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.
Philip Cocker
June 5, 2011 at 13:29
I agree. I think that the maintenance of the Governor’s residence and grounds for the one person is an anachronism. The lands should be added to the Botanical garden and the buildings be the colonial art and furniture centre for TMAG. The current expenditure should be redirected to this purpose.
Michael Swanton
June 5, 2011 at 15:08
I remember the Honourable Brenton Roy Best as Deputy Speaker. You have got to be yoKing?
Michael Swanton.
William Boeder
June 5, 2011 at 18:05
Greg James you have given some serious research to this suject, it is indeed a rather expensive and cumbersome carriage for the taxpayer to fund and uphold of this antiquarian silver-tail appointed office.
My view of the Governor ‘thing’ is that it delivers somewhere near ‘zero’ back to the people whose taxes are heavily leant upon to pay for this extravagant display of pomp and somewhat exclusive ceremony!
With all the contra edictals that arise and are duly rubber-stamped from within our State’s parliament, to then make the journey unto the writing pad beneath the Governors pen for his signature endorsement, when there seems to be little by way of an obliged assessment to the evils or even benefits, as would be inherent in such changes to our State laws and such!
Surely there is a web site program about somewhere that is able to deliver at a far lesser expensive means of generating a customary placed signature upon such documents that seem to be by way of ancient tradition, sought for said documents?
Therfore I see no reason for our State not to avail itself of one of these ‘little electronic jiggers or jotters,’ as there seems to no inquiry or even a cursory interest into the bonafides of any particular ministerial individual, nor to the endemic corruptions extant yet so known of but determinedly ignored by the upper level echelons of the Stoats and Weasels indigenous to this State of Tasmania.
Tom Nilsson
June 5, 2011 at 18:07
I agree the role of Governor is largely ceremonial and therefor unnecessary. I might be worth simply making the Chief Justice the Governor.
J Hopper
June 5, 2011 at 18:55
Just think of how much the govt. could save if Government House became a tourist attraction – and we must be sure to keep the cows there – the Governor was a part time position and lived in his/her own house, and acted as a figurehead at official functions, thus freeing up the Premier from having to take time out from the busy(!) parliamentary schedule. And the premier would cost less to run as well.
john hawkins
June 5, 2011 at 21:00
It would be most interesting for Underwood to swear in Green,Green having appeared before him twice before in another capacity.
jabsert
June 5, 2011 at 23:31
Not this ridiculous rubbish again. Why not open your eyes and have a look around at some of the truly stupid old-mates projects in this state rather than something instrinsic to the operation of our political system ?
It would cost far more to dismantle and downgrade this system than what would be saved.
If you want a truly stupid program that costs even more than the governor have a look at the insipid “Tasmania Tigether” farce. Not *that* really is a waste of money.
Tim Thorne
June 6, 2011 at 00:25
As we are unlikely to appoint a homeless person as Governor, it would seem sensible in the short term to require the incumbent to make his/her own residential arrangements. This would free up the building as a first step.
Actually, I have been proposing for years a system whereby the Governor-General (or President) was chosen by a ballot of all those on the electoral roll (a bit like a larger version of the old Nasho lottery, or jury duty), to serve for a couple of months on an income equivalent to what they were earning at the time of appointment, plus expenses. The whole exercise could be funded by corporate sponsorship, with cash or in-kind consolation prizes to a few who missed out. It’s not as if they need any special skills.
This could work just as well for State Governors, although I would prefer to see the position abolished.
Trevor K
June 6, 2011 at 16:27
Good idea.
And while we’re at it let’s find a way to limit the number of terms a politician can serve. I don’t know, say two terms with at least a one term break before standing again?
Apart from getting rid of our parliament completely (an idea with merit I think) we need to do something about the arrogant big heads who infest that place at Salamanca.
We have an slimy oligarchy and it needs to be dismantled.
Damian Mackey
June 7, 2011 at 12:40
The only real reason we have an independent, non-political head of state is as a safety valve in the event Parliament becomes unable to govern. The head of state retains the ultimate power of being able to dissolve parliament and send everyone back to an election – as happened (Federally) in 1975. The fact that this power has only been activated once, either at State or Federal level, in over one hundred years does not diminish the critical role it plays in providing our country with the stable system of government that it has.
When you look at the strife some other countries get themselves into, 3 million dollars is not a bad insurance policy for a State the size of Tasmania.
If the system were changed so that our our head of state was popularly elected, it would constitute a fundamental, far reaching change to our system with huge consequences. In short; we do not need another political animal in the zoo.
Having said that, I am in favour of Australia becoming a republic. It is not good that the Queen of England, or her representative, is officially our head of state. We could simply change this by keeping the current system by which we appoint governors, but remove their status as “the queen’s representative”.
It should be recognised that if the Governor had to find his own digs and Government House were given over to TMAG or some other public entity, it would still cost the public several million dollars a year to run as some kind of museum or other publicly accessible function.
Finally, in addition to becoming a republic, I also don’t like the Union Jack in the corner of our flag. However, maybe that is just the Irish in me.
bazzabee
June 7, 2011 at 13:22
Let us haste with caution, I am also in favour of change but we must be careful when we make what is a necessary change that we do not discard an important part of our history.
As a start let the grandiose Victorian buildings become part of TMAG and land part of the Botanic Gardens. Both buildings and land can as and when they are required be used for ceremonial functions. Open both the buildings and the land to the public
As for the legal functions of the office move the Governor to an office in the city clearly the functions of the office do not need require the costly mansion where they are currently centered. After which parliament can carefully consider the role and the functions of the Governor over say a five year period.
Then and only then and should it be required further reform as necessary should be undertaken bringing both the land, buildings and most importantly the legal functions into what will be by then almost the end second decade of the 21st century. Hasten slowly as history does not forgive our hasty transgressions lightly.
Greg James
June 7, 2011 at 19:52
For the benefit of this conversation concerning the position of Governor, I have made one fatal mistake and that is mentioning what to do with Government House, it is a distraction and inane, to the argument.
The fact is, that other states have the position under review or have acted to contain the position, as in NSW, were the Governor has a part time position and lives in her own house.
#10 states that $3 mill pa is insurance, yet it is cumulative. You use the year of 1975 as a watershed, that cost for Tasmania would then be $108 million, when clearly the advice on how the constitution works can be given by many in our society, starting with Law Professors, judges and the educated commentariat.
Why are we keeping an obviously erudite and intelligent person locked away as if he was in a Turkish Harem, wheeling him out in case of an imagined crisis that has never occurred. Peter Underwood doesn’t act embarassed about being mendicant, he is under utilized and it is a waste. Sorry mate, while you are part of this waste and while you pretend to act in the states interests, living an unnecessary high life, while others can’t afford housing, it makes your position morally questionable. You heard Bryan Greens case and then swore him in as a minister. Does this in itself prove how out of whack the position is or to quote Homer Simpson, ‘doh’.
What part of dependency in our political system are we scared of. Its the dumbest, most expensive insurance policy, it is unquestioned and a 19th Century irrelevancy.
As for the other comments, I apologise for allowing most of them to be led by my essay construction down irrelevant rabbit holes.