We often forget about the role of the Executive council in post-colonial Westminster systems. This body, presided over in Australian states by a Governor, officially advises the Sovereign's representative. In today's Courier Mail , David Solomon writes on the importance of the independence of the Governor from the Premier - and why that means the Governor should be elected.
"During the republican debate in 1999, Peter Beattie said he might radically change the way in which the Queensland governor was appointed: he raised the prospect of the governor being elected by the people, rather than selected by the premier."

What is striking is Solomon's argument for the independence of the Governor from the Premier, based on the precedents of former Governors in raising specific issues. But in none of the cases have the Governors actually held the Premier to account for their actions. Indeed, this is what Solomon is missing in his article, and perhaps his lecture: he seems to imply that an elected Governor would be better able to question the actions of the Executive Council advising him or her, but he never states this. I'll post an update once the lecture's full text is online.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • cam . # .
    There was an instance during the waning days of the Bjelke-Peterson government in Queensland where Joh asked the Governor, Campbell, to sack his cabinet through the Executive Council, so that he could replace them with joh-boys. Campbell refused and asked Ahern if he had the numbers to govern.

    Most of the times these sort of incidents have no prior convention to follow, and any Governor who seeks advice on them is treated as a leper. When Game asked on the NSW Chief Justice and the British Colonial Office over constitutional issues in 1932, they didn't want to know him or give any opinion.

    It is a massive weak point.

    The current Westminster thinking is that electing a popular ceremonial executive will mean that the elected person will believe they have a popular mandate to enforce, and since this part is unwritten and without much in the convention or practice, then it is a path to the subversion of parliament and the executive.

    The Westminster is weak anyway because of its poor separation of powers, and I don't think a ceremonial executive should be elected, in fact, I think a ceremonial executive is tits on a bull. I know there are others here who have arguments for an elected ceremonial executive.

    I reckon if the executive is to be directly elected then we have to break out the executive into a separate constitutional branch that does not mingle with the legislative.

    'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.