J. R. Nethercote, