Our Governor-General is more than just a ceremonial rubber stamp

This is that the governors play an important and indeed crucial role in the day-to-day governance of this country in each of the seven capitals.

Except the ACT! Why?

Because when self-government was forced on the residents of the Territory against their will, no provision at all was made for an Administrator to act as a check and balance on the executive.

What happened was a disaster, one which Acton himself would have predicted.

The government spent and borrowed massive amounts for the Bruce Stadium without any parliamentary authorisation or supply.

If there had been a representative of the Crown, doing what governors know they have to do, this would not have happened.

The ACT needs its own Administrator. Alternatively the Governor- General, who has the power to dismiss the Assembly, could be given this role. Obviously he or she would have to reduce the ceremonial function to accommodate these duties.

But this could be an advantage. It would give some future Governor- General a reduced opportunity to be seen, rightly or wrongly, as intruding into those policy areas which are the sole prerogative of government, disguised as the "conscience of the nation".

Governors do not have mandates, and they should never assume to think they have a policy agenda.

How, then, does the Governor act as a constitutional check and balance on government?

This is done through the Executive Council, in which the ministers seek to have legal effect given to significant Cabinet decisions and their own determinations.

They do this by tendering advice to the Governor, which must be accepted, provided it appears to be lawful.