The importance of being discreet and charming

There are three things an Australian prime minister should never do: punch the American president; forget their spouse's birthday; and appoint a dud governor-general. Of the three, anointing a rogue viceroy probably would be the biggest mistake.

Kevin Rudd needs to keeps this in mind as he ponders a replacement for the incumbent, Michael Jeffery, later this year. But there are already signs that Labor may not be thinking altogether clearly about who should warm the Queen's chair.

The Prime Minister has ruled out retired politicians, which puts paid to the chances of former Opposition leader Kim Beazley. Speculation is mounting that the Government is understandably eager to appoint a woman, with the names of Indigenous elder Lowitja O'Donoghue, cultural supremo Janet Holmes a Court and health expert Fiona Stanley all mentioned.

In fact, the fundamental rule of politics in appointing a governor-general is the same as the one that applies to selecting an Australian Test wicket-keeper: go for a safe pair of hands. Everything else is secondary.

This follows from the grim reality of the office. In terms of the animal kingdom, the governor-general is a constitutional panda, but with a thin streak of mean grizzly.

On the one hand, the essential persona of the governor-general is as the cuddly opener of fetes and launcher of garbage scows. He or she smiles on command and follows prime ministerial advice as a tram follows tracks. Their most independent moment would come in politely asking the prime minister if the annexation of Madagascar is an entirely practical idea, before cheerfully signing the declaration of war.

But deep within the mind of every viceroy lurks the memory of the dismissal in 1975. They know, and the prime minister knows, that it is the fatal exception that will beat the mundane rule, if push ever comes to shove. Should Malcolm Fraser's "reprehensible circumstances" arise again, history shows the governor-general can fillet a prime minister like a fat flounder, and there is no appeal from immutable constitutional power. Ask Gough.

So there is only one question that Rudd should start by asking himself in appointing a surrogate head of state: does this person clearly understand the nature of their office, that they are merely a dignified constitutional symbol, with no practical scope for independent action? Once he is satisfied on this point he can pass to more interesting questions of gender, occupation, background and football allegiance.

The complicating factor is that there are certain sorts of background that do program potential governors-general as the card-carrying constitutional conformers that one is looking for. At the same time, other backgrounds flash warning signals like the splash of colour on a redback spider.

For example, judges normally are reliable because they understand the constitutional reality of the governor-general's position, that he is there to witness the exercise of power, not to exert it himself. Ninian Stephen was an excellent governor-general in this tradition. John Kerr was the exception that proved the rule, but his was always a disastrous personality match for the office.

Generals and admirals also are a safe choice, because they have a long experience of taking orders and living under strictly defined chains of command. The present Governor-General, Jeffery, is a fine example of this type of viceroy.

Remarkably, former politicians also score extremely highly. This is because they have been practitioners within the constitutional system and know how it is meant to work. In this category, former Liberal minister Paul Hasluck and former Labor Opposition leader Bill Hayden both were fine governors-general. Beazley would have continued this tradition.

It goes without saying, of course, that a government always is perfectly entitled to put someone sympathetic into Yarralumla. Provided the person is suitably eminent and dignified, there is no sin in appointing a friend as umpire.

The difficulty for a government wanting to look beyond these types of predictable backgrounds into the ranks of the exciting and the good is obvious. However uplifting such appointments may be, are they safe?

Particularly in Labor's case, many of the genuine heroes it may consider appointing have made their names through some form of activism. Activists have many virtues, but being quiet as you do what you are told is not among them.

Take the three candidates publicly canvassed so far. I know, like and admire each of them, but all are strong, opinionated Australians with deep public views and commitments. It would be entirely unreasonable and implausible to expect any of them to embrace a life of vice-regal banality, but that is the job description.

Of course, some would ask, what is wrong with a feisty governor-general? This is like asking what you have against experimental brain surgeons. In our constitutional system, there can be only one person at the top. This has to be the prime minister, who has the unrivalled qualification for the job that he was elected to it on a platform of policy. There is no room for an unelected, unaccountable viceroy imagining themselves as the spirit of the nation.

Labor thinkers need to think hard about such things. It's not just that Rudd will face a potentially hostile Senate in the midst of looming economic difficulty, the exact recipe for 1975. Even a well-meaning but endemically talkative governor-general could play havoc with a government's policy positions.

Worse, the vice-regal office is at a low ebb after years of being shoved aside by a spotlight-seeking John Howard. It is critically important that the first years of the Rudd Government see it repackaged as what it should be: important, eminent, dignified but not politically engaged. This is particularly important as we move inexorably towards a republic, with the office of governor-general the obvious template for an Australian president.

Anyone can empathise with the Government's desire to appoint a female governor-general, but it should appoint a woman from a tried and tested background. Mercifully, Australia has more than its fair share of eminent female judges, lawyers, retired politicians and servicewomen.

Female or male, better safe than sorry.