Talk:Governors of the Australian states

Incorrect comment about Canada

re: "Unlike lieutenant governors in Canada's provinces, Australia's state governors are not subject to the constitutional authority of the governor-general, but are directly responsible to the monarch. "

This is incorrect, and I presume it's based on someone making an assumption based on the fact that the Governor General (functionally, the Prime Minister) appoints the Lieutenant Governors.

To wit: ″There is a common misconception that Lieutenant Governors are somehow subordinate to the Governor General in the constitutional sense. That is not correct. Each is the Queen’s personal representative and the institutional embodiment of the Crown. Each is governed by the same rules and conventions, and each has the same responsibilities. Everything that I say about the powers of a Lieutenant Governor is equally applicable to those of the Governor General. The sole distinction between them is that the Governor General deals with matters which fall within the authority of Parliament and the Government of Canada while a Lieutenant Governor is circumscribed by the constitutional rules that define the ambit of the provincial legislatures, in our case the House of Assembly. This being so, I shall use the term “vice regal” to embrace all 11 of Canada’s constitutional offices. " http://revparl.ca/32/1/32n1_09e_Roberts.pdf

This was established by Maritime Bank v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick, the decision of which read: "the Lieutenant Governor [...] is as much a representative of Her Majesty, for all purposes of provincial government, as the Governor General himself is, for all purposes of Dominion government." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.37.217 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If lieutenant-governors hold office at the governor-general's pleasure, then I would say by definition they are subordinate. ITBF (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

earlier comment

I will fix the lists of governors of the remaining three states tomorrow. Adam 13:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

subheads

anyone else think this needs some subheads? (quick look) --Samwisebruce 17:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Australia Act

I read somewhere that the Australia Act 1986 removed any role that Britain had in the appointing of Australian Governors. If this is true, then it should be mentioned in the article. Snottygobble | Talk 05:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not true, AFAIK. But then, what do you mean by "Britain"? The Premiers of the States of Australia still advise/tell the Queen who to appoint, much like the Prime Minister has his nomination appointed Governor-General. The Australia Act certainly didn't replace the process with the Canadian model, whereby the Prime Minister would nominate State Governors, if that's what you're referring to.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Queen they advise is the Queen of Australia, so Britain plays no role whatever in the appointment of state governors. Adam 09:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• I see your points.

I went digging back through my reading, and found the paragraph. This is from Boyce, Peter. Introduction, in Black, David (ed) (1991). The House on the Hill: A History of the Parliament of Western Australia 1832–1990. Parliament of Western Australia, Perth:

"Between 1890 and the proclamation of the Australia Acts in 1986 responsible government in Western Australia, as in the other Australian states, was qualified by subordination to the British Parliament in the event of legislation repugnant to imperial statute, and by sections of the State Constitution itself, chiefly section 73. The Australia Acts removed all forms of subordination to the Westminster Parliament just as they eliminated any role for the British Government in appointing or directing the functions of the State Governors. The passage of these Acts leaves the federal Constitution's division of powers between national and State Parliaments as the sole limitation on the latter's legislative competence."

Note that the above quote says that the Australia Act eliminated any role for the British Government, which includes both the British Parliament and the Queen of England. But not, as you say, the Queen of Australia. Snottygobble | Talk 12:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The passage states "qualified by subordination...in the event of legislation repugnant to imperial statute". I would take this to mean WA was suboridinate insofar as the British Parliament could (theorectically, of course,) repeal and/or modify the Act by which it achieved self-governance. But, on second thought, because no equivalent of the Statute of Westminster was ever passed in respect of the States, you are probably right that the British Parliament still had a (theorectical) power to advise the Queen vis-à-vis the Governors. If this is to be mentioned in the article, I would suggest that we state that it was the British Parliament - as including the Queen and the Government - that retained a theoretical power to influence the appointment of Governor, rather than the "British Government". It should probably also be noted that convention dictated contrary to this. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

(Oh, and there is no "Queen of England". She ended way back in 1707 ;-))--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Subordination didn't just mean that self-governance could be repealed; it was much more than that. The governor had Royal Instructions to reserve any bill that was potentially contrary to British law or interests. And it wasn't just theoretical; I can think of one situation, I think in the 1950s, where the Governor of WA reserved a bill that discriminated against asians, because it was potentially contrary to British (i.e. British commonwealth) interests. The Royal Instructions existed until they were withdrawn by the issuing of a new Letters Patent following the passage of the Australia Act.

