Bob Buick had the following letter published in the June 11, 2002, issue
of the Courier Mail :

> THE republican movement used the Queen's Birthday weekend to launch its
> change of direction by introducing a new twist - calling for the public
> to have a say in the choice of state governors.  It recruited some Labor
> premiers to support the movement.  I know that Australia will become a
> republic some day but I do not support the Australian Republican
> Movement's principles.  Premier Peter Beattie should remember that
> Queenslanders voted against ARM's policy and could be expected to do the
> same at a referendum that would be required to change the office of
> state governor.  Until ARM introduces ideas and methods to improve how
> Australians would be governed in a republic - such as removing a tier of
> government - it is yelling into the wind.-

> Bob Buick,
> Glenfields.

This generated some discussion. Ross writes :

> I can understand Bob Buick's sentiments regarding popular election of
> state governors.  Most people associated with Beyond Federation/ASC/SAT
> would feel an instinctive opposition to anything that might 
> entrench or legitimise the States.  But if we think about the issue a
> bit more laterally, we might see that the popular election of state
> governors could be a big step forward towards the goal of a more
> efficient and democratic system of government.

> Think about the record of failed referenda - many of them involving less
> controversial issues than the abolition of the states.  Think about the
> natural conservatism of Australians, their traditional identification as
> Queenslanders, Victorians or whatever, and the inevitable feeling that
> they states.

> Now visualise a proposal to abolish state parliaments and state
> governments, and transfer state powers upwards or downwards as
> appropriate, while leaving an elected governor as the legal embodiment
> of the state, to take care of the inevitable loose ends while having no
> actual power over the processes of government - except for one important
> exception.

> An elected State Governor could function as a "guardian" of the
> democratic processes at local/regional level, particularly in
> combination with a strong citizen-initiative system of direct democracy.
> There needs to be an umpire to blow the whistle and call elections and
> referenda.  The President/Governor-General could do the job, but
> Yarralumla's a long way from many parts of the country and I suspect a
> lot of people would prefer someone closer.  And by retaining state
> governors you could eliminate the need for a vice-President.

Charles wrote:

> I had an instinctive opposition to the suggestion that State Governors
> be directly elected, but my concern was that it has the hallmark of
> making changes that would entrench rather than eliminate State
> Governments.

> If we consider HOW to achieve change there are several important
> factors.  First, the inherent conservatism of the general Aust
> electorate.  There is a well documented resistance to change.  A lot of
> this resistance is born of ignorance of the issues.  However, a lot of
> this resistance is also a result of fear of the unknown.  Fear of being
> worse off after the change.  Fear of not being able to reverse the trend
> if it is perceived as undesirable after the change.

> Is a 'People's Champion' in the form of an elected State Governor a way of
> dealing with those fears?  On the surface, the idea has merit.

> However, one area that immediately comes to mind is 'border anomalies'.  If
> we envisage 'new-look' regions transgressing existing State borders, a
> border region could have two (or in an extreme case perhaps even three)
> 'People's Champions'.  This could get messy OR on the other hand, it could
> be an excellent method of conflict resolution with two or three elected
> State Governors mediating the problem.

This idea of a "people's champion" has some echoes of my model, of a
house of "ombudsmen" whose major task is scrutinise and negotiate, and
only in fact "exercise power" with a 90% vote of such people.  Such a
model may represent a useful "intermediate" layer of democratic
scrutiny, without the capability to generate inconsistent laws and the
conflict of generating legislation as well as scrutinising operations.

Klaas wrote :

> Australian people are not "conservative".  "Ignorant" is a more
> plausible characteristic.  A nation fond of gambling, prepared
> to take punts at the drop of a hat, which has experimented in the past
> with a variety of electoral systems is not inherently conservative.

> Australia has a large number of inventions to its credit -
> although often exported for commercial implementation because financial
> elites are too conservative to run with them!  

> The most conservative elements in this nation are the elites - they are
> the principal problem.  One can see that clearly in the preference for
> Minimalism in the Republic Debate.

> Prior to the Referendum opinion polls showed for at least two years
> running - President, although not an American type President.  No
> problem there with fear of the unknown.  Apparently no fear of being
> worse off after the change either.  The distrust of politicians was
> greater than the fear of the unknown here.  Reasons why referendums fail
> is frequently distrust of the initiatives taken - refendum initiatives
> are always politicians' initiatives.

> Electing State Governors may be a kind of experiment that might somewhat
> assist acceptance at the federal level but, really, this is clearly not
> a problem.  Voters are already in favour of that anyway.  The risk of
> entrenching state power is a real possibility.  Furthermore, if the ARM
> wants to project a change in direction how about talking about other
> things than the question of the Head of State - like abolishing the
> states.

Max writes, in reply to Ross :

It is state governments that we need to get rid of, not the states, as
they can stay as they are, and people can still be Queenslanders or what
ever.

If people keep talking about failed referenda as if is what has to
happen, and should be normal, it will.

When there is a system of government that is controlled by the people,
with fixed election dates, and a referendum can be called by a yes vote
by one third of the parliament, we will have no need for governors,
presidents, vice-presidents or governor generals.

It would be interesting with eight umpires, all blowing their whistles
to different tunes.

What do you believe is a strong citizen-initiative system of direct
democracy?

On the issue of direct election. An observation with the direct election of
mayors about half of the one I know of, six have failed, in most cases the
person was well liked by the public, but the person had no ability to do
what was required of a good mayor. If the mayor has no support from the
councillors, it makes it very hard to get anything done.