THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1902. A GOVERNOR’S PRIVILEGES.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 179, 18 March 1902, Page 2

THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1902. A GOVERNOR’S PRIVILEGES.

Mr George Reid was quite right when he drew attention the other day in the Federal Parliament to the impropriety of the Governor General making a speech exonerating Mr Barton from blame, if there was any blame in the matter, for any delay there might have been in offering the last Australian Contingent for the war. Lord Hopetoun said in effect that he took quite the same view of the matter as Mr Barton, and practically that it was on his advice that the delay took place. Generally, he made a speech backing up Mr Barton and defending the line of action taken by that minister in respect to the contingent. Now all that the Governor-General said may have been perfectly true and perfectly correct, and yet it was entirely wrong ior him to say it. The reason is that the Governor of a self - governing British colony must not take any active part on behalf of any minister or set of ministers who may for the time being be in office. The Governor, constitutionally speaking, is a political automaton. He acts strictly according to the advice of his ministers, whether their advice is in accordance with his own views or ideas 01 not. It is his duty to do so. He is not supposed to express his own opinions or thoughts on political matters, hut theirs. On strictly Imperial questions, of course, the Governor may hold or express what views he likes, but on anything relating to or touching Colonial politics he must sink himself entirely, nor must he display any partisanship for either ministers or the heads of the opposition. Hence it is that it was a mistake for Lord Hopetoun to make his speech in support of Mr Barton. It is not his province to offer a personal opinion at all, publicly at any rate, on any of the acts of his responsible advisers. He may perhaps discuss questions with them privately, and state freely what he thinks on matters discussed, though even that is a privilege to be sparingly used. Under no circumstances should the Governor’s opinion be allowed to counterbalance those of his his official ministers. All state and policy measures should be decided by the Cabinet, and the Governor not being a member of the Cabinet, cannot he allowed to attend public meetings. The reason for these very strict—to some perhaps apparently too strict —rules is very simple when one reflects a little. The essence of government in a self-governing colony is that as nearly as possible the will of the people should be carried out. In a clumsy round-about sort of a way perhaps, but still in a way an attempt is made to give effect to the people’s will by having manhood—and in New Zealand—womanhood, suffrage, three-year parliaments and a ministry kept always under control of Parliament by the principle that whenever a majority of representatives insist on the ministers resigning they must do so. Clearly the people have no say in the appointment of the Governor, and therefore he should have no say in the government of the country. He is not in any way controlled by the people. He is appointed for a fixed term by the Home authorities. It would never do then to allow r an officer so appointed to take an active share in governing the country, or an active part on one side or the other in politics. Hence it was that Mr Reid was justified in calling attention to Lord Hopetoun’s injudicious speech. As far as we can gather, the impropriety of the Governor-General’s action was practically admitted by the speakers in the debate on Mr Reid’s motion, which, naturally enough, was not allowed Ao go to the vote. It was sufficient to emphasise and draw attention to the constitutional breach. It was certainly not necessary to go the length of passing a resolution condemning the chief representative of the King in Australasia. It is not likely that the lesson will be forgotten for some time.