Evicting the governor.(Letters)(Letter to the editor)

SIR: Gordon Samuels, former Governor of New South Wales (Letters, March 2006) chooses to criticise what I have written in my book Head of State, but without, as he admits, actually reading the book. He chooses, instead, to base his criticism on the words of the reviewer, Peter Coleman (December 2005). This represents a most extraordinary view of evidence by a former holder of judicial office. Fortunately for Samuels, Peter Coleman has represented me fairly and accurately, but a three-page book review cannot cover all that is contained in a chapter of twenty-eight pages, on the role of state governors, let alone in a book of 358 pages that deals with the governor-general, the monarchy, the republic and the dismissal.

At pages 173 and 174 I wrote:

 
   There have been a few state 
   Governors who were chosen 
   precisely because they were, or 
   their Premiers thought they 
   were, either deficient in the 
   required personal qualities, or 
   because they could be persuaded 
   to be malleable in their 
   application ... There have also 
   been many state Governors who 
   have followed in the great 
   traditions of the office--men 
   and women who have had the 
   intelligence, the wisdom, the 
   integrity and, if necessary, the 
   courage to uphold their oath of 
   office ... The best way to nobble 
   such Governors is to reduce or 
   remove some of the resources 
   and facilities available to them 
   to do their job ... The quickest 
   and most effective way of 
   nobbling a Governor is to evict 
   him from Government House 
   and make his job a part-time 
   one. This was the device used 
   by New South Wales Premier 
   Bob Carr in 1996 ... 

Samuels objects to my use of the word evict because it implies conflict and because he and his wife strongly supported the Premier's proposal. Well, let me remind him that the tens of thousands of citizens of New South Wales who staged the largest street protest Sydney has ever seen were certainly in conflict with the Premier and with Samuels. If Samuels and his wife were reluctant to leave their newly-rebuilt home in Bronte, then their sense of duty to the vice-regal office and to the people of New South Wales should have led them to say "No, thank you" to the Premier. And if Samuels himself, for personal reasons, didn't feel that he was being evicted, it is certainly the case that the state governor was evicted, which is what I said in my book.

May I also remind him of the other parts of his shabby deal with the Premier, namely, that he would operate with a reduced staff, and would attend few of the ceremonial and entertaining functions that traditionally occupy vice-regal time. In order to fill in the Governor's spare time, the Premier proposed, and to his shame Samuels agreed, that he would continue to hold, at the same time, the office of chairman of the state's Law Reform Commission. That either of them thought it possible or proper for a governor to also hold a statutory office as a public servant beggars belief. The proposal reeked of conflict of interest and impropriety, which should have been obvious to anyone with Samuels' legal qualifications. This proposal was eventually dropped in the face of fierce public, parliamentary and media protest.

Samuels also objects to my referring to the governor being dismissed from conducting the ancient ceremony of the official opening of parliament, and refers to the two occasions when he opened the state parliament. It may come as a surprise to Samuels but when I use the word "Governor" I am referring to persons other than just himself. At pages 179 and 180 1 wrote:

 
   Evicting the Governor from 
   Government House was not the 
   final insult that Bob Carr 
   inflicted on the vice-regal office. 
   One of the grandest and most 
   symbolic ceremonies that ...