political than constitutional.
Professor Saunders said if the only thing being focused on was the Melbourne court case, then "standing aside is the obvious thing", comparing it to the situation of Catholic Archbishop of Sydney George Pell after allegations were made against him.
However, she said Dr Hollingworth's position was complicated and that "there are broader questions coming out of the Queensland report which seem to be being put aside".
"It is impossible to tell whether there is damage done to the office," she said. "We have seen this office rise and fall like a yo- yo over the past few decades."
Professor Saunders said it was in the years following the controversy over former governor-general John Kerr that the current conception of the office was forged, with figures such as Sir Zelman Cowen consciously trying to restore the esteem of the office and arguing that the role of governor-general was to "represent the Australian people to themselves".
"Let's see what happens next" she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment