Peter Hollingworth's resignation does not make for a constitutional crisis

There is of course nothing to stop a Prime Minister from consulting anyone about this but it is an entirely different proposition to make this mandatory.

The more the process is "opened" the more it will become a popularity contest or pseudo election, thus giving the appointee something akin to a mandate. As with the judiciary, our Head of State must be above politics, with neither a mandate nor an agenda.

The suggestion for some form of confirmation take place ignores the US Senate confirmations experience, where the witch-hunt against a potential judicial appointment now takes place before rather then after, so that it can be even more effective in its malevolence.

Bolingbroke long ago described the English constitution as that assembly of laws, institutions and customs by which the people have agreed to be governed. There are some parts which cannot or should not be written down - after all, the constitution is not meant to be a basic primer for the uninitiated.

Unlike the republics which reacted with institutional rigidity to the allegations against, say, Waldheim and Nixon - and froze - ours has just seen a seamless transfer of authority through the device of the dormant commission to a State Governor, while the gentle and discreet machinery which will see a new Governor-General emerge has already started up.

The point is that what we have just seen was in no way a constitutional crisis but another example of the moral turpitude of man.