“IMPORTED” GOVERNORS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 15 November 1926, Page 4

“IMPORTED” GOVERNORS.

Although his own position as its leader is even less secure than that of the Labour Party, Mr J. T. Lang, JPremier of New South Wales, is again on the constitutional warpath. If he continues to receive the confidence of the people—a well-advised “if” that — “imported Governors” are to go the way of the nominee Upper House, both being “relics of a system utterly incompatible with democratic institutions.” Meanwhile, iMr Lang’s man Friday, the Hon. E. A. McTiernan, has returned from London, whither he went to represent to the Secretary of State for the Dominions that “the clause in the Governor’s instructions empowering him to dissent from the advice of his Ministers, if he believed there was sufficient cause, was an accidental survival from early times.” Whether or not Mr L. S. Amery was impressed by this point of view is not recorded, and anything that he said by way of reply was sufficiently guarded to leave Mr McTiernan guessing as to its real import; so the pleasant little jaunt to London Avhich came the way of the Attorney-General for New South Wales has achieved nothing at all. That is not remarkable considering the rejefe tion six months ago of a more authoritative demand —inasmuch as it was advanced by five of the Australian States instead of one —for the substitution of local for overseas State governors. Indeed, except that the present grievance of the New South Wales Government arose from a specific incident — the refusal of Sir Dudley de Chair to make enough new appointments to swamp the Legislative 'Council —there was small justification for the renewal of the request so soon. The question of abolition itself need not be discussed afresh. If Mr Lang wishes to do away with the Upper House rather than remodel it, he should take the opportunity which constitutional practice provides, seek a dissolution and go to the country on that issue. That, knowing this way to be open, he makes strenuous endeavours to avoid it, suggests a fear that his will is not the people’s will. If this be so, it means that a change of government after abolition would more than probably result in the restoration of the second chamber; and New South Wales politics are sufficiently Cilbertian now without reversals of that, nature. If there were any means of arriving at the actual consequences of the thwarted intention, it probably would be found that the Governor has acted as guardian of the public wisli against the attack of the Ministry. That lie should have done this is matter for congratulation; that it should have been necessary, matter for regret. It is. of course, indisputable that here a. governor has done something which the King would not do: not that the King could not do—for legally and theoretically his powers are practically unlimited —but that he is restrained from doing so bv the accepted conventions of the Constitution. Thus, while (lie House of Commons is supreme in Britain, the elected chamber in New (South Wales is subject to the will of the Governor. ft seems inconsistent, and there is a reasonably strong case for an alteration in the instructions, tendered to vice-regal representatives on their appointment. (But the Juggernaut attitude of the New South Wales

Ministry is not calculated to hasten the amendment. Although the sovereign would not refuse to create new peers in sufficient numbers to enforce the will of the House of Commons —his consent to do so was received in 1832 and again in 1911, in connection with th< Reform Bill and the .Parliament Bib respectively—he would tender advice where he had reason to believe that the will of the Commons was divorced from the will of the electorate, and would offer a dissolution so that an appeal to the people could be made. If |Mr Lang could go to his Governor bearing a warrant from the people for the course of action which he proposes in respect of the Legislative Council, consent could no longer be refused for the appointment of the additional councillors required. But. as long as Governments shirk consulting the people on such issues, so long will Downing Street favour the retention of the present safeguard in its gubernatorial instructions. And as regards the substitution of local for “ imported ’ ’ governors, a similar consideration for the wish of the people animates the mind of the Imperial authorities. The reply of the Dominion Office to the memorandum from the five Australian Labour Premiers last March made this plain:— On previous occasions on which the question of restricting the field of ' choice for the .State Governorships in this manner has been raised, his ■Majesty’s Government has pointed out certain difficulties to which the proposal appeared to give rise, but, in principle, it was recognised that the ultimate decision rested with the people of Australia. ... If the Premiers’ proposal is to be adopted there should be no doubt that Australian opinion generally is in fay- . our of the change and so strongly in favour of it that a subsequent demand for its reversal is not likely to arise. . ■ It cannot, in view of his Majesty’s Government, be said that this is the case. On the contrary, it is manifest that there is a very strong opposition to the proposal, and that, having regard to the fact that opinion in Australia on the subject is so acutely divided there can be no assurance that if the proposal were now agreed to the decision would be accepted as a definitive settlement of the question. His Majesty’s Government have, come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient justification for the suggested abandonment of the existing procedure under which there is no limitation of choice.

It is evident from this that, once Australia definitely desires the change, it will be conceded. And there are arguments in its favour. The present system costs the several States about £40,000 a year, and maintains a degree of ceremony perhaps rather higher than the needs of the position warrant. Also, Australia has the example of the Canadian provinces to recommend local appointments. As yet, however, conditions in the two countries are not similar; the Australian -States retain larger powers than the Canadian provinces. If a position should arise in which the Federal Parliament dominates the picture —and affairs sometimes appear to be tending that may—the change to local governors might be made without detriment. But while State politics in Australia remain as active and as bitter as at present, the signal advantages of having as Governor a man from overseas —although not necessarily from the United Kingdom — who comes with an open and judicial mind untainted by ; party associations, far outweigh the subsidiary benefits which would attend the appointment, of even the most distinguished Australian.