The GG dilema...

So, there's been some talk recently about the Govenor General, Mrs Quentin Bryce, having to make the decision as to who will be our next Prime Minister.

For those that aren't aware, Mrs Bryce is the mother-in-law of one Mr Bill Shorten; one of the so called "faceless power brokers" of the ALP. He also apparently harbours aspirations of being PM and is considered to be next in line if the ALP decide that Gillard ought to be dropped.

So, what should the GG do? Does the GG have a conflict of interest?

She has sought advice from the High Court, who said they couldn't advise her as there may be forthcoming High Court challenges and giving her advice would be a conflict of interest.

She then sought advice from the Solicitor General who has claimed that there is no conflict of interest.

Let's face it - there may not be a conflict of interest, but there is certainly a PERCEIVED conflict of interest, and that is just as conflicting as an actual conflict of interest. Isn't there an old saying that perception in 9/10ths reality? I can't remember where I heard that from, but it's not too far wrong (happy to claim it if I just made it up!).

The GG has the responsibility of deciding who the next PM of this nation will be. Now, if she goes with the ALP, and they at some point throw out Gillard as they did Rudd, and Shorten then assumes the PM role, some could argue (and most likely will argue) that it was planned all along, and that the GG should have stepped aside during this critical time in our nation's political arena.

What about this scenario: GG swears in an ALP Government, Gillard gets tossed out (and lets face it - she deserves to be tossed given that she took Labor to this miserable election result), Shorten replaces her as PM, the independants withdraw their support of an ALP led minority Government and the GG then has to sack the Government, with her Son In Law as the Prime Minister.

Is that not a conflict of interest, or at least a perceived conflict of interest?

I think it is.

The GG should, at the very least, temporarily assign her role to someone else during this time and then during the course of the next six months, resign as GG and move on.

To me, it doesn't matter that the Solicitor General gave her advice that there is no conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter that her request for advice and that subsequent advice were made public for the sake of transparency; the mere perception of a conflict of interest should be enough of a reason for her to shake a leg and remove herself from that role.