Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

Sections in this issue outline (in order)
1 What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
Related issue outlines

No related issue outlines



Dictionary
To activate the in-built dictionary linked to this issue outline, double-click on any word in the body of the text.

Analysis help
Students and others can read a guide to analysing the language of the news media by clicking HERE

Should the governor-general, Dr Peter Hollingworth, remain in office?

What they said ...
'The failing of the then archbishop was of such magnitude it attracted the highest damages payout of its kind in Australian history'
Hetty Johnston, president of People's Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse

'I have yet to meet anyone who has reached perfection, and I am prepared to settle for a decent, well-meaning, compassionate man who has devoted his life to working with the unemployed, the poor and the homeless'
Tim Colebatch, economics editor of The Age

The issue at a glance
On December 8, 2002, Hetty Johnston, the president of People's Alliance Against Child Sexual abuse called for the resignation of Dr Peter Hollingworth as governor-general of Australia.
The call came the day after the Anglican diocese of Brisbane was ordered to pay $843,800 to a student sexually abused at an Anglican Toowoomba Preparatory School for many months in 1990.
$400,000 of this sum were 'exemplary damages'. These were formerly referred to as punitive damages and take into account the manner in which the diocese of Brisbane dealt with the complaint of abuse.
During the eleven years after the initial complaint was made, Dr Peter Hollingworth was archbishop of Brisbane. His apparent lack of leadership and pastoral care for the victim of the assault became a focus of criticism.
In the following months it was revealed that Dr Hollingworth, during his time as archbishop, had dealt with apparent leniency with a number of priests accused of sexual abuse. It was also alleged that he did not extend the same concern to the supposed victims of the abuse.
The public furore grew after an interview Dr Hollingworth gave during an appearance on the ABC's Australian Story telecast on February 18, 2002. In this interview Dr Hollingworth appeared to suggest that a 14-year old girl sexually abused while staying at an Anglican hostel in the late 1950s was the initiator of the sexual encounters and this in some way reduced the culpability of the priest involved.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, continued to indicate that he saw nothing in Dr Hollingworth's behaviour to warrant his dismissal and that if he were to leave office it would be either because he had resigned or at the pleasure of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth.
On February 20, 2002, Dr Hollingworth issued a public statement intended to clarify his previous actions and statements and defend himself against the accusations made. Dr Hollingworth's statement has made it plain that he does not intend to resign, but it has not silenced his critics.

Background
Dr Peter Hollingworth worked within the Brotherhood of St Laurence for 25 years in a range of positions, ultimately as Executive Director. During this period, he completed a Master degree in Social Work at Melbourne University and wrote several books based on his experiences working with the poor and disadvantaged.
Dr Hollingworth was elected Canon of St Paul's Cathedral in 1980 and consecrated Bishop in the Inner City in 1985. He was elected Archbishop of Brisbane in 1989. He has served on a number of social action committees, and was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1976 and an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1988.
Following his Chairmanship of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless (IYSH) National Committee, he was Australian of the Year for 1992. He used this opportunity to promote the cause of the young unemployed.
During his tenure as archbishop of Brisbane, Dr Hollingworth attracted criticism from some quarters within the Church for his supposedly conservative attitude towards the ordination of women. He also had St John's Cathedral rebuilt at a cost of $25 million and had the archbishop's residence, Bishopbourne, renovated.
The Brisbane diocese is facing civil action from another student of Toowoomba Preparatory School who has alleged sexual abuse, while the church is named as a defendant in the cases of 22 students from St Paul's School at Bald Hills who claim they were sexually abused by a school counsellor between 1989 and 1997. A student from Anglican Church Grammar School is also alleging he was sexually abused by a gymnastics coach at the school and is claiming $1 million in exemplary damages.
Dr Hollingworth was sworn in as governor-general on June 29, 2001. Four and a half months later a civil case began centring on sexual abuse allegations made by a former student of Toowoomba Preparatory School. The ruling against the Brisbane diocese was made in December 2001. This precipitated the current controversy.

