So much going on at the moment that it can’t wait for the next opinion poll post:
• Brendan Nelson’s announcement he will vacate his blue-ribbon northern Sydney seat of Bradfield at the next election could initiate another of the classic preselection clashes for the NSW branch of the Liberal Party has become justly famous in recent years. Party sources quoted by Imre Salusinszky of The Australian say the preselection will be “the most open and hotly contested since Bronwyn Bishop succeeded Jim Carlton in the neighbouring seat of Mackellar in 1994”, with no clear front-runner and neither Right or Left controlling the seat. However, it is also “understood party bigwigs are intent on avoiding a repeat of the preselection debacle in 2007 in the southern Sydney seat of Cook”. Salusinszky’s report floated the possibility of his paper’s conservative pundit Janet Albrechtsen taking the field, but she promptly ruled herself out. Live possibilities apparently include another connection with The Australian in Tom Switzer, former opinion page editor and staffer to Nelson; Arthur Sinodinos, John Howard’s legendary chief-of-staff; Nick Farr-Jones, former rugby union international; Julian Leeser, executive director of the Menzies Research Centre; Geoff Selig, former state party president; Alister Henskens, barrister and local party office-holder; David Elliott, former Australian Hotels Association deputy chief executive; Paul Blanch, a sheep farmer who ran in Calare in 2004; and, as always, Adrienne Ryan, former Ku-ring-gail mayor and ex-wife of former police commissioner Peter Ryan. The Sydney Morning Herald reports we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for a result:
A state executive meeting tomorrow is likely to discuss the timetable for the preselection race but because of a redistribution of seats in NSW, the final ballot will not be held until the end of the year. Because of that, most Liberal insiders believe the final candidate has yet to emerge.
• The Electoral Commissioner’s federal electoral determination has been published, confirming redistributions will need to occur to remove a seat from New South Wales and add one to Queensland. There seems to be some confusion abroard as to whether this scotches any chance of an election this year. As Antony Green explains, it is indeed the case that Queensland cannot be deprived of the seat which it is constitutionally entitled to at the next election now that the determination has been made, and it is indeed true that a redistribution process takes the better part of a year. However, the Electoral Act lays out a set of procedures for “mini-redistributions” in these circumstances, in which the two most or least heavily enrolled adjoining electorates in the state are either divided into three or merged into two. This has never happened before, and there would be obvious political difficulties in justifying an election held under such slapdash arrangements if it could possibly be avoided.
• Could Western Australia’s May 16 daylight saving referendum be the catalyst for a super Saturday of state by-elections? It certainly seems war clouds are gathering over the electorates of the two most powerful figures in the defeated Carpenter government: Jim McGinty, the member for Fremantle, and Alan Carpenter himself, who holds the neighbouring seat of Willagee (surely I have not so pleased the Lord that He would grant me neighbouring same-day by-elections in my own backyard?). According to Jenny D’Anger of the Fremantle Herald:
In the face of persistent rumours that veteran state Labor MP Jim McGinty is about to trigger a by-election for Fremantle by announcing his retirement, the Greens have called a war cabinet to talk tactics and anoint a candidate. It is all but certain they will choose South Fremantle’s Adele Carles, who came within a whisker of taking the seat at last year’s state election … Ms Carles says if the powerbroker is considering calling it quits he should do it so the by-election can coincide with the daylight saving referendum in May, saving thousands of dollars … The tom-toms have been beating for weeks that Fremantle mayor Peter Tagliaferri was the shoe-in as Labor’s choice to replace Mr McGinty. But more recently a senior union figure has emerged as a front-runner, which a Labor insider says had Mr Tagliaferri threatening to run as an independent (Word around the campfire is that this refers to Dave Kelly, one of McGinty’s successors at the LHMWU – PB). The Herald’s Labor source said Alan Carpenter also had to be taken into account: If the former premier decides to quit politics the union figure may prefer Mr Carpenter’s safe Willagee seat, which is not threatened by the Greens. This would leave Fremantle open for Mr Tagliaferri. But both Mr McGinty and Mr Tagliaferri are denying a by-election is imminent. “It’s no more than rumour-mongering,” Mr McGinty barked down the phone, adding he stood by the Herald’s report last November that he had no plans to go early but was unlikely to run again in 2013.
• Killjoy Harry Quick has gone back on his threat to run against Treasurer Michael Aird as Greens candidate in the looming upper house election for Derwent. According to the ABC, Quick says “his family has played second fiddle to his political aspirations for too long”. An earlier report said he was “understood to be ready withdraw his nomination due to family pressure to stay true to the Labor Party”.
no probs William though that was evidence in court, as you know most of my blogs are fairly inoffensive but i dont mind you deleting any you’re not comfortable with, as you know i’m very close to members of major crime so i’m usually very careful of what i write or say, i have to be to retain their trust, i do try to be honest here, as i’m under my real name i have to be.
Third time’s the charm scorpio 😉
Thanks to Bree for 52 and 55.
For once I am delighted to agree with someone of the Liberal mindset. I don’t care how long it takes, even if the coalition has to spend another decade in opposition, I hope Costello hangs in there till he gets the party leadership. He shouldn’t give up. Sure there might be a few difference’s between Costello’s band of merry men and the Sydney Liberal clique. But the grace with which the Liberals will amicably resolve those differences will serve as an inspiration to voters everywhere.
Gusface, you want a definitive answer on matters of constitutional law under the Westminster system of undefined reserve powers? Reminds me of the Union of Philosphers demanding rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. I don’t know about Adam and co, but my knowlegde of the subject comes from decades of reading, which means you just google a subject and are able to sieve out the important bits thanks to your experience.
I still say that the report on Australia becoming a republic, done by the committee headed by Malcolm Turnbull and appointed by Keating, is as good a starting point as any. Very readable, and good summaries of other republican systems.
I would also recommend “The makers and the breakers : the Governor-General and the Senate vs the Constitution” by Richard Hall & John Iremonger, published after the 1975 ‘incident’. It reviewed a lot of the constitutional issues about the Senate and the G-G, and also plowed through the debates on the matter in the 1890s Federation conventions. The authors had a particular view that the Senate should not block supply, and that Kerr should not have done what he did, but the arguments about the meaning, weaknesses and strengths of the constitution and its conventions are well set out without getting bogged down in detail like to many constitutional law books.
100 – A clear case of opposition for opposition sake. The Crosby/Textor strategy in full swing. Amazing.
I particularly remember excerpts in that book from the 1890s debates where colonial politicians wanted to provide greater clarity on the roll of the G-G. Barton and other constitutional lawyers leading the debate basically said that if powers were defined in the constitution, the British would laugh and say these colonials don’t understand constitutional law.
And as many a good historian has pointed out, the whole debate might have been different if it had occurred after the House of Lords blocked Lloyd George’s budget in 1909.
To ShowsOn, on the last thread you put a list of defectors/party changers. You had Mia Handshin in there as Libs to Labor. Where is her link to the Libs, I am curiosu about where she has come from. My undertstanding is that she has only ever been a memeber of the ALP. please enlighten us.
105 – Agreed, It’s so blatant it takes the breath away.
Gusface, I will attempt to answer your question shortly.
from the Australian letters blog, Cossie doesnt seem to be as popular as his ego is telling him, most blogs are rather scathing of the coalitions main hope.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/treat_public_office_as_the_privilege_it_is/
I should add on that. Barton and other leaders of the debate knew that any constitution had to first go through the Westminster Parliament as a UK Act before it became the Australian Constitution. They didn’t want a debate with UK politicians about those sorts of issues. In the end Barton headed off an attempt by British business interests to make the Privy Council the final place of appeal for High Court cases.
Gusface @ 96,
Wiki covers the Head of State issue very comprehensively here. It conclusively outlines the Monarch as HoS and Powers/Reserve Powers and role of GG’s etc.
I think a few people last night might have benefited from a read. This was all thrashed out months ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_State
I can’t believe the pension backflip. They must think continued support would undermine their opposition to the fisculus package, but the politics of continued support would be pretty easy. The polls indicate that the coalition has lost the support of most of their traditional supporters. Do they want to lose pensioners too? It just looks idiotic.
