Realpolitik of the Smoky Skies - The Reboot

The Prime Minister formally announced the new coalition government and its members today at Senate House. It confirmed what we already knew, that Senator the Honourable Heerlo was continuing on as Prime Minister for his second consecutive term.

However the government has started its term in disarray, with confusions over the constitutionality of changes in ministerial portfolios. Specifically whether the executive has the power to make changes to the types of ministerial portfolios or whether legislative action like the mooted Ministerial Reform Act 1822 needs to be passed by the Senate first.

Constitutional law experts are divided in opinion and their views fall into two categories: the first, that as ministerial portfolios are part of the executive body the executive may make whatever changes it deems necessary without the consent of the chamber, and the second, that primary legislation must be passed before the executive can change it at will in the future. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister both appear to have fallen into the latter view of the law, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable William Melda moved the Ministerial Reform Act 1822 to be voted on by the Senate. However the Leader of the Pulian Advancement Party and author of the bill, Senator the Honourable Ernest Barnard appeared to have a legal view of the former option and felt the act of holding a vote was unnecessary because the government held an automatic majority of votes on the Senate floor.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the outcome is a foregone conclusion because the government will enact the changes by whichever method necessary. But that this confusion was aired publicly in the Senate chamber was an embarrassment and an inauspicious start to the government as it tries to start a new term afresh and with boldness.

Senator the Honourable Augustus, leader of the Pulian Imperial Party and the apparent Leader of the Opposition in the Senate expressed his disagreement of the new ministerial setup stating his belief that it was "extremely unnecessary" and accused the government of engaging in self-serving behaviour with the conversion of ministerial portfolios from something in the public interest into "fancy titles to buff up your resume". He believed it was bad policy and confirmed that a future Pulian Imperial Party government would "most definitely" reverse it, saying "these are not the types of policies that are needed in government now".

Senator Bazil, the other Opposition Senator, questioned the logic of separating the Intelligence responsibilities from the Foreign Relations portfolio "when both require knowledge of the other nations" as well as the apparent redundancy of the Economy portfolio and its subordination to the Foreign Relations, Infrastructure and Construction ministries. He argued the Prime Minister could in a general way oversee the financial authorisation of projects instead of merely being a figurehead in the new ministerial structure.

Apart from the furore and controversy, here is the official listing of the Second Heerlo ministry received from the Prime Minister's Office:

• Senator the Honourable Heerlo (PAU): Prime Minister of Pulias
• Senator the Honourable William Melda (PPP): Deputy Prime Minister of Pulias, Minister of Culture
• Senator the Honourable Ernest Barnard (PAU): Minister of Infrastructure, Minister of Economy
• Senator the Honourable Gustavus Gurra (PPP): Minister of Foreign Relations, Minister of Intelligence, Minister of Construction
• The Honourable Howard Stevenson (PAU): Minister of Defence, Minister of Science

So how does this match up with the rumours and predictions circling around the capital?

Senator Melda's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister was not surprising and was predicted. That he as a Pulias People's Party Senator received the cultural ministry was not terribly surprising and was predicted.

Senator Gurra's appointment as Foreign Relations was not surprising given that the PPP campaigned hard on international relations and therefore this was predicted. That he is also Minister of Intelligence was a surprise to many because most commentators, myself included, assumed the Pulian Advancement Union would take on that portfolio, and that he has also taken on the construction portfolio was surprising given Senator Barnard's comments about the types of ministerial responsibilities he would have in this term of government.

Senator Barnard's appointment as Minister of Infrastructure was expected, given comments he had made on the matter, and his allocation of the economy portfolio wasn't terribly surprising but couldn't be predicted as both parties had campaigned hard on the economy.

That the PAU received the defence ministry was not surprising given the PPP's absolutist stance on war, and the science ministry could have easily gone either way.

But the most surprising and controversial appointment to the Cabinet is Mister Howard Stevenson, or the Honourable Howard Stevenson as he will now be known, for becoming a Minister of the Crown without being an elected member of the Senate.

From a constitutional perspective this seems highly unusual and has raised more than a few eyebrows here in the capital. When I spoke with the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable William Melda he appeared evasive, only going so far as to indicate his view that it must be constitutionally valid otherwise it could not have gone ahead. The Opposition Leader was more forthright, indicating his belief that sometimes this direction was justified and an indication of our meritocractic society. But his view on this matter can be seen to be slightly self-serving since he himself served as a minister in the First Heerlo ministry from outside the Senate chamber.

Legal or not, fair or otherwise, people are wondering how exactly an unelected Minister of the Crown will work in practice. Will the Honourable Howard Stevenson, as minister, propose measures that he cannot legally vote on in the Senate?

Find out more in my interview with the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable Melda on page 2 and my interview with the presumed Leader of the Opposition, Senator the Honourable Augustus on page 4.

I met with the first Deputy Prime Minister in modern Pulian history, Senator the Honourable William Melda in his senatorial office. This interview was with my highest ranking political figure yet. Senator Melda seemed warier than the last time we spoke, perhaps because I had pursued him strongly on certain points in our last interview.


H. Godwin: Senator, please let me congratulate you on becoming the first Deputy Prime Minister of Pulias.

W. Melda: Thank you. And congratulations on your paper's successes.

H.G.: Thank you, the Herald has certainly been doing very well since we last spoke. But I wanted to talk to you about that: when last we met you must have known you would be forming government. Why did you act so coy?

W.M.: Those negotiations were sensitive matters and I was not prepared to jeopardise the formation of the government just to satisfy your curiosity.

H.G.: It's hardly just "my curiosity". The people have a right to know what is happening in the Senate.

W.M.: And the people would know, as evidenced by the fact they know now. But when we last spoke there wasn't anything official to know because decisions had not yet been made. Revealing confidential discussions to satisfy your newspaper's desire for sales could have imperilled the coalition negotiations.

H.G.: I hardly think—

W.M.: Let me put it another way, then. The people wanted to know, the people have a right to know. The negotiations were in depth and complicated enough as it was without bits and pieces of incomplete, unofficial and not even agreed to information slowing proceedings down. You complained that the formation of government took so long. It would have taken even longer if the negotiations had to take stock of what information had been publicly published. Furthermore, do you really want to see the sausage being made?

H.G.: I can see we're just going to have to agree to disagree, food analogies aside. My next question then is about the elevation to minister of someone who isn't even in the Senate.

W.M.: The Honourable Howard Stevenson's ministerial allocation is a matter for the Prime Minister, so I have no comment.

H.G.: But I have a source who claims this was a Pulian Advancement Union decision rather than an all-of-Cabinet decision.

W.M.: In that case you'd want to speak with the Pulian Advancement Union, because the last time I checked I'm not a member of their party.

H.G.: Do you at least have any concern about the perception of cronyism and illegality in the electorate?

W.M.: The Prime Minister declared this ministry. The Grand High Exalted Majah swore the ministry in. Do you really think the Honourable Mister Stevenson would be a minister if there were constitutional issues surrounding his appointment?

H.G.: That's what I'm asking you.

W.M.: If you're concerned with the constitutionality of the appointments maybe you should speak with the Grand High Exalted Majah.


I was taken aback at the unexpectedness of the suggestion: interview the Grand High Exalted Majah?


H.G.: But . . . he is not a political figure; as Monarch he steers clear of such debate.

W.M.: Exactly. Go talk to him, as an apolitical figure you would surely get apolitical answers from him. Now I bid you good-day; I have a Cabinet meeting to attend.


And with that brusque suggestion the meeting abruptly ended. The Deputy Prime Minister certainly seemed more businesslike and less patient than the last time we spoke. I would probably have been annoyed if I didn't have another interview in Senate House to attend that day. To find out more please refer to my interview with Senator the Honourable Augustus on page 4.