Internet information.
A detailed overview of the role of the governor-general can be found at http://www.gg.gov.au/html/role.html

Detailed biographical information on Dr Hollingworth and Mrs Hollingworth can be found at http://www.gg.gov.au/html/bios.html

Professor John Warhurst, deputy convenor of the Australian Republican Movement in the Australian Capital Territory, offered a consideration of the impact Dr Hollingworth might have on Australia's progress toward a republic. His piece, titled 'Hollingworth can make step to republic easier', was originally published in The Canberra Times on July 6, 2001. It is now available on the Australian Republican Movement Internet site at http://www.act.republic.org.au/jw6jul01.htm

On December 19, 2001, 12 days after the court ruling against the Brisbane diocese in the Toowoomba Preparatory School abuse case, Dr Hollingworth issued a press release detailing and attempting to justify his handling of the complaints. Included with this letter is a copy of a letter sent in 1990 to one of the parents of a child at the school.
This press release can be found at http://www.gg.gov.au/html/media/mr011219.html

On December 24, 2001, Dr Hollingworth issued a press release detailing his intention to meet with victims of child abuse from Toowoomba Preparatory School. The Queensland premier, Peter Beattie, had recently made the suggestion that he do so. This statement can be found at http://www.gg.gov.au/html/media/mr011224.html

The full text of Dr Hollingworth's February 20, 2002, media release responding to allegations against him can be found on the governor-general's home page. This media release can be read at http://www.gg.gov.au/html/media/2002/mr020220.html

Dr Hollingworth's response to a number of allegations made on Channel 9's Sunday program on February 24, 2002, can be found at http://www.gg.gov.au/html/media/2002/mr020224.html
Included in this response is an apology to the then 14-year-old victim of child abuse whom Dr Hollingworth had suggested in Australian Story was complicit in her assault.

A partial transcript of Dr Hollingworth's interview on Australian Story (ABC, February 18, 2002), including his responses to specific allegations made on Channel 9's Sunday program of February 17, 2002, can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/hollingworth1.htm and
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s479623.htm
Complete transcripts of the interview will be made available on the ABC's Internet site as they are completed.

A full transcript of Channel Nine's Sunday program for February 17, 2002, in which it telecast its original allegations against Dr Hollingworth, focusing particularly on his handling of the Toowoomba Preparatory School case, can be found at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/feature_stories/transcript_991.asp
The program was titled 'Governor-general: fit to govern?'
An article accompanying the transcript on the program's Internet site can be found at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/feature_stories/article_991.asp

The full transcript of Channel Nine's Sunday program for February 24, 2002, can be found at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_994.asp
The program was titled 'Can anything save the governor-general?' This program made further allegations about the appropriateness of Dr Hollingworth's handling of sexual abuse allegations.
An article accompanying the transcript on the program's Internet site can be found at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_994.asp

Arguments against Dr Peter Hollingworth retaining the position of governor-general
1. Dr Hollingworth is no longer able to speak on behalf of all Australians.
Though the position of governor-general is not an elected one, the incumbent is frequently called upon to speak on behalf of all Australians. As such, the governor-general is expected to be a unifying symbol of the nation, someone who has the respect and confidence of all its citizens.
Critics of Dr Hollingworth have argued that the controversy surrounding him means he has forfeited the trust and the regard of many Australians and so is no longer able to fulfil his role.
An alleged victim of sexual abuse, Brisbane businessman Alec Spencer, has claimed, '80 per cent of the Australian public want him out of the office so I don't think it's just a matter of what the victims and survivors of abuse would feel but I think it is an issue of what the Australian public would feel.'

