VICE-REGAL POST Appointment of Mr. McKell

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 February 1947, Page 2

VICE-REGAL POST Appointment of Mr. McKell

Constitutional Position Explained ( BY PROFESSOR A. G. DAVIS, in the New Zealand Herald. The appointment of Mr. W. J. McKell, Labour Premier of New South Wales, as Governor-General of Australia, directs attention afresh to the office of governor-general m the self-governing Dominions. Mr. McKell’s appointment is noteworthy not only because he is Australianborn —Sir Isaac Isaacs, who was Governor-General from 1931 to 1936 was also Australian-born —nor merely because he is the first holder of the office without a title, but chiefly by reason of the fact that, unlike previous holders of the office, he has, for many years, been actively associated with party politics in Australia. The criticism is made by the leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr. R. G. Menzies, that the new GovernorGeneral will not be, as he should be as the King’s representative, above party politics. There is much point in the criticism, but the . constitutional position remains, that, in making the appointment, the King was bound to act on the advice of his Australian Ministers and, if they saw fit to advise the appointment of one who had .been active in politics for over a quarter of a century, His Majesty had no practical alternative but to accept that advice. Change in 1930. The position was different before 1930. Before that date, the King, in appointing governors-general, acted on the advice of his British Ministers, though the views of the Dominion Government concerned were always respected. But, under the procedure laid down by the Imperial Conference of 1930, a Dominion Government who desired the appointment of a governor-general was entitled to approach the King direct, without the intervention of the Secretary of State for the Dominions, and His Majesty was bound to act on the advice tendered to him. The years since 1930 have shown an increasing tendency for a person having close ties with the Dominion concerned to be appointed as its governor-general. Australia took the first step in 1931 in recommending the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs to the office. Irish Free State Decision. The Irish Free State went somewhat further in 1932 when, following friction between the then Gov-ernor-General, Mr. James McNeill, and the Free State Government, the King, in accordance with advice tendered by Mr. de Valera, approved of Mr. McNeill relinquishing his office. Shortly afterwards, it was announced that Mr. Donald Buckley, an elderly country shopkeeper, had been appointed to the office. In advising the appointment, Mr. de Valera sought to placate the extremist element, for Mr. Buckley had led the local commando from his native town, Maynooth, to take part in the rebellion of 1916. Until 1932 he had

sat in the Dail as a silent member and, all in all, he fulfilled Mr. de Valera’s requirements that the Gov-ernor-General should be a nonentity without power and with few even formal functions. The office, was finally abolished with the inauguration of the new Free State Constitution in 1937. South Africa, too, has shown a similar desire to have as its Gover-nor-General a person who had’ been closely associated with the affairs of the Union. In 1937, when the Earl of Clarendon’s period of office as Gov-ernor-General expired, Mr. (later Sir) Patrick Duncan, then Minister

of Mines in the Union Government, was appointed in his place. Sir Pai" rick Duncan was a Scot, educated at Oxford, who had taken part in the government of South Africa since the days of Lord Milner. South African Example. But when, on Sir Patrick’s death, the appointment of a new GovernorGeneral was required in 1945, Field Marshal Smuts looked for someone whose association with South Africa was even closer than that of Sir Patrick Duncan. The result, was the appointment of Major Gideon Van Zyl, the first South African-born Governor-General, who, as a supporter of Field Marshal Smuts, had sat in the Union Parliament for more than 20 years until he was appointed administrator of the Cape Province. In advising the appointment of Sir Bernard Freyberg as GovernorGeneral of New Zealand, Mr. Fraser might seem' to have been following the examples set by the other Dominions. But, unlike Mr. McKell pr Major Van Zyl and, in particular, Mr. Donald Buckley, His Excellency’s associations with New Zealand have not been of a political nature and his prowess in military matters, would suffice to warrant his appointment to his high office in any of the Dominions. Mr. McKell’s appointment shows a sharp contrast between the position of Governor-General of the Commonwealth and that of the governors of the Australian States. While the Commonwealth Governor-General is appointed on the advice of the Federal Cabinet, the State governors are appointed on the advice of the Imperial Government. Suggestions have recently been made that this apparently anomalous dtate of affairs should be brought to an end because its effect is to give to a State governor wider constitutional powers than those of the Commonwealth Gover-nor-General. This is a matter which, however, can be rectified only by amendment of the Australian Constitution, thus throwing into the melting-pot the whole question of the relation of the States to the Commonwealth.