Of course Judith. 59% of those exit polled at the election did not want Costello as PM. Since then, his presence has continuously destabilised his party, and his i’m not staying but i’m not going waiting in the wings stance is only further taking away any electoral appeal he had left. If he thinks he can do this for another year and then take the top job and get elected, he has rocks in his head.
This message also applies to Bree and the other Liberal fanbois.
[The polls indicate that the coalition has lost the support of most of their traditional supporters. Do they want to lose pensioners too? It just looks idiotic.]
I guess they figure that the majority of pensioners are rusted ons and won’t be lost to them no matter what they do. They are hoping the economic situation will worsen, justifying their claims of economic ‘restraint’. It’s certainly a gamble.
GP (from the previous thread)
[
Generic Person
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 11:55 pm | Permalink
No 1583
All I would say is that if they happen to decide, at a future date, that they prefer the Liberal Party, that you’d not attempt to change their minds.
]
It won’t happen, they’ve been trained way way too well 😀 …… Grandpa and Grandma have also worked on them 😀
[Costello tipped to ‘haunt’ Turnbull]
Grattan (or the sub-ed) showing a bit of Keatingesque humour with this headline in the Age 😉
Triton @ 113,
[I can’t believe the pension backflip. ]
Their internal polling has probably confirmed what is happening in the main stream polls. That they are bleeding pensioner/senior votes badly.
Uncle Kevvie from Queensland has given them a nice little pick-up with the promise of more to come.
It’s just a little “payback” for their disloyalty. A little smack and get back in line where you belong or else we will move to take some of your pokie money away from you and you will have to go back to eating cat food again.
[I can’t believe the pension backflip.]
A stripping offence if ever I heard one
#115 Dario
But they can only get mileage out of opposing a pension increase by hammering the government with it when the economy worsens, which would be indirectly kicking pensioners all the way to the next election. There might be plenty of rusted-on pensioners, but they’d lose plenty as well. I doubt that Rudd would have used their support of a pension increase against them, because that would be seen to be kicking pensioners too, and everyone agrees that the pension is too low. A lot to lose and little to gain is how it looks to me.
#118 scorpio
That sounds like a rather novel way to regain their support. I’d even call it courageous.
Bree @ 61,
You won’t catch Fraser endorsing either man 😀 ….. some former party leaders have seen the light 😀
[I doubt that Rudd would have used their support of a pension increase against them, because that would be seen to be kicking pensioners too]
I disagree. Rudd would definitely use it if they voted with the Government.
[ShowsOn, on the last thread you put a list of defectors/party changers. You had Mia Handshin in there as Libs to Labor. Where is her link to the Libs, I am curiosu about where she has come from. My undertstanding is that she has only ever been a memeber of the ALP. please enlighten us.]
She told me she was a fully paid up Young Liberal in her teenage years.
Gusface
The question of the Queen of Australia’s powers is not a psephological one, so William, Antony and I are not necessarily any more expert than anyone else on this question (unless William or Antony has a degree in constitutional law that I’m unaware of). I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I am a historian, and I have read a fair amount about this over the years. This is my best attempt at a brief historical summary of the issue.
Since the UK has no written constitution, the Queen in the UK is, in theory, an absolute monarch. But over the centuries a web of conventions has developed by which the Queen *acts as if* she were a constitutional monarch. She no longer taxes without the consent of parliament, declares war, dismisses ministers, dissolves parliament or refuses assent to laws, etc – although she retains all these powers in theory. Above all, she *acts only on the advice of ministers.* This is the essence of the Westminster system. It operates by informal rules, on the basis of convention, mutual trust and shared values.
In Australia, however, we have a written constitution, to which Queen Victoria gave her assent in 1900. As a result, the Queen of Australia is a constitutional monarch in a sense that the Queen of the UK is not. She holds her Australian throne not by divine right, but by the consent of the Australian people, and her status in Australia is *as specified in the Constitution*, no more and no less. The Queen does not and cannot act in Australia as she acts in the UK.