I think we all agree that the Australia Act 1986 played an important role in redefining the function/role/powers of the Governor of the Australian States. I think this should be mentioned in the article, but I don't have the expertise to tackle it. After reading Talk:Queen of Australia this morning, I suspect that Adam is the best person to decide whether/how to action this. Snottygobble | Talk 00:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Australia Act redefined the role of the Governors per se, but rather confirmed what had been the pratice. It would good if we could provide an example of an instant where a Governor acted upon Royal Instructions; the WA example sounds good. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Was just reading up an unrelated issue, but I came across something related to this. It appears that prior to the Australia Act, the States did not in fact advise directly to the Queen. Rather, they advised the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary (in essence, the evolved Colonial Secretary) of their nomination for Governor. The Secretary would then advise the Queen (on their behalf) before their appointment would be confirmed. The Australia Act thus did redefine the procedure by which State Governors were appointed, as well as removing the legislative power of the British Parliament over the States. This is described as a "colonial relic" (something Keating is fond of saying) and a "vestige of the time when Britain retained a rarely invoked ultimate legislative authority in relation to the self-governing colonies" (vide D. McDougall, Australian Foreign Relations: Contemporary Perspectives, Longman, South Melbourne, 1998, p.98). It was apparently at the request of the States that the Statute of Westminster did not earlier abrogate this. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The states were adamant that nothing in the Statute of Westminster should affect their independent relationship with the Crown. From memory, there is a clause in the Statute making this clear. Adam 03:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Section 9, Clause 2 (and possibly s.9(i)) would seem to apply:

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to require the concurrence of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any law made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with respect to any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any case where it would have been in accordance with the constitutional practice existing before the commencement of this Act that the Parliament of the United Kingdom should make that law without such concurrence.

--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And of course the states still have an independent relationship with the Crown. The only thing that has changed is that the Crown is now the Crown of Australia rather than the Crown of the United Kingdom. Adam 04:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

But was the relationship entirely independent prior to the Australia Act? The Statute indicates that the States' relationship with the Crown was independent of the Commonwealth, but not of the British Parliament. The Australia Act maintained independence from the Commonwealth, but also allowed for direct communication between the States and the Queen, completely independent of the British Parliament.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Crown, whether in the UK or Australia, only acts on the advice of ministers. The question has been, which ministers advise the Crown on the appointment of state Governors? There are three candidates: (a) British ministers (b) Commonwealth ministers and (c) state ministers. In the 19th century British ministers, specifically the Colonial Secretary, advised the Crown on the appointment of colonial Governors. Through force of intertia, this practice remained undisturbed until quite recently (I don't know exactly when, but it was still in place in 1975, when Whitlam got the UK Labour government to revoke Sir Colin Hannah's dormant commission). When the Statute of Westminster was passed, the states were concerned that Commonwealth ministers would use the Statute to sever this independent relationship with the Crown (via UK ministers): hence the above clause. The Australia Act formally and finally excluded UK ministers from the process. State ministers now directly advise the Queen of Australia on the appointment of state Governors. Adam 06:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that most, if not all, pages on the governors of the Australian states indicate that the governor of a state is appointed by the Queen of Australia on advice of the state premier. From a legal perspective, I'm not convinced this is correct. Before the Australia Acts, the Queen of each state was the Queen of the United Kingdom—meaning that the Queen acted on the advice of her British ministers regarding state matters. The Australia Acts effectively ended this relationship. State ministers will advise the Queen on state matters. But what are the implications? Answer: nobody knows.

The question really is, if the Queen acts as Queen of the United Kingdom in the sense that she acts on the advice of British ministers, then what does it mean when the Queen acts on the exclusive advice of ministers of New South Wales regarding New South Wales matters? It simply means that there is a distinct Queen of New South Wales as there is a distinct Queen of each of the other states, and of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The British Attorney-General was of the opinion that allowing states to directly advise the Queen meant the creation of six new Crowns (1). It was later reported that 'The Australians are wholly satisfied that the Queen in exercising her powers and functions in relation to a State will be acting as an Australian Queen, not as a Queen of the United Kingdom. They prefer, however, not to be asked which Australian Queen is involved – Queen of Australia or Queen of the State.' (2)

This is quite opposed to the Canadian system, in which there is undeniably one Crown acting throughout Canada. Each province's Lieutenant-Governor is appointed by the Governor-General of Canada. There was no direct relationship between the Queen and each province. So, it's quite clear one indivisible Crown of Canada exists.

I am fairly certain though that the Australia Acts established a Crown in each state whose Governor is appointed on the advice of the state premier.

(1) Twomey, A. 2009. Legal Studies Research Paper: The Australian Crowns – Changing the Rules of Succession. Sydney: Sydney Law School, p. 6. (2) Teleletter by Mr Watts to Mr Boyd, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 17 September 1984. Electronic copy. Zanderaspa (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Part-time Governor?

The line that mentions that NSW has a 'part-time' Governor sounds biased towards the monarchists' case against having the Governor removed from Government House. Is the Governor oficially 'part-time'? Should this line be removed? Jleonau 07:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Terms

How long are the terms of Governors? It seems from context (the discussion on Colin Hannah and either Marie Bashir or Governors of New South Wales) that Governors have fixed terms. What is the truth here? -Rrius (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Who swears in the ACT Government

The article makes no mention about the ACT having an administrator. So who swears in the ACT Government. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No one. The Chief Minister is elected by the Legislative Assembly and appoints the rest of the ministry. The Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 requires MLAs to be sworn in but says nothing about an oath for ministers. I guess the Chief Minister might arrange an unofficial swearing-in if s/he wants one and choose someone to swear them in. The ACT government basically operates as a city council, there is no viceregal representative or administrator. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)