By appointing Hollingworth as the first priest to governor-general in June 2001, Liberal Party prime minister John Howard not only aroused concerns in some ruling-class circles over separation of church and state, but also embroiled the already troubled post in the growing crisis of the church here.  
 
Gains of women spark crisis
This crisis of the Anglican church in Australia has deepened as the oppressive stance towards women by the church hierarchy has more and more run up against the historic advances in the fight for women’s liberation. These gains are based on the entry of greater numbers of women into the labor force since World War II. Today, women make up nearly 43 percent of the workforce. The women’s movement of the 1970s grew alongside the protest movement against the imperialist war in Vietnam and the struggle for Aboriginal rights. The right to equal pay in some job categories was won in historic test cases in 1968 and 1972.

Legal victories registering gains after these earlier struggles have been extended sometimes in private enterprises through strikes and other fights. Women working at HPM Industries in Sydney, for example, members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, won a fight for equal pay with men doing the same jobs within their enterprise agreement after two weeks on the picket line in 1998.

Women have also made gains in their right to choose abortion. Today access to abortion rights differs state by stat. While abortion remains on the crimes act, legal precedents from the 1970’s have established in fact the right of women to choose abortion.

Women won other rights that are codified in the federal Sex Discrimination Act, which was passed in 1984.

With Howard’s backing, Hollingworth had resisted growing calls to resign since the furor enveloped him in February 2002. But he couldn’t withstand the intensified pressure after the release in early May this year of an Anglican Church inquiry aimed at stemming the crisis and refurbishing the image of the church.

The report concluded that Hollingworth committed “grave and serious” errors of judgment while he was archbishop. It concluded it was “untenable” that he “let a known pedophile continue in the ministry.” It also said that he did not handle “fairly, reasonably or appropriately” complaints against a former bishop who had sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl under his care in the 1950s.

On February 18, 2002, the governor-general sought to defend himself on ABC TV’s Australian Story. His interview only compounded the crisis. Questioned about the case of a 14-year-old girl who was sexually abused by a priest in charge of a church-run boarding school, he said this “was not sex abuse… no suggestion of rape… my information was that it was, rather, the other way around.” Hollingworth was forced to apologize as public anger erupted over his smug remark revealing the reactionary “woman-as-temptress” prejudices of the church hierarchy.

The last straw was the publication, two days before his resignation, of a letter from him blithely stating that another 14-year-old girl had “started” a sexual relationship with her school coach. The child’s mother condemned Hollingworth’s remarks aimed at shifting blame onto her daughter as, “not a slip-up but a state of mind.” She called for his sacking.  
 
Capitalist parties debate form of rule
The queen of England is still formally the head of state for Australia but is ceremonially represented by the governor-general. This “vice-regal post,” a relic of Australia’s origins as a British colonial-settler state, is at the “constitutional apex of Australia’s parliamentary federation,” as the Australian Financial Review put it May 27. The current scandal has revived discussion in the bourgeois press over this form of head of state.

Simon Crean, leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which is the opposition, demanded from the start of the scandal that Hollingworth “must resign” or “failing that, the prime minister must dismiss him.” The Queensland Labor premier, Peter Beattie, who tabled the Anglican Church report in parliament, warned the crisis could “irreparably damage the vice-regal office.”

On May 15, the federal senate, in which Labor, the Greens and the Democrats hold a majority, passed an unprecedented motion calling for the resignation or sacking of the governor-general, saying he was both “unable to fulfill his symbolic role as a figure of unity for the Australian people” and “no longer able to exercise the constitutional powers of his office in a manner that will be seen as impartial and non-partisan.”

The Liberal Party deputy leader and federal treasurer Peter Costello distanced himself from Howard’s appointee, as did some other government ministers. Costello told Channel Ten: “It is the prime minister’s appointment. It’s not a cabinet, it’s not a parliamentary, it’s a personal appointment.” He said that any dismissal could only be based “solely on the advice of the PM [prime minister] rendered to the Queen.” Costello is publicly identified as a “republican.”

A spokeswoman for the queen of England said resolving the crisis was “a matter for the Australian government and for the Australian prime minister.” Since a 1931 agreement between London and Canberra, the head of state here by convention has been chosen by the Australian prime minister and rubber-stamped by Buckingham Palace.

The Australian constitution doesn’t specify grounds for removal of the de facto head of state. As a result, the rulers resorted to escalating media pressure to force Hollingworth’s hand. Some in the ruling class said this was a “witch hunt” or “trial by media.”

A problem this scandal posed for the capitalist class is that, aside from the symbolic and ceremonial role, the post holds “reserve powers” to resolve constitutional crises, in particular the removal of governments not to the liking of Australia’s rulers.

In the mid-1970s, as the first worldwide recession since World War II shook all the imperialist countries, the ruling class here sought to reverse gains the union movement won during the boom years of the previous two decades. However, working-class expectations had risen under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s Labor government. His administration faced an escalating campaign by the conservative parties and monopoly media. In November 1975, the Australian rulers used governor-general John Kerr to sack Whitlam, triggering greater class polarization.

Mass walkouts and demonstrations were headed towards a general strike until Labor and union leaders reasserted control and put a brake on the mass mobilizations. The Australian Labor Party went down to defeat in the subsequent elections. The governor-general’s role was shaken. Kerr later resigned.

In 1932, during the Great Depression, the ruling class had used a state counterpart of the governor-general, New South Wales governor Philip Game, to dismiss Labor premier Jack Lang. Lang’s government had defied wealthy British financiers by refusing to pay interest on loans the government had taken from these bondholders.  
 
Nationalist appeal
The current crisis follows a national constitutional referendum held in 1999 on making Australia a republic. Both sides of the debate in bourgeois politics appealed to Australian nationalism. Majority sentiment for a republic was divided over how to select or elect the head of state. The only option—that of a president selected by the prime minister and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives—was narrowly defeated.

Nick Minchin, a government minister who supports continued links to the British monarchy, recently warned of “enormous dangers” in changing the method of selection for constitutionally “the most powerful office in the country.”

Howard has defied political pressure to alter the power of the prime minister to handpick the governor-general. NSW Labor premier Robert Carr defended the prime minister’s “prerogative” to select the head of state. In ruling out the unprecedented action of dismissing the governor-general last year, Howard said he feared this would set off “a constitutional earthquake.” This remains a concern among the rulers behind their debate over reforming the post.

Linda Harris Contributed to this article.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home