2. Dr Hollingworth's previous conduct casts doubt on his ability to act as governor-general
A series of accusations have been made in relation to Dr Hollingworth's handling of sexual abuse allegations against clergy and other employees of Anglican organisations during the time he was archbishop of Brisbane. He has been criticised for allowing too much latitude to those who have admitted sexual abuse or were suspected of sexual abuse. Dr Hollingworth has further been criticised for a severe lack of understanding and compassion toward the victims of sexual abuse.
In the case of students abused by George Guy, a teacher at the Toowoomba Preparatory School, Dr Hollingworth has admitted acting on legal advice and being slow to express concern for the victims in an attempt to reduce the Church's financial liability in the event of litigation.
Dr Hollingworth has also attracted criticism over some of the remarks he made during an interview as part of an ABC Australian Story dealing with aspects of the current controversy. Dr Hollingworth appeared to suggest that a 14-year-old girl, sexually abused by an Anglican priest in charge of the hostel where she lived, had initiated the sexual encounters and that this in some way exonerated the priest concerned.
Perhaps the most significant criticisms come from those who argue that as head of the Anglican Church in Brisbane Dr Hollingworth did little to alter the culture and procedures of his organisation in an attempt to reduce future incidents of child abuse.
It has been argued that these multiple misjudgements strongly suggest that Dr Hollingworth is not capable of performing the full range of duties expected of a Governor-general.
Andrew Bolt, in an article published in The Herald Sun on February 21, 2002, stated, '...that bad judgement ... now makes it impossible for [Dr Hollingworth} ... to have our confidence that he will be a fearless and impartial judge in a constitutional crisis.' This summarises the view that Dr Hollingworth has neither the character nor the aptitude to continue as governor-general.

3. Dr Hollingworth's remaining as governor-general could undermine the office.
This point has been made in an editorial published in The Australian on February 20, 2002. The editorial states, 'The office of governor-general, traditionally a neutral position that is above the fray of public debate, has been embroiled in the biggest scandal since John Kerr's time.'
A similar point was made in an editorial published in The Herald Sun on February 21, 2002. The editorial states, 'The growing debate certainly undermines the integrity of an official post that must be seen to be above politics and beyond controversy and scandal ... The Herald Sun argues that he must resign to keep the office of governor-general free from scandal.'
Some supporters of an Australian republic, who seek the removal of the office of governor-general, are arguing that the current controversy shows the weakness of the office, the limitations of the appointment procedures (nomination by one man, the Prime Minister) and the unfortunate lack of appropriate procedures for the removal of a governor-general.

4. Dr Hollingworth's remaining in office is likely to give offence to all victims of child abuse.
It has been suggested that having Dr Hollingworth remain as governor-general would appear to condone, at the highest level, a casual attitude toward the victims of child abuse. Critics have claimed that this will only increase the suffering of those who have undergone such abuse.
Chris Sitka has made this point in a letter published in The Australian on February 19, 2002.
The letter states, 'It is essential that the governor-general be forced to resign over his failure to protect sexual abuse victims ...
I have meet many survivors who, decades after the abuse, suffer severe emotional and psychological scars. Prominent man ... glossing over these dire consequences to take care of their mates sends the wrong signals.'

5. By remaining as governor-general, Dr Hollingworth is damaging the Anglican Church.
There is concern among some members of the Anglican Church that the continued media attention on the actions of Dr Hollingworth while archbishop of Brisbane highlights the Church's insensitivity to the plight of sexual abuse victims.
Christopher Bantick, a Melbourne writer and a warden of a Melbourne Anglican church, has made this point. Mr Bantick has noted, 'The Anglican Church ... has shown a collective weakness in not dealing with the Hollingworth issue. It stands condemned by its own skulking diffidence.'
Bantick goes on to argue that Dr Hollingworth should resign as he has contributed to 'the leeching out of belief in what the Anglican Church is prepared to accept by its priests.'

Arguments supporting Dr Peter Hollingworth retaining the position of governor-general
1. Dr Hollingworth has performed appropriately while serving as governor-general.
Dr Hollingworth has argued that he should be judged on how he conducts his duties as governor-general, not on the basis of his supposed mishandling of some of his responsibilities while Anglican archbishop of Brisbane.
Dr Hollingworth has further agued that nothing he has done while governor-general would undermined the role.
A former governor-general, Sir Ninian Stephen, has endorsed these views. Sir Ninian has stated, 'I agree that he should be judged on his conduct as governor-general.' Sir Ninian has also agreed that Dr Hollingworth's actions since assuming the office of governor-general would not bring the office into disrepute.

