McGuinness in SMH 19 February 2002

(my italics)

THE continued onslaught on the Prime Minister and his Government over their alleged misleading statements during the election is becoming an intriguing political phenomenon in itself. Alongside this is the campaign to force the resignation of the Governor-General on account of supposed negligence relating to sexual abuse by clergy and teachers in institutions under his supervision in the Anglican archdiocese of Brisbane.

What do the two have in common? John Howard, of course. The Governor-General was appointed by Howard's Government, as successor to Sir William Dean, the appointee of the Keating government who reflected every slogan of that government. While there is some room for concern about Church/State separation in the appointment of a church leader, that is clearly not the explanation for the fury with which this campaign is being conducted. If Peter Hollingworth did allow abusers to continue their practices once known, this should be condemned but even so it is not necessarily grounds for him to be removed from or resign from office. It is clear that his greatest sin in the minds of his persecutors is to be Howard's appointee.

Somebody certainly seems to have been careless with the truth regarding whether children were thrown into the water by their boat-people parents. But, as Alan Ramsey made clear in Saturday's Herald, there is no doubt the boat people were setting out to put themselves into danger, along with their children, by damaging and, it seems, scuttling their boat. Clearly they saw this as forcing the navy into taking them to Australian territory where they would have access to the lawyers whom, it must be supposed, they confidently expected to advise them further as to tactics to obtain residence. It is improper for anybody to have tried to whip up community feeling by claiming wrongly that children were being thrown into the water; but would it have been improper to have simply pointed out that the children were in fact deliberately being endangered?

Again, it is clear that Howard's real sin is to have won the election.

The issue now is not whether the electorate might change its mind as a result of being told it was lied to, but whether even if this happened it would deprive the Prime Minister of the right to govern. Perhaps the campaign is intended to persuade a sufficient number of his supporters to defect. But there seems an additional motive, to demoralise Howard enough to virtually paralyse him.

This is what was achieved in the aftermath of the 1975 Whitlam dismissal. Malcolm Fraser apparently felt he had no proper mandate, and the torrent of denigration and abuse to which he was continually subjected (by many who now praise him as a moral hero) achieved a great deal. Despite appearances, he turned out to be a weak and irresolute man who left to the Hawke government the major economic reforms which he could have initiated. The prospect of crippling Howard in policy terms now seems similarly achievable.

That will depend on two things. One is whether indeed Howard did deliberately lie to or mislead the electorate, or was himself misled. The other is his own strength of character. If he has the steel which Fraser lacked, he will continue to play the game according to his own policy agenda. His Government is not illegitimate any more than was the first Fraser government, let alone those following subsequent elections. But if he feels that some guilt properly attaches to him it may well accelerate his decision to leave the leadership.

Treasurer Peter Costello is far from the centre of the current furore. Whatever Howard's decision as to the effects of the moral hysteria surrounding the boat-people issue, and the children, unless he feels that his own moral authority has in fact been undermined he will not even contemplate making any move until mid-term, by which time Costello will be uniquely well placed to succeed him and to win another term for the Coalition. A republican Costello with plenty of time to lead up to an election could easily defeat a policy-free Labor Party burdened with its own divisions. The people still can't be trusted to vote as their betters say they should.