I met Senator the Honourable Augustus in his senatorial office within Senate House. I was amazed at the collection of a great many antique relics and marble busts which were on display throughout the room. After having read so much about the leader and founder of the Pulian Imperial Party, and having spoken about him to many others, I felt like I was confronting a mystery first-hand. When we first met the middle-aged Senator's keen eyes felt as though they bored into my soul. After making eye contact I felt I was dealing with a sharp intellect, and his white temples seemed to somehow give the confidence of great wisdom contained within. He wore a nice suit but when we shook hands I noticed that his hand was hard and calloused, like someone who had used his hands for a lifetime, like a soldier or labourer, rather than someone who worked with papers in an office.

We began:

H. Godwin: Senator the Honourable Augustus, my sincerest congratulations on your successful election as Senator for Coventry. Thank you very much for agreeing to speak with me.

Augustus: Thank you very much, it is an honor to be able to speak to such a renowned journalist.

H.G.: I thank you; you are too kind. Senator, when founding the Pulian Imperial Party you said you suffered strategic policy differences with your old party, the Pulian Advancement Union. Would you care to elaborate on those policy differences?

A.: As you know, the initial disagreement was on the exacting of tribute from one city-state to secure relations with another. Members of my party of course disagreed, and it gave me the conviction to found the PIP.

H.G.: I remember that, yes. Was it difficult to turn your back on a party in which you had previously been a paid up member, and then furthermore served in the capacity as a Minister of the Crown?

A.: It was difficult, but I was confident it was the right thing to do. I felt that even with my departure we could still cooperate for the benefit of the Pulian people.

H.G.: Given that some within your former party, either in the membership or the senatorial party could consider your departure from the party as a betrayal, how effectively do you think you will be able to work with the Pulian Advancement Union in the Third Senate?

A.: I hope that there is no animosity between myself and my former party members as I have noticed none. I hope that there will only be cooperation between our two parties.

H.G.: Your debate here in Coventry with Senator the Honourable William Melda has become an event of near-legendary significance nationwide. Apart from your personal disagreements with the Deputy Prime Minister, can you tell me what you think of the Pulias People's Party's policy platform?

A.: I admire their ideals and goals but I consider them unrealistic in the way the seek to apply them.

H.G.: I see. Given that this is the first election in which your party has challenged, are you impressed with the result you received?

A.: I am pleasantly surprised with the results we received.

H.G.: To what do you attribute your party's electoral success?

A.: I attribute our success to the Pulian people's desire to experience a different method of thinking in government.

H.G.: You may be right. But are you disappointed your party was unable to form government at this time?

A.: I am not disappointed; our Senate is balanced ensuring that all can have the opportunity to have their views considered.

H.G.: Is it fair to say you will be taking up the role of Leader of the Opposition?

A.: If none in my party desire the role, I will fill it.

H.G.: Assuming you do become the first official Leader of the Opposition in modern Pulias's history, how would you intend to carry out this role? What would be your plans for the remainder of the Third Senate?

A.: My main concern is making sure that the Senate does not become an echo chamber, and that all views are voiced. If approved, I will also be taking on the task of eliminating the Luddite threat.

H.G.: Why do you think the formation of government took so long?

A.: Forming government, especially in this early time is a whirlwind of decisions that have lasting effects on the nation. I am sure it was just due contemplation on making the right choices.

H.G.: Your fellow party member, Senator Albert Bazil spoke at length about how the Pulian Imperial Party was not an imperialist party, and would not be flippant about the pursuit of war. Given that you yourself referred favourably to the means and outcomes of the imperial pursuits of ancient empires and stated your regard for the pursuit of warfare as a tool of statecraft, is the Senator not being disingenuous? Or is this an example of a policy schism in your party?

A.: I do not see the schism here. Mr. Bazil is of course correct: war is not a flippant task to be undertaken on a whim. Throughout history war has been the catalyst that has shaped us. The union of cultures, from Greece to Egypt. The spreading of civilization from Rome to the provinces of Gallia and Hispania. I recognize the effects that it has on our species and recognize that it sometimes is the only option.

H.G.: By now everyone knows about and probably has an opinion about what has come to be referred to as the "Hong Kong tribute affair". Given that your proposed outcome was not pursued but you copped criticism for it regardless, if you had your time over again would you have approached or handled it differently?

A.: I would approach it the same way: I think that sacrificing relations with one city-state to improve relations with a strategically located city-state is a sound strategy.

H.G.: In the campaign one of your candidates, Mister Analyzer, appeared confused about which city he was contesting. Would you care to comment on this at all?

A.: I think that this was merely a side effect of the rapid reforms and changes happening in our government.

H.G.: Is that also why you yourself appeared to vacillate between contesting Coventry and Haven of Peace? Given that two-thirds of your party's candidates had issues deciding where they would contest even within the election campaign itself, what do you say to suggestions that this is evidence your party is not organised or ready to rule?

A.: I would not say that this indicative of our readiness to rule, merely the results of pre-election fog.

H.G.: For a question not related to your party, do you have any thoughts about the controversial situation where Senator Mischa was elected in Coventry but has not taken up his seat? Do you have any thoughts about the clarity of party affiliation identification, both in this case and more generally?

A.: If I understand the situation correctly, Senator Mischa was having personal problems and could not give the Senate his full attention. The last known party affiliation that I know of was with the PAU.

H.G.: In the last Senate you received a ministerial portfolio in the previous government despite not holding a seat in the Senate. What then are your thoughts about the Honourable Howard Stevenson becoming a Minister of the Crown despite not sitting in the Senate?

A.: Sometimes, it can be justified. I think this goes further to show that our society is somewhat meritocratic.

H.G.: That's an interesting perspective. But in the last Senate there simply weren't enough Senators to go around, which in my view is why you were appointed minister. The same cannot be said this time: you and your colleague, Senator Bazil would certainly be more entitled to take on ministries before an unelected citizen. What is your view on this?

A.: Now, this I disagree with. The so-called splitting of ministries was extremely unnecessary, especially now where the positions are held by few people. This turns ministries from posts designed to help the public into fancy titles to buff up your resume.

H.G.: So you're saying it is not only bad policy but self-serving too?

A.: I would say that there is a self-serving element. The effort was for decentralization, but fails to take into account the lack of qualified members to fill posts. If anything we should be centralizing more!

H.G.: In your opinion, does this reflect poorly on the Prime Minister's judgement? Even if it wasn't his idea he as leader of the Cabinet signed off on it.

A.: I would say that this was a case of trusting too much. If the Prime Minister would have taken the time to review the bill he would have found the same glaring issues.

H.G.: Is this decision one the Pulian Imperial Party would reverse in government?

A.: Most definitely; these are not the type of policies that are needed in government now.

H.G.: As a citizen of Haven of Peace, I don't know as much about you as I feel I should. Would you care to share any details about your family and how they've handled the challenges of the exposure and scrutiny you've been under in the recent general election and before that as a minister of the First Heerlo ministry?

A.: So far there has not been a great extent of scrutiny due to the isolated nature of Coventry. Now that I am residing in the capitol for the time being due to governmental matters that my change. My wife and son have been very happy to move to the capitol from the "sticks", as they call it, even if only temporarily.


So I had finally met the master of the Pulian Imperial Party. What were my thoughts? There was a definite hardness to him and he is definitely not someone I would like to cross or go against in any way. Many find his views on the use of force extreme, and while I would agree with that view I must say when you are in his presence his ideas seem reasonable, natural even. If he takes up the role of Leader of the Opposition then I am sure the clash of ideas between his pragmatic Opposition and the ruling pacifist coalition government will be something exciting and dramatic to witness.