Andrew Bolt is often in agreement with Gerard Henderson’s columns. Most recently, he only added “I’m with Gerard Henderson” before quoting Henderson’s argument that conservatives are helping Greens get elected.
But it seems we’ve found an issue that separates these two linchpins of the conservative media. Bolt regards the Governor-General as fair game for criticism, while Henderson thinks it should be hands-off for our head of state. But are either of them right?
In today’s column, Henderson argues:
The political debate will be healthier in Australia when political conservatives and social democrats alike accept that the offices of the governor-general and prime minister are at the core of Australian democracy and deserve respect.
In developing his argument, Henderson points to media coverage of maintenance and improvements at Government House and Admiralty House, the Canberra and Sydney residences of the Governor-General. He targets an article by Glenn Milne that detailed a number of expenses incurred by the current G-G Quentin Bryce, as well as the previous G-G Michael Jeffery:
It is a fact of life that old houses require constant maintenance which is invariably expensive. Security also costs money. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that someone like Quentin Bryce or Kevin Rudd are overly fixated on the quality of a roof or the look of a gate.
He also seeks to rebut criticism of both Governors-General for purportedly allowing their role to become political:
As governor-general, it was proper that Jeffery should visit ADF personnel on overseas service. Moreover, it would be improper for him to be other than supportive of the ADF – even if Australia’s commitment in Iraq was controversial. It’s much the same with Bryce. When she receives visitors to Australia, or when she travels on official business overseas, Bryce has no alternative but to be seen to be supportive of Australia’s UN aspirations, even if this matter engenders some domestic controversy.
On the specific issues, I tend to agree with Henderson. Where I disagree is in the final stages of his argument:
The governor-general and state governors hold a position which is above party politics. Unless they are unsuited to the job or exhibit serious character defects or become overly outspoken, it makes sense to support them – or at least refrain from carping criticism. Both Jeffery and Bryce were successful governors, in Western Australia and Queensland respectively, before moving to Yarralumla, and both were well-qualified for appointment as the Queen’s representative in Australia.
A robust democracy should allow honest and open scrutiny of all of our political institutions. Discussion of the role of Governor-General is reasonable, and scrutiny of the actions of our head of state is fair enough. I would reject the idea that “it makes sense to support them” as a universal proposition. And while the specific grounds that Milne fixed on were flimsy, that doesn’t mean that we should not reserve the right to question our head of state’s actions in the future.
But on “carping criticism” I agree with Henderson. Honest and legitimate scrutiny is one thing, but an active and politically motivated campaign is a different thing entirely. And it seems that is what Andrew Bolt – and, perhaps, Glenn Milne – have embarked on. As I have noted before, Bolt has been waging a protracted campaign against the “Activist-General” Quentin Bryce. In contrast to Henderson, he seized on Milne’s article to post another attack. His post contained some prime examples of Boltian rhetoric – first, the acknowledgment that there’s a counter-argument, followed by a quick “but” dismissal:
I don’t dispute that places such as Yarralumla and Admirality House need upkeep and that a Governor General shouldn’t fly economy – and all that means money. But a few things in this comb-through of Quentin Bryce’s expenses are interesting
…
How does painting a gate cost $14,000?
Next, a richly detailed – yet entirely hypothetical and unsupported by evidence – explanation of events, complete with links to his own previous posts:
Seems that Bryce had very big plans to publicise her extraordinary jaunt to Africa as Rudd’s envoy – rather than as our Governor General – given that the second plane was needed largely for the media she expected to accompany her. Seems also that Rudd, once the heat went on over the foolishness of Bryce’s mission and the impropriety of her involvement, panicked, and cut Bryce’s grand plans to ribbons. And trimmed her conceit, too.
And finally, a question that acknowledges the awkward truth that some of the spending was not initiated by Bryce, but that manages to retain her name in strikethrough text so that readers don’t forget the focus here is Bryce and not Michael Jeffries (sic):
Who was
Bryceprevious GG Michael Jeffries planning to impress by choosing bedroom furniture to “highlight Australian craftsmanship”? A nation would like to know.
It’s a fine art, constructing and maintaining such a persistent line of attack no matter what facts and events are available to you. Andrew Bolt does it very well – but it seems even his partisan colleagues such as Gerard Henderson see it as going too far sometimes.
(Thanks to reader Wayne.)
15 Comments
To give him his due Gerard is an old fashioned conservative, a little bit more Fraser than Howard. The Hollingsworth fiasco showed that we need to be aware of who our GG is and what they are up to but this attempt to constantly smear Bryce is unacceptable. I think it is part of the pay back culture that permeates the Liberal party, you made us look bad because of Holligsworth so we are going to get Bryce, and I think Gerard can see that.
It is entirely Boltian to go all-or-nothing on matters of judgementalism: he actually sees the rigidity of his views as a personal strength. Thus Bryce, Rudd, and Obama are “just plain wrong” on all fronts, and can be allowed no leeway at all, no strengths or successes, and certainly no humanity as a result. If they fail, it is because they are failures on every level, and not because they are ever-so-slightly human.
It’s a sad way to look at the world. {This bit too personal — Scott}
Yes monkeywrench, I think Bolt is a prize SNIP too. Back on topic, I agree that open and honest scrutiny of both the PM and the GG on legitimate issues is good and should definitely be allowed.
Letting through comments calling the PM a mandrill, a snivelling little turd, and other such charming comments, let alone allowing comments saying “Lee Harvey Oswald where are you?” – no kidding, though that was Akerman, is another thing altogether.
I don’t really pay much attention to any of them except Bolt and occasionally Akerman – two doses of poison in my life are quite enough ta very much – but I really think you could just about mount a case of treason against those two. And I’d love to see it done.
Today everyone had swiped the other two newspapers-this is at the coffee-shop-and I was forced to read the Oz. I don’t know how they do it, really I don’t. Every article written by almost everybody has a nasty reference to the Rudd government. As in ‘Joe Smartsmith won the chess competition yesterday. He defeated the reigning champion who claimed to have been distracted by Kevin Rudd’s budget speech’.
Such Klass, such dignity, such elegance and journalistic honesty.
Bolt’s objection to bryce has nothing to do with honest concern about how she conducts her office, and everything to do with ideology. Rudd recommended her candidacy therefore because of andy’s irrational opposition to anything rudd, bryce is also tarred with same brush and must be bad as well. completely illogical and more than just a bit obsessive!
And i don’t for one minute beleive that milne’s article is anything other than this recent obsession among news ltd publications to whip up an australian version of the MP entitlement scandal that’s happening in the UK.
*cough*
Shameless plug.
*cough*
smooth Scott.
You don’t think anyone noticed?
not a chance!
Bertus said: “Letting through comments calling the PM a mandrill, a snivelling little turd, and other such charming comments, let alone allowing comments saying “Lee Harvey Oswald where are you?” – no kidding, though that was Akerman, is another thing altogether.”
Didn’t see much complaining when Howard was being called even worse.
In fact, Bertus, right here on this very blog only moments ago, Mobious had THIS to say about John Howard:
“lying little rodent, devious, stuck up white privileged man he is… utter failings as a human being.”
Get it, now?
Pedro @ 11: yeah, but he didn’t advocate assassination. get it now?
The office of governer general is an appointed office bearing no requirement to be elected (although most sane people can recognise the compromises that elected officials need to make in order to get the votes required) and therefore their views and opinions are not scrutinised by an electorate. Until such time as we get to elect the head of state (something that I still toss up as to whether it is worth it or not) the governer general should be very cautious and refrain from either promoting their own personally held views or being seen to be policitally partisan. It is about keeping your personal views to yourself and your private life and maintaining a professional persona when executing your public duties.
The big question regards whether they should act in Australia’s ‘interests’ – which I agree that they should. This leads to whether a politically partisan issue can trully be in Australia’s interests. I suggest that it can be and therefore the issue raised by Bolt tends to indicate a ‘opposition no matter what’ approach. From reading his posts on Bryce, he has discussed issues pertaining to whether she is letting her personal interests coallesce with her professional persona. For me, his arguments have been a bit weak.
IMHO this isn’t just anti-feminist, anti-leftard culture war bullshit from AB—this is actually part of the man’s snide anti-republicanism. He wants the office of GG to be run down in the public’s eyes so it can’t therefore be used as the basis for a presidency (it also reasserts the ‘untouchable’ and ‘pure’ status of the monarch. QEII is above the vulgarity of the middle class Bryce.) This is how Bolt’s born-again royalism works. You burn down the village so as to preserve the crown’s sovereignty over you and me.
It’s the same logic as the ‘politicians republic’.
(Conversely, I think Hendo’s reverence for the office is because he’s a pretty hardcore republican, despite his tory leanings, and as a guy who’s spent his life studying government and politics he realises that the GG must be the foundation for any future presidency.)
I know it’s counter-intuitive that a monarchist would hate the viceroyal rep while a republican takes the opposite view, but when you look at this in the historical longterm it makes perfect sense.