2. Nothing in the allegations made against Dr Hollingworth warrants his removal from the office of governor-general.
Defenders of Dr Hollingworth note that the Australian constitution lays down no grounds or procedure for the removal of a governor-general. It has further been noted that Dr Hollingworth has been accused of no crime. His supporters note that the most he has been accused of are a number of errors of judgement. They claim that calls for his resignation or dismissal are extreme and inappropriate.
Tim Colebatch, economics editor for The Age, has made this point in an article published on February 19, 2002. Mr Colebatch states, 'This issue ... is whether [Dr Hollingworth's] mistakes of judgement were so serious that they make him unfit for the office of governor-general.
If you expect the governor-general to be a perfect embodiment of wisdom, they are. But I have yet to meet anyone who has reached perfection, and I am prepared to settle for a decent, well-meaning, compassionate man, who has devoted his life to working with the unemployed, the poor and the homeless ...'

3. The positive aspects of Dr Hollingworth's professional conduct prior to becoming governor-general have been ignored by his critics and the media.
This claim has been made by John McInnes in a letter published in The Age on February 21, 2002.
Mr McInnes stated, 'As an active member of the board of the Brotherhood of St Laurence during the time when Peter was executive director, I saw his work with the disadvantaged people in our society at first hand.
I was privileged to see him interacting with them and was conscious of the genuine concern he had for the problems they faced. This was evident in the eloquent and forceful public comments he made on their behalf.
It is hard to imagine a more caring and compassionate man and a man of higher integrity.
A person with these qualities is surely perfectly suited to the role of governor-general.'

4. Dr Hollingworth has been attacked by special interest groups pursuing particular agendas
It has been claimed that different pressure groups or special interest groups have pressed allegations against Dr Hollingworth for their own purposes and have not responded in a fair or balanced manner to his supposed misjudgements.
This point has been made by both the governor-general and by Tony Eggleton, a former Liberal Party federal director. Mr Eggleton has stated, 'There are people in Queensland who are running something of a vendetta against him. There are other agendas being played here.'
Apart from the suggestion that there may be those within the Queensland Anglican church pursuing private grievances against Dr Hollingworth, it has also been suggested that some republicans are feeding the controversy currently surrounding him in an attempt to further the establishment of an Australian republic by undermining the office of the governor-general.
It has also been suggested that child welfare advocates and feminist groups have criticised the former archbishop in an extreme manner in order to gain popular exposure for their particular causes and concerns.

5. If Dr Hollingworth were forced from office it would become very difficult to find others ready to take on the position.
Dr Hollingworth made this observation during an appearance on the ABC's Australian Story program. Dr Hollingworth stated, '... just to be hypothetical, if one governor-general felt forced to resign on an issue like [this] one, who in the future would ever take on the office?
Who could say "there's nothing in my past that mightn't come out unexpectedly"?'
According to this line of argument, Dr Hollingworth's critics are setting an impossibly high standard of previous conduct for those being considered as governors-general. It is being suggested that this search for a completely unblemished previous life, together with the intense media scrutiny Dr Hollingworth's case has attracted, might well mean that many otherwise suitable people might decline the position.

Further implications
The current debate appears to have exposed shortcomings in the procedures surrounding the appointment and removal of a governor-general. Under Australia's constitution, the governor-general holds office 'at the pleasure' of the Crown. He is appointed by and can be removed by the monarch.
In practice the Prime Minister recommends someone for the office to the monarch who invariably acts on the Prime Minister's recommendation. Thus the responsibility for determining who shall be governor-general rests with the Prime Minister.
There are those who argue that this is too narrow a selection process and does little to guarantee the appointment of an appropriate person. For example, in the case of Dr Hollingworth, there was concern that appointing a prominent cleric blurred the separation between Church and State, however, as the decision rested with the Prime Minister, these reservations were ignored.
The procedures for removing a governor-general are similarly underdeveloped. Theoretically, the monarch, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, could remove a governor-general, however, as this has never happened it is completely uncharted territory.
There is nothing within Australia's constitution that suggests grounds on which a governor-general could be judged unfit for office or the procedures that should be followed to determine if those grounds exist.
It is beginning to appear as though Dr Hollingworth may survive the first wave of criticism surrounding him. However, there is likely to be more to come.
The current archbishop of Brisbane, Dr Aspinall, is holding a private inquiry into the Church's handling of sexual abuse allegations. Dr Hollingworth has indicated he will cooperate with this inquiry. Dr Hollingworth's overall stewardship of the Brisbane diocese is also likely to be a focus of attention as further sexual abuse allegations and damages suits are pursued through the courts.
Any further allegations made against Dr Hollingworth would have to be extreme to either prompt Dr Hollingworth to resign or Mr Howard to ask the Queen to dismiss him.
The damage to the reputation of the Anglican Church has been significant.
In the medium-term the current controversy, and others like it, is likely to accelerate an attitude change within the Anglican Church, prompting a policy of greater care for complainants and greater disclosure of instances of abuse. The Church is also likely to be more cautious in its treatment of alleged or admitted sex abusers. It is likely to be more concerned than previously to minimise the potential for further abuse.
In the long term the current controversy will fuel demands for a change in the office of governor-general. Even those who do not want to see the office replaced with that of president are still likely to want to see a reform of the manner in which governors-general are appointed and might be removed.

Sources
The Age
7/2/02 page 3 news item by Josh Gordon, 'I let pupils down: Hollingworth'
19/2/02 page 14 editorial, 'G-G must go for the god of the nation'
19/2/02 page 15 comment by Christopher Bantick, 'For church and state, go now'
19/2/02 page 15 comment by Tim Colebatch, 'Imperfect? Yes But unfit? No'
20/2/02 page 15 comment by Professor Chris Goddard, 'Do nothing, and the evil of abuse triumphs'
21/2/02 page 6 news item by Carol Nader, 'G-G quits as Kids First patron'
21/2/02 page 14 letter from John McInnes, 'Stop this media witch hunt against a fine man'
21/2/02 page 15 comment by Pamela Bone, 'Hollingworth's act of provocation'

The Australian
16/2/02 page 1 news item by Richard Yallop and Kate Legge, 'Hollingworth fears plot to undermine his office'
19/2/02 page 1 news item by Stefanie Balogh, Ian Henderson and Nicole Strahan, 'If I go who will take my job:G-G'
19/2/02 page 6 news item by Claire Harvey and David Nason, 'Let G-G do his job: Sir Ninian'
19/2/02 page 10 cartoon by Nicholson
19/2/02 page 10 six letters under the heading, 'Sex abuse, covered up, flourishes'
20/2/02 page 9 comment by Mike Steketee, 'Falling angel'
20/2/02 page 10 editorial, 'Hollingworth must consult his conscience'
20/2/02 page 10 cartoon by Nicholson
20/2/02 page 10 three letters under the heading, 'Church obliged to manage resources'
20/2/02 page 11 comment by George Williams, 'G-G's terms of work are outdated'
21/2/02 page 1 news item by Ian Henderson, 'G-G's fate hangs in the balance'
21/2/02 page 6 comment by Dr Peter Hollingworth (edited text of Governor-General's statement) 'Hollingworth: errors but not bad faith'
21/2/02 page 7 news item by Scott Emerson and Stefanie Balogh, 'Abuse victims insist Hollingworth resign'

The Herald Sun
3/2/02 page 6 news item by Chris Taylor, 'G-G quit call over abuse'
19/2/02 page 7 news item by Rick Wallace, 'Hollingworth won't budge'
19/2/02 page 17 cartoon by Knight
19/2/02 page 18 editorial, 'Break this silence'
21/2/02 page 18 editorial, 'Vice-regal row must stop now'
21/2/02 page 19 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'Leave with dignity'