Options sought for selecting state governors

By Professor John Warhurst
The Canberra Times, 14 June 2002

THE AUSTRALIAN Republican Movement's Queen's Birthday statement addresses the subject of state governors. It calls on ''state premiers, all of whom are republicans, to democratise the method of selection for state governors''.

The background to the proposal is that at the moment state governors are chosen by state premiers without consultation, just as is the case with the Governor-General's being chosen by the Prime Minister. In each case the Head of State, the Queen, merely rubber stamps the recommendation.

Not surprisingly, given our constitutional inertia, the proposal has
generated opposition. The media has inadequately reported ARM's statement by suggesting that it is just about direct election of state governors. Others, including the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, and the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, have either not understood it or have misrepresented it. What ARM is calling for is a little creative constitutional innovation.

In 1998 and 1999 many republicans were calling for a directly elected
president, while others feared the impact that direct election might have in elevating the status of a president. The 1999 referendum proposal itself included a consultative mechanism by which citizens could suggest names to a presidential-appointments committee made up of a mixture of parliamentary and community representatives.

At the same time, opponents of the republic argued that voters should reject the proposal because it was untried. The suggestion makes a contribution to testing each of these concerns.

ARM's policy is not for all state governors to be elected. But it does want the issue discussed. The media statement suggests that, ''The premiers have it within their power to put to the people of their states options to democratise the method of choosing their respective governors.''

This could mean an election or it could mean a consultative committee or it could even mean ultra-minimalist but real consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and other parliamentarians. Anything would be more democratic than the current closed process in which the decision is in the hands of the state premier alone.

ARM does not expect many premiers to take up this option. It threatens their sole control of appointments. Declared minimalist republicans like Carr were never likely to do so. But it would like to see one or two of them being creative in the spirit of the 1998 Constitutional Convention and the 1999 referendum when most of the current premiers were Opposition leaders attracted to direct election of the president.

Gallop was one of the movers of a direct-election model at the Constitutional Convention. ARM has been engaged in discussions with one of those premiers, Queensland's Peter Beattie, who has previously publicly suggested that the idea is a good one.

Furthermore, ARM is not suggesting that the ideas for democratisation should be imposed on unwilling state electorates as Crean's reported response implies. There is plenty of time for premiers to gauge public support in their state. The first vacancy, in Queensland, does not fall due until July 2003.

One way to go forward would be to issue a discussion paper to test community and parliamentary reaction. Even if a state premier did not want to test opinion by commissioning a public opinion poll or qualitative research, one of the state's newspapers would do so for him if he floated the idea.

The suggestion is in the spirit of Australia's federal system. My Australian National University colleague Professor John McMillan has said that the proposal could lead to chaos and to ''constitutional schizophrenia''. On the contrary, it would be constitutionally beneficial.

According to McMillan, there should be a uniform practice around Australia for an office such as governor. But the true spirit of federalism is to encourage innovation and experimentation. Variety is a good thing.

Federalism is a system in which ideas can be tested in one state to see if they are any good. Democratising the method of choosing their respective governors is just such an idea. If we don't try various methods, how will we ever know which ones, if any, improve our democracy?

The expansion of the franchise has occurred at different speeds in different states.

McMillan, like Carr, fears that such a development might give governors too much power. This was the argument against direct election in 1999. While I have some sympathy for this argument, I have always believed that it has been exaggerated. More importantly, these fears are not shared by most Australians.

Just look around our federal system. We have different methods of electing our houses of parliament. Some jurisdictions, like the ACT and Tasmania, have multi-member proportional representation, while others have single member preferential systems. Five states have two houses of parliament while one state and two territories have a single house.

The expansion of the franchise to all citizens has proceeded at different
speeds in different states as this week's centenary of women's suffrage has reminded us. One state, NSW, has already experimented with opening its Government House to the people and tentatively changing the style of its governor. Surely a little innovation can only assist our democracy and not lead to constitutional schizophrenia.

To insist that all states and territories and the Commonwealth Government move in lock step on such issues is a recipe for a constitutional ice age. Constitutional change is difficult enough without rejecting suggestions out of hand. What an unadventurous lot we are in constitutional matters.

Professor Warhurst is ACT Convener of the Australian Republican Movement.