John Howard was explicit in his
address to the Coalition troops yesterday: “Whatever affiliations you
might have had, your first loyalty is to this party room.” Of course,
he was talking directly to Barnaby Joyce, a message hammered home by
his enforcer Bill Heffernan in a rather bizarre “wet dream” recounted
to the joint party room and beautifully evoked on page one of The
Australian by Matt Price.

So Howard reckons a senator should die in a ditch for the party (particularly the Liberal Party, which campaigned so vigorously against
Joyce at last October’s election), while Heffernan reckons even
thinking about crossing the floor on an IR bill might lead to the
government’s demise. It’s an interesting and colourful day-one scenario
for the PM to paint for the new Nationals senator. But just how
reasonable is it?

For some perspective, let’s refer to that
obscure and misunderstood document, the federal Constitution –
specifically section seven, which deals with the Upper House. In
interpreting the founding fathers we defer to two fabled Australian
constitutional experts, John Quick and Robert Garran, who described the
Senate’s freshly minted role in 1901 as:

The chamber in which the states, considered as separate
entities, and corporate parts of the Commonwealth, are represented.
They are so represented for the purpose of enabling them to maintain
and protect their constitutional rights against attempted invasions,
and to give them every facility for the advocacy of their peculiar and
special interests, as well as the ventilation and consideration of
their grievances.

Hmm. Sounds pretty much like what
Barnaby Joyce is doing; exercising the concern of Queenslanders about
important issues. And no one would accuse him of being derelict in his
“advocacy of their peculiar and special interests,” and “the
ventilation and consideration of their grievances.”

Garran and
Quick’s eminent constitutional analysis is contained in an interesting
recent discussion paper on constitutional powers. Funnily enough,
there’s no mention in the Constitution of the joint party room – or any
party room – much less any need to be loyal to it. If he wants to
follow it up, to clarify the situation, the prime minister could find
the discussion paper quite easily. It was researched, written and
published by his own department, and is available online here.

OK,
the prime minister doesn’t rate a mention in the Constitution, either.
Nor does the time-honoured and now familiar accepted machinery of the
executive, without which our governments would flounder: the Cabinet,
the ministry, Question Time, Michelle Grattan, etc.

Time moves
on. After 105 years it’s interesting to see how the original intentions
of the founding fathers have been renovated. And how those sticklers
who insist on observing the rules get painted as wild and dangerous
outsiders.