No obstacle for Morrison in a Constitution that doesn’t recognise a PM

It is extraordinary, but not unknown, for prime ministers to inhabit multiple ministerial roles.

Gough Whitlam and his deputy, Lance Barnard, famously ran the country as a two-member ministry for the first two weeks of their Labor government in 1972. Each had 14 ministries.

No secret was made of Gough Whitlam’s brief “duumvirate”, while almost no one knew of Scott Morrison’s arrangement.Credit:Renee Nowytarger

Whitlam, a classical scholar, called it a “duumvirate”, and said at one point it was “more properly a triumvirate” because the governor-general, Sir Paul Hasluck, was the key member of the Governor in Council process, by which a government implements its business.

However, no secret was made of the arrangement. And Whitlam’s efforts to publicise Hasluck’s inclusion as a member of the order of things made clear that nothing was occurring in the shade.

The fact that almost no one – even among senior ministers – knew Scott Morrison was taking on multiple ministerial roles makes the current revelations beyond extraordinary, whatever Governor-General David Hurley may now say.

Morrison was not simply inhabiting multiple ministries – he was inhabiting ministries already held by others, reportedly including those of then health minister Greg Hunt, finance minister Mathias Cormann and resources minister Keith Pitt.

And for reasons best known to himself, he kept it secret.

Morrison’s former attorney-general, Christian Porter, is said to have advised on the novel scheme in the first place, but has not yet said why it was thought necessary.

Hurley’s spokesperson says the governor-general was “following normal process and acting on the advice of the government of the day”, in appointing Morrison to these extra jobs.

The wording is extremely prudent.

Of course, it is “normal process” for a governor-general, the Queen’s representative in Australia, to act on the advice of the government of the day.

That is what governors-general do, unless, like Sir John Kerr in 1975, they are prepared to court a constitutional crisis by sacking an elected government.

Hurley, clearly not wanting to flirt with a crisis, declares “the appointments were made consistently with section 64 of the Constitution”.

And what does section 64 say, given that our Constitution doesn’t so much as recognise the existence of a prime minister?

“The governor-general may appoint officers to administer such departments of state of the Commonwealth as the governor-general in council may establish,” the document says.

“Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the governor-general. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s ministers of state for the Commonwealth.”

So that – being a section airy enough to permit a clutch of constitutional experts and a prime minister obsessed with control to hold a leisurely barn dance in it – clears the governor-general of anything particularly improper, even if Morrison’s exotic jobs were held “during the pleasure of the governor-general”.

Hurley apparently sees little pleasure in the matter, and also wants us to know he didn’t have to do any special swearing-in ceremonies for the prime minister.

In circumstances where ministers were appointed to administer departments other than their own, “the governor-general signs an administrative instrument on the advice of the prime minister”.

And there, once again, appears to be the essence of it: it was Morrison’s doing.

Indeed, a close reading of Hurley’s statement suggests he is keen to move on from the whole affair now it is out in the open.

“Questions around appointments of this nature are a matter for the government of the day and the department of prime minister and cabinet,” his spokesperson declared.

“Similarly, the decision whether to publicise appointments to administer additional appointments is a matter for the government of the day”.

Audacious? Yes. Bizarre? Certainly.

But constitutionally valid? It would appear so, given that even the Constitution keeps the existence of a prime minister a secret.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.

Most Viewed in Politics

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article