A Governor. That’s what we need in the ACT. That is the critical part of the ACT political system that is so necessary and yet so missing.
It is difficult to imagine how we have done without one in these 15 years since self-government.
Anyone designing a wholesome political system would start with a Governor and work their way down.
The Tasmanian model is instructive because, Tasmania, like the ACT has the Hare-Clark system of elections, with the likelihood of frequent minority governments. Who better than to arbitrate between which side of politics should govern than an independent person like a Governo
A glance at the pedigree and history of the position of Governor (and Governor-General for that matter) reveals how pertinent and relevant it is to today’s political system.
In England before 1688 the King or Queen ruled by divine right. God chose the King. In 1688, the Monarch graciously agreed that whenever Parliament enacted a Bill, the Monarch would always sign it into law. Since then, the Monarch has always accepted that she would commission the holder of the majority in the House of Commons.
But if there is no clear majority how wonderful to have someone whose birth has given them a God-given right to decide.
In Australia, that decision is made by the representative of the person with the God-given right to rule. That representative (the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and the Governors of the states) is appointed by the Prime Minister or the Premier who can pick whomever they want.
This is far better than the ACT’s present silly system of having the Parliament/Assembly meet immediately after an election to elect its own Chief Minister/Premier/Prime Minister. Why have the elected representatives of the common swill choose the head of government when someone chosen to represent the monarch (with God’s blessing) can do it for you?
The Governor has another role. He or she can grant of refuse a Premier’s request for an early election. Usually it is granted, though once in the early 1980s Premier Robin Gray in Tasmania asked the Governor for an early election (immediately after an election threw him into minority at the mercy of the Greens). The Governor refused. And in 1980 Governor-General Ninian Stephen postponed his response to Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser’s request for an early election until he was provided with full reasons.
How wonderful to have the wisdom of a Governor or a Governor-General to clear up any chicanery over playing with election dates. Far better than the ACT’s silly system of having a fixed date for elections on the third Saturday in October every four years.
The ACT is missing out on other important things a Governor does. Why have the elected Chief Minister and other Ministers attend community functions and be seen and heard by the people who elected them when you can appoint someone esteemed person – like a former diplomat or former bishop – to do the job for you?
It doesn’t cost much. In Tasmania which has an economy smaller than the ACT, they can afford a Governor on $375,000 plus 22 staff, plus travel and maintenance of Government House. Say, $10 million a year — a steal for the quality of the job done.
Given the ACT’s economy is about 115 per cent of Tasmania’s we should pay our Governor $400,000 and give him or her 25 staff.
There is the small matter of a Government House. Tasmania has a sandstone mansion overlooking the water of the Derwent. We should have a Government House overlooking Lake Burley Griffin. Like most Government Houses it should follow 19th century design and require huge heating bills in summer and cooling bills in winter. It should have sweeping lawns requiring gigalitres of water a year. The construction would “create jobs”. What other excuse is needed?
The Governor’s position provides another important political function – a place to put politically inconvenient people – the defeated leader; the potential rival; or the nuisance idealist past his or her used by date.
We must have a Governor in the ACT. Instead of appointing Rosemary Follett to be Discrimination Commissioner or Terry Connolly to Master of the Supreme Court, then Chief Minister Kate Carnell could have got rid of potential political rivals with much more dignity by appointing them to the Governorship. What of Chief Minister Jon Stanhope’s dilemma? Making Wayne Berry Speaker has not stopped his idealistic but electorally inconvenient campaigns on abortion and long service leave and the like.
Wayne Berry for Governor, I say.
The ACT should fall into line with the Commonwealth and States and appoint a Governor. Any idea that the Commonwealth and states should copy the ACT’s governorless system would be a preposterous saving of $100 million a year and would inject far too much certainty into the political system.
In fact, appointment to the governorship would be the ideal way to silence an opinionated, noisesome newspaper columnist who keeps airing inconvenient idiotic ideas.