Section 1 of the Constitution says: “The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives…”
This makes it clear that the Queen is Australia’s head of state – she stands at the pinnacle of the constitutional system. No legislation is possible without her, any more than it is possible without the House of Reps or the Senate.
Section 2, however, says: “A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.”
This makes it clear that all the Queen’s powers under the Constitution are to be exercised in her name by the GG. Since the Constitution is now a “stand alone” document which cannot be repealed or amended by the UK Parliament, this means that the Queen has permanently and irrevocably ceded all her Australian powers to the GG. The only power she retains is to appoint the GG, but since by convention she acts only on the advice of her Australian PM, she does not really exercise this power either.
Thus the GG in every way *acts* as Australia’s head of state, although it is clear from s1 that she is not in fact a head of state, only the representative of the head of state. The GG takes an oath of allegiance to the Queen, which she would not do if she were herself the head of state – a head of state cannot owe an allegiance to another head of state.
As I said, the central principle of the Westminster system is the convention that the Queen acts only on the advice of ministers. In Australia, in practice, what this means is what I said last night: The GG (or a state governor) must always act on the advice of a PM (or a premier) who commands the support of the lower house of the parliament, and must not act without such advice. That was the convention that Kerr violated in 1975. He had no right to make an independent judgement about the Senate supply situation, no right to conspire with Fraser, and no right to dismiss a PM who had the support of the House of Reps. If Kerr genuinely believed that Whitlam was acting illegally or improperly, his duty was to *advise* Whitlam that this was his view, and then, if Whitlam continued to act in such a manner, to threaten to resign and state publicly why he had done so. The resignation of a GG in such circumstances would be a death blow to most governments, and the threat to resign a powerful deterrent.
It follows from the above, however, that a GG or Governor *does* have the right to act if there is no PM or Premier who commands the support of the majority of a lower house. This right is what is generally referred to as the reserve powers.
If an election produces a hung parliament, for example, the GG has the right to consult party leaders and to help devise a solution which will create a stable government. Thus in 1989, when Robin Gray’s Liberal government in Tasmania lost its majority, the Governor refused his request for an immediate second election, since it was his view that alternate government, a Labor-Greens coalition, could be formed.
If a PM loses a vote of confidence in the Reps, and does not immediately resign, the GG has the right to decline to take his advice, and the right to terminate his commission.
There is a grey area when a PM *has* lost the confidence of the House but has *not* lost a confidence motion. This was the situation that confronted Sir Walter Campbell in 1987, when Joh Bjelke-Petersen went mad in office and tried to dismiss his entire Cabinet to prevent them deposing him as leader. Campbell *formed the independent view* that Bjelke-Petersen no longer had the support of his colleagues and declined his request, and eventually persuaded him to resign. If Bjelke-Petersen had refused to resign, Campbell would then have been entitled to dismiss him.
In relation to the republic debate, therefore, the issue of the powers of the Queen is a red herring. The Queen has no power to act independently in regard to Australia. She cannot dismiss an Australian PM, or even a GG once appointed. It’s true that in 1953 the Parliament passed an Act allowing the Queen to exercise her powers when she was personally present in Australia, but I suspect the High Court would now find that Act to be unconstitutional, since it appears to conflict with s2 of the Constitution. In any case neither the Queen nor any conceivable Australian government would attempt today to put that Act into effect except possibly for a purely ceremonial function. The Queen has not personally opened Parliament since 1977 and I doubt any monarch will ever do so again.
There are two issues in all of this for the republic debate:
1. how to transfer the powers now exercised by the GG to a President. This can only be done by referendum.
2. how to choose or elect that President. This could be done by referendum, but it could also be done by legislation. It would be possible to have a referendum which simply said that “all the powers assigned to the Queen in the Constitution shall be assigned to the President of the Commonwealth of Australia, that person to be chosen by a method to be prescribed by the Parliament.”
