Horse 3189 - Why Does The Leader Of The Opposition And Not The Shadow Treasurer Give The Budget Reply Speech?

 "Why is it the Leader of the Opposition and not the Shadow Treasurer who gives the budget reply speech?"

- <name withheld> via Facebook, 12th May 2023

There are a number of concepts that we need to fly through before we can get to the answer of this question. For as strange as it seems that the Treasurer presents the budget and their opposite number does not give the reply, the set of conventions which lie under this bunfight are even more strange.

The Parliament is the possession of the Crown. The Crown is corporation sole, which has exactly one share that can not be bought or sold, which as the name corporation sole suggests actually owns itself, and because it owns itself it remains in perpetuity even though its chief officer in the monarch might die. 

Except in extreme circumstances where the monarch is deposed through revolution or execution, the Crown and the monarch get on pretty well. The appointment of the High Court at Westminster Hall, the indictment of Charles I for tyranny, and the fact that he was 5 foot 6 inches tall at the start of his reign but only 4 foot 8 inches tall at the end of it suggests that the Crown and the Monarch are in fact separate legal people. The fact that Charles II was replaced by an Orange, would also suggest that the Crown and the Monarch are in fact separate legal people. The monarch can be replaced by execution, revolution or even just regular old boring death.

The Parliament is the legal agent of the Crown for both the running of executive government as well as the enactment of legislation which enables that running of executive government. Just like any other corporation, the corporation sole of the Crown, has what amounts to a board of directors. Admittedly it is the most boisterous board of directors you have ever seen but the collective decisions of the parliament, subject to a constitution, become the enactment of policy of the government. 

This is where the story gets weird. In Australia, the Governor-General who is the representative of the monarch, has the power to make and unmake cabinet ministers. Likewise, in the six several states, the Governor of that state who is the representative of the monarch, has the power to make and unmake cabinet ministers. Depending on the constitution in question, there is no mention of the nature of those cabinet ministers and in the case of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, there is no mention of the Prime Minister either. We have already run out of legal concepts that are specified in black ink; which means that the further we go, we step deeper and deeper into the desert of convention.

Technically speaking, the only piece of legislation that the Parliament needs to pass in a year is Appropriation Bill No.1. This has been challenged in the High Court of Australia and the fact that there needs to be at least an annual Appropriation Bill No.1. stems from the words of Section 54 which speaks of the "ordinary annual services of the Government". Even then in the case of Australia owing to the way that they are written, this might not actually be a need provided that the Parliament is fine with the continuation of the existing Appropriation Act (usually they are not). Having said that, at absolute minimum, the only officer from the parliament that the Crown needs to acknowledge, is that of the First Lord of the Treasury. In Australia, the role of the First Lord of the Treasury is almost always fulfilled by the Prime Minister or Premier; who meets with the Governor-General on the normal continuing business of the government and parliament.

However, the Constitutions which govern the parliaments make absolutely no mention of who needs to introduce or present Appropriation Bill No.1 other than to say that in the case of the Commonwealth of Australia, money bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Budget Night in Australia is actually the Treasurer, who is almost never First Lord of the Treasury and who almost never visits the Governor-General in the weekly meetings of the normal continuing business of the government and parliament, presenting Appropriation Bill No.1.

The Budget Reply speech therefore, is made by someone who is not a cabinet minister, who is not First Lord of the Treasury, and who does not meet with the Governor-General in weekly business meetings. As far as the Crown is concerned, it near enough makes no difference whatsoever who gives a Budget Reply speech. Even though this bill being presented before the parliament for consideration and eventual passage into law (or not), is Appropriation Bill No.1 it matters not a jot to the Crown, who replies to the introduction of the bill.

The Shadow Treasurer? The Leader of the Opposition? Who are these people? As far as the Crown is concerned, who owns the Parliament, they are just ordinary people with funny names and who are neither Cabinet Ministers nor First Lord of the Treasury. The Monarch, the Governor-General, or the Governor, who are all actually normally barred from even entering Parliaments under normal circumstances care not an iota nor a jot about the person who might give the Budget Reply speech. That's the Parliament's business. 

So why the Leader of the Opposition and not the Shadow Treasurer? This is political grandstanding and nothing else. But what about convention? Convention, as a QC once told me, lasts exactly as long as it does. The second that convention ceases to be, then it is not. Convention is not legislation; which means that it it is broken, then this is of also no consequence. This also matters not a jot to the Crown.