Ed, World media headlines and academics have for the past fortnight screamed bold claims of the Australian Constitution having been breached by our recently defeated Prime Minister Morrison and his ruling Conservatives. But few people may know that the Australian Constitution of the early 1900s makes absolutely no references to a prime minister’s responsibilities, actions and duties and, in fact, does not even use the words “prime minister” once among its various pages. The same total written omission also applies to the words “Cabinet” and “Cabinet Rules in the Constitution” being bandied about by some authorities who should have known better and who should have more closely studied our most important historic document on which our government is legally and tightly run. Where, I ask in a non-political way, does the Constitution carry any specific legal or other regulation of a prime minister’s role in our government? It does not even recognise that we have a prime minister or a body such as that which we currently call the National Cabinet. I also enquire where the working relationship of a prime minister to his ministerial cabinet’s various members are laid out in law within the Constitution? There is nothing authoritative as far as my eye can see other than what has become a matter of historic habit and convenience not written into the Constitution as such by our founding fathers. It appears that our past Prime Minister can possibly be found guilty of a case of poor manners and little more. Instead, his media and other detractors have claimed him to have been desperately and dangerously unconstitutional; almost treasonable; to have unfairly overrun his own duties and his ministers’ individual authority, among other claims. But, as I have outlined above, neither the Prime Minister nor his Cabinet are even mentioned in the Constitution which still binds us together as a single country. So how can he have acted unconstitutionally? Maybe his detractors want to read more into the document than some people have wanted to do in the past. The Constitution only refers to the employment of ministers serving the Government of the day and the fact that, taken as a whole, they form Executive Government which we now call our Cabinet. Not a word can be found as to their having a chairman within their ranks, such as a prime minister, and to how this unmentioned most senior Executive Government officer can or cannot exert power over their ministerial responsibilities. To be un-constitutional, one has to breach one or more aspects of the Constitution. It cannot be held that Morrison has done so. What he did was to neglect to observe a more recent Government convention outside of the Constitution not to deal in ministers’ portfolios and to only take portfolio action within the confines of Cabinet. His taking over of certain ministerial portfolios was apparently, according to his recent statements, preventive action should the Covid-19 virus suddenly disable some of his top ministers. As far as our Constitution is concerned, the Governor General can only act in all matters of State as advised by Government executive members. He can only appoint or dismiss ministers on the advice of who is now accepted as the Prime Minister although, in cases of national emergency, he has reserve powers to act independently and to only advise our Head of State of his decision. Oscar Tamsen, Yamba