When Malcolm Turnbull took over as Prime Minister from Tony Abbott, at his initial press conference, he emphasised the importance of the rule of law.  The Constitutional nightmare that we now have results from his complete disrespect for the rule of law.  As many journalists have noted and particularly, Mark Kenny in his ‘Analysis article – No judgement and no answers: chaos engulfs the Turnbull government’ (The Age 27/10/17); Malcolm Turnbull decreed on 14 August

“The leader of the National Party, the deputy prime minister is qualified to sit in this house and the High Court will so hold”

Malcolm Turnbull as a supposedly ‘respected lawyer’ should have known that he was in no position to make such a statement about what the High Court would rule.  He disrespected the convention in the case of Barnaby Joyce, but not Senator Canavan, that someone under investigation should be stood down. Therefore, he has precipitated a Constitutional nightmare, through his complete disrespect for the separation of powers and the rule of law, for political purposes.

Similarly, one can only wonder what the consequences might have been, if Barnaby Joyce, when acting as Prime Minister, had been called on to make a significant decision!

There would have to be questions as to the validity of any legislation that Barnaby Joyce has participated in, particularly in the current Parliament given the narrowness of the majority.  For example, it might well be that workers affected by the ‘Penalty Rates Legislation’ will have a class action over the validity of the law.  Similarly, the question of a Royal Commission into the banks.

This crisis also raises questions about the role of the Governor General, Sir Peter Cosgrove.  He has signed off on legislation passed while members were still in the Parliament, although the validity of their seats being before the High Court.  It could be argued that he should not have accepted Malcolm Turnbull’s stand on 14 August and insisted that those before the High Court should stand down until their status was made clear.

On one level, this is probably contrary to constitutional practice in that the Governor General is bound to accept the advice of the Prime Minister.  But there is precedent for a different approach in the role of the Governor General in the dismissal of Gough Whitlam.

It will be interesting to see how we wake up from this nightmare.