GOVERNMENT POSTS IN AUSTRALIA

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLII, Issue 20586, 27 November 1936, Page 14

GOVERNMENT POSTS IN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION OF SELECTION CASE FOR “COLONIAL APPOINTMENTS SYDNEY, November 12. The sudden and regrettable death of Sir Murray Anderson has raised once more the question whether, taking all the circumstances into account, it is not desirable that the practice Gf appointing representatives of th? Crown from overseas should cease. Opportunity enough, the Australian Natives’ Association has been holding its annual conference at Canberra this week, and one of the matters discussed by it was this question of “colonial” Governors.

The feeling of the gathering was clearly in favour of the “colonial” alternative. It was pointed out that according to the Statute of Westminster, Australian Ministers are responsible only to the King, and therefore it is competent for any Australian Government to suggest or nominate an Australian for the post of StateGeneral or Governor-General. As so the argument so frequently employed that a young country such as our own necessarily lacks men possessing the experience and the capacity that would qualify them for such a post, it was contended that the case of Sir Isaac Isaacs, the former GovernorGeneral, is a standing instance to the contrary. There is no doubt that Sir Isaac Isaacs, by virtue of his remark - able intellectual gifts, his many personal accomplishments, and his fin? character, proved himself fully equal to his weighty responsibilities, and the warm welcome that he has received at Home shows that the Imperial authorities were fully satisfied with the maner in which he had discharged his onerous duties. Difficulties Appreciated At the same time, as we had on many occasions to recognise, the fact that Sir Isaac was an Australian bom and bred enabled him to keep closely in touch with our affairs, to appreciate our difficulties and to adjust himself successfully to our requirements. Of course, the question how far the personal politics of Sir Isaac as an individual were answerable for his success is entirely a different one. That, however, members of the A.N.A were evidently satisfied to accept his cas£ as evidence that “plenty of Australians could fill the office of Governor-General more competently 1 and with as much dignity as men from overseas.” It is therefore not surprising that the conference at the close of the discussion, carried unanimously a motion recommending to the Federal and State Governments that the Governor-General and the various Governors should be Australians.

Of course, no one expects that a resolution carried by the A.N.A. will of necessity carry much weight in Imperial circles, and the appointment of a British Governor-General to succeed Sir Isaac Isaacs appears to indicate that the King and his advisers attach real importance to the appointment of a representative of the Crown from overseas. However, the incident will serve to keep the question alive and to remind the Imperial authorities that many Australians on this debatable question still cling tenaciously to the “colonial” point of veiw.