‘Our Defence Minister – who probably doesn’t know how to fire a gun […] he’s a Labor Party lifelong hack.’

This was the Hon. John Ruddick, NSW MLC speaking of Australia’s Defence Minister, Richard Marles, at the inaugural Australians for Better Government forum, held recently in Sydney.

The forum, which you can watch here, included speakers proposing solutions on how we can optimise the performance of Australia’s system of government.

One of Australians for Better Government’s proposals, which Ruddick was responding to, is to remove the ‘Ministers to sit in Parliament’ line in Section 64.

This line in our Constitution completely wrecks our system of government.

The line leads to people like Chris Bowen being awarded important Ministries, such as ‘Climate Change and Energy Minister’, despite having no previous involvement in climate science or the energy sector.

You would assume Australians would want Ministers of important government departments to be the cream of the crop. Yet, instead of selecting industry leaders, with proven track records, we hand the responsibility to elected Parliamentarians.

‘What happens after an election,’ John Ruddick began, ‘the Prime Minister or the Premier is sitting there at his desk, her desk. And they’ve got all these cards to hand out, they’ve got to hand out 30 ministries. So, they hand it out to their mates, their factional mates, the people that sort of got them in there. And there’s no consideration about their skill set.’

Section 64 ‘Ministers of State’ states:

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

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.

That sounds fantastic if you wish to select industry leaders to head government departments. But why do we select Parliamentarians instead?

At the bottom of Section 64 exists the ‘Ministers to sit in Parliament’ line, which states: ‘After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives.’

This line requires Ministers to be Members of Parliament, but if this line is removed, it would revolutionise Australia’s governmental system and would allow for Ministers to be selected from the broader Australian population.

Let’s use the real-world example of Defence Minister Richard Marles to explain.

Marles’ bio on the Australian Government Defence website states: ‘He is a devoted Geelong Cats supporter, golf fanatic, a keen photographer, a snowdome collector, and local history enthusiast.’

What it does not tell you is that Marles joined the Melbourne University Labor Club in his first week at university. He began his career as a solicitor with Melbourne industrial law firm Slater and Gordon. He was the former legal officer for the Transport Workers Union and later their National Assistant Secretary. He went on to join Australia’s peak union body, the Australian Council of Trade Unions as Assistant Secretary in 2000, until 2007 when he was elected to Parliament.

With that resume, you would assume that Marles would be better suited as Minister for Unions, rather than Minister for Defence.

With the ‘Ministers to sit in Parliament’ line removed, the alternative could be someone like General Peter Cosgrove.

Cosgrove graduated from the Royal Military College in 1968 and fought in Vietnam, commanding a rifle platoon. In 1971, he was awarded the Military Cross for his performance and leadership during an assault on enemy positions.

In 1999, he was Commander of the International Task Force East Timor (INTERFET) before being appointed Chief of Army in 2000. Later, as General, he served as Chief of the Defence Force.

Who would you prefer to be Defence Minister?

In further support of the proposal, John Ruddick turned to the United States.

‘In the United States, the equivalent of our Defence Minister is the Defence Secretary. The Defence Secretary is always some guy who only spent 40 years in the military, so they know everything about it.

‘Trump’s Treasury Secretary spent a career on Wall Street, so he knows what a profit and loss is. Unlike our Treasurer, Jim Chalmers; he’s a lifelong hack. He’s never run a business or anything.’

Another concerning aspect of the Executive branch is the appointment of the Governor-General.

To ward off authoritarians, tyrants and dictators, Australia celebrates that our Constitutional Monarchy and Westminster System includes a separation of powers, which distributes the power to govern between the Legislature (the Parliament that creates legislation), Executive (Ministers to implement legislation), and the Judiciary (Courts to make judgements on legislation).

Yet in reality, the Prime Minister and Ministers exercise power within the Executive, adding to the power they wield in the Legislature.

Worse still, the Attorney-General floats between all three branches as a Member of the Legislature and Executive and the Judiciary.

Section 61 states, ‘The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Crown (King or Queen) and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Crown’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.’

As per the Constitution, the Governor-General, with executive power, should be running the Executive branch.

This would ensure a true separation of powers between the Legislature and the Executive.

Importantly, neither the Prime Minister, nor the Cabinet, are mentioned in Chapter II of the Constitution.

Our current structure relies on unwritten conventions derived from the Westminster system.

It is only by ‘convention’ that the Governor-General exercises the power of the Executive on the ‘advice’ of the Prime Minister.

This allows the Prime Minister and Cabinet to dominate the Executive branch, with the Governor-General reduced to an insignificant role. Worse still, the government ‘selects’ the Governor-General.

The Australian people should elect the Governor-General to be the Crown’s representative and head of the Executive branch.

This would ensure a true separation between the Legislature and the Executive.

With the above reforms, the elected Governor-General would then nominate Ministers from the broader Australian population, allowing for the best-of-the-best to head each department.

Unfortunately, the above issues will not be addressed by politicians, as the current system suits their ambitions. Yet, to optimise the performance of government, this needs to be addressed.

Australians for Better Government exists to address these issues and promote solutions. You can learn more about our movement at our website: www.australiansforbetter.com.

Australia is blessed with high-performance individuals with the benefit of years of industry experience. If we could harness their talent, we could optimise the performance of government departments.

Surely, they would ensure a better system of government than we have now.

Steven Tripp, President of Australians for Better Government, www.australiansforbetter.com