It’s simple to get rid of the Governor … appoint the Speaker of the House to the position of Governor, in perpetuity. Not Michael Polley the man, but the Speaker, the position. Currently the Governor is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Premier and ‘the term of office’ is either by agreed contract or at the pleasure of the Queen or Premier, as the woeful situation of Richard Butler recently showed us when the Premier dismissed him. To say these appointments are not corrupted by political needs is to avoid reality.

My idea is to make the Governors/Speaker’s appointment more democratic; only the Legislative Assembly would be able to change the person of Governor. Not the Queen (as if), nor the Premier alone. It would avoid the problems of Whitlam and Kerr as to who fired who first. It’s a ridiculous idea to have a Premier able to fire a Governor as Lennon fired Butler, it’s a ridiculous idea in the reverse. Who is the boss? Well it’s you and I who elect the Parliamentarians, we pass that power role to the elected representatives and make our Parliament Sovereign.

Parliamentary reform is usually incremental in Australia and this subtle change in who holds the position would also break the relationship with Buckingham Palace and thus deliver to us our Australian dream of little change but with the effect of creating a Republic. Almost no disturbance to the system, which will keep functioning with some financial savings.

I know there are difficulties, like what do you do in an election? Well, that can possibly be dealt with by making the Chief Justice interim Governor, from the time the election is called, or the Chair of the Legislative Council; there are many ideas to float around this idea, before it will be consolidated.

The reality is that this would give us a version of a Republic where we remain in control and masters of our destiny. After all, none of the current political goings on are the concern of the Governor. He doesn’t intervene against corruption or mis-behaviour or if a policy is stupid. He just signs documents into law. The convention is now that an Act of Parliament is the Law, ratification can easily happen by the Governor/Speaker signing the Act immediately into Law. The Governor states on his web page that he also questions people’s statutory skills for a position; surely the bureaucracy has better trained Human Resources people who could provide that veto.

The Governor is legally obliged to make a tainted person like Bryan Green Premier if his party elects him. So I question his reserve power usage and say it would be better controlled by Parliament, our representatives, who if they choose to elect Green as Premier, still have to face the people at some time and not provide deflected legitimacy by having his appointment approved by the Queen’s representative. The Governor has failed to dismiss a Premier when he acted illegally. (See Rouse Affair summing up). Only the people did that when they voted Robin Gray out of office.

It is obvious to Blind Freddy that the position of Governor is ridiculously under-employed, so much so that if you read about his regal goings on in the newspaper, it inspires ennui. I wonder that we tolerate the spending of over $3 million per annum on under-employing an obviously intelligent person. I realize the savings would not be to that amount, as the maintenance of the Castle would still need to occur, but a changed usage would happen anyway as it became a museum for Colonial goings on and a source of revenue from Tourists.

So what we have now is a mendicant Governor who consumes so much but returns so little? This is not a statement about Underwood, but about all of them. As I have previously stated, his main occupation seems to be entertaining foreign ambassadors, when we are a State with no embassies. There appears to be no economic benefit, otherwise it would have been previously noticed and there would have been an effect on our economy. We are in the 21st Century and yet by inheritance, have this anachronism to pay for. We can’t afford it; we have to develop an innovative change that suits our current needs.

Maybe Peter Underwood would like to comment before the revolution starts.