How role seen as a relic became relevant

Long seen as an irrelevant relic of colonialism, the role of governor general has in recent years become an increasingly controversial one. Appointed directly by the prime minister, governors general are traditionally regarded as the monarch's direct representatives in Australia.

Like monarchs, they hold little power but are ceremonially responsible for signing acts of parliament, appointing governments and calling elections.

The first eight governors general were not even Australian-born. The last British-born governor general ended his tenure as recently as 1989, and when Isaac Isaacs was appointed in 1931 as the first native holder of the post conservatives denounced the choice as tantamount to republicanism.

The growing irrelevancy of the governor general's office changed abruptly in 1975, when the Australian senate took the unprecedented step of blocking the budget of Gough Whitlam's leftwing Labour government.

The constitutional crisis that resulted saw the governor general Sir John Kerr dismissing the Whitlam government and appointing Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser as caretaker until elections could be held.

Mr Whitlam's words after his dismissal - "well might we say 'May God save the Queen', because nothing will save the governor general" - have proved less than prophetic, but the dismissal seems to have destroyed the notion that governors general are politically impartial.

Many opposition politicians regarded Peter Hollingworth as a political choice from the moment he was given the job in 2001.

His appointment was widely seen as an attempt by John Howard to rid himself of Sir William Deane, whose outspoken support for Aboriginal reconciliation was at odds with Mr Howard's views.