Postscript: I actually have a Cunning Plan to solve the republic problem. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 says: “The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.” This is generally taken to mean that Australia is bound by the UK law of succession to the throne: when the Queen dies, the Prince of Wales will succeed her as King of Australia. *However* – the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is an act of the UK Parliament, not the Australian Parliament. The Constitution itself is silent on the issue of succession. Since Australia now has full legislative independence from the UK, it is not bound by any UK law. The Australian Parliament now has the power to legislate in a way which overrides the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. It is thus open to the Parliament to legislate as follows: “Upon the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II, her heir and successor as Sovereign of Australia shall be the President of the Commonwealth of Australia, and all references in the Constitution to the Queen shall be taken as references to the President of the Commonwealth of Australia.” Australia would thus become a republic without a referendum. I’m surprised no-one has thought of this before, and if it happens I expect full credit for thinking of it.
ShowsOn Post 123…Thats the funniest thing I have ever heard. I know Mia quite well, and can assure you she has never been a paid up member of any other political party other than the ALP…and Whats worse you claim the Young Libs….The greens or democrats would be far more believable although still untrue…thankyou for brightening up my afternoon with that.
[This makes it clear that the Queen is Australia’s head of state – she stands at the pinnacle of the constitutional system.]
I thought the constitution was at the pinnacle of the system? Surely that must be the case if – as you suggest – the constitution regulates the powers of the monarch?
[This makes it clear that all the Queen’s powers under the Constitution are to be exercised in her name by the GG.]
It also seems to imply that the Queen could sack the Governor General whenever she wants. “and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth _during the Queen’s pleasure_”
[The only power she retains is to appoint the GG, but since by convention she acts only on the advice of her Australian PM, she does not really exercise this power either.]
Choosing not to exercise a power seems to me to be substantially different from not having the power.
I worry that since so much of our system is conventions, that that may some day lead to more problems like 1975. Of course you can’t write down every possible event of a system of government. But I wish we had a lot more written down than we do.
[As I said, the central principle of the Westminster system is the convention that the Queen acts only on the advice of ministers.]
[He had no right to make an independent judgement about the Senate supply situation, no right to conspire with Fraser, and no right to dismiss a PM who had the support of the House of Reps.]
Sure, but he DID IT, so by definition one of the reserve powers of the G.G. is the right to sack the P.M. Breaking a convention isn’t the same as breaking the law. If it was, then Whitlam could’ve challenged his dismissal in the high court on grounds that it was unconstitutional.
Is Bolts’ arithmetic faulty here? These calculations seem out of whack even to Turnbulls. It doesn’t look right to me.
[After all, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last November boasted he had a $10.4 billion stimulus package that would “create up to 75,000 additional jobs over the coming year”. The same month he produced another “$15.1 billion package to create 133,000 jobs”, and weeks later he gave us a $4.7 billion “nation-building program” to “help create up to 32,000 Australian jobs”.
So where are those 240,000 new jobs now? And if those billions were so well spent, why is Rudd now spending a colossal $42 billion more? Then count all his other big-dollar pledges piling up as our economy tanks — paid maternity leave, a new tax on emissions, a rise in pensions. . . ]
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25070102-5000117,00.html
[ShowsOn Post 123…Thats the funniest thing I have ever heard. I know Mia quite well, and can assure you she has never been a paid up member of any other political party other than the ALP]
Well that is what she told me. Maybe she meant it as a joke, and I mistakenly took it seriously? She was, let’s say, somewhat tired and emotional at the time.
I hope she runs again next time.
[So where are those 240,000 new jobs now? And if those billions were so well spent, why is Rudd now spending a colossal $42 billion more?]
Any estimate of job creation has to be compared to estimates of how many jobs would’ve been lost if certain actions weren’t taken.
This clearly explained by Treasury during the senate committee. Bolta just seems to be arguing from personal incredulity (I don’t believe it so it isn’t true).
Adam: Actually I suggested the same last night, with the slight difference that Liz.au’s heirs would be all Aust. citizens (co-monarchs). A regicite could be used to appoint a GG.
If it was said I am sure it was meant as a joke, and it must have been funny coz i am still laughing about it…
Cheers thanks for the clarification.
[I hope she runs again next time.]
And given the turmoil created by Pyne’s elevation to manager of opposition business, think of the problems she could have saved the Liberal Party had she defeated him in Sturt!
The obvious ex labor-ite missed is Costello. Apparently he flirted with Labor in his Monash Uni student days. There is a photo of his “alleged” application to join the Monash Labor Club that floats around the web from time to time.
1. The Constitution is not a person.
2. I agree that these things should not be left to convention. I am in favour of a republic with the reserve powers codified.
3. You could make a good case that Kerr acted illegally in 1975, but since the Chief Justice incited him to act as he did there wasn’t much point in trying to challenge his actions in the Barwick court. Courts are in any case rightly reluctant to get involved in the political process.
[And given the turmoil created by Pyne’s elevation to manager of opposition business, think of the problems she could have saved the Liberal Party had she defeated him in Sturt!]
I don’t think it will happen there is like a structural deficit in Sturt. Handshin got 10% swings at the north of the electorate, and still lost. I worked for her at Turramurra, the biggest booth where the swing was I think 9%, but that still wasn’t enough given the strong Liberal booths at the southern end.
She would probably win Boothby, but it seems she would prefer representing the area where she grew up.
Thank God Mia Handshin turns out not to have been a Liberal in the past! I was heartbroken for a while there. 😥
And how does one meet Ms Handshin while she is “tired and emotional”, ShowsOn?
[She would probably win Boothby]
Agree – and probably would have won.
Could anyone joke about being a Young Liberal?
I think we are confusing Handshin with Nicole Cornes, who was a self-professed ex-Liberal voter.
Cory Bernardi sacked for Pyne comment
[LIBERAL frontbencher Cory Bernardi appears to have been sacked after a damaging spat with fellow South Australian politician Christopher Pyne]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25077846-5006301,00.html
[1. The Constitution is not a person.]
Who said it was?
[2. I agree that these things should not be left to convention. I am in favour of a republic with the reserve powers codified.]
Well, you can’t COMPLETELY codify everything can you? That’s what they seem to try to do in the U.S. If an anomaly of some sort is found, they put through amendments.
But I think there should be a section defining the Prime Minister:
“The Prime Minister is the leader of the party or coalition of parties that has the confidence of the House of Representatives”
And there should be a mechanism for resolving a blocking of supply bills, without the need for an election. For example a joint sitting of both houses. If the supply bills are blocked say 3 or 4 times.
[Courts are in any case rightly reluctant to get involved in the political process.]
That would’ve been a good time for it.
[And how does one meet Ms Handshin while she is “tired and emotional”, ShowsOn?]
Go to her election night party.
[LIBERAL frontbencher Cory Bernardi appears to have been sacked after a damaging spat with fellow South Australian politician Christopher Pyne]
Hopefully Turnbull sacked him for not knowing who Austraila’s Head of State is.
Adam,
Thanks for 135.
Bernardi is still on today’s list as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector
[LIBERAL frontbencher Cory Bernardi appears to have been sacked after a damaging spat with fellow South Australian politician Christopher Pyne.
AdelaideNow understands that Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has made the decision but it is yet to be announced.
The decision follows a claim by Senator Bernardi that Mr Pyne once told him he would have happily become a Labor MP but chose the Liberal Party because of where he lived.
Mr Pyne, now one of the Opposition’s most senior players, has vehemently denied the allegations.
Senator Bernardi’s dismissal is set to entrench a longstanding feud in the SA division and may have wider ramifications for Mr Turnbull’s management of the party.]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25077846-5006301,00.html
Whoa!! I’ve always loved the SA Liberal division. It’s so full of just that, division.
I wonder how long after it becomes official that Cory Bernardi has been sacked for his Wiki entry to be updated.
Most Wiki pages have been updated within minutes of changes like this. I bet in most cases the amendments are not made by Libs.
Such a plan to legislate a republic may run into trouble with the wording of the schedule which implies/says that the King or Queen of the United Kingdom is who is referred to as Queen in the Constitution.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Australia_Constitution_Act#Schedule
For Cory watchers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Bernardi
The new shadow ministry list was circulated an hour ago and Bernardi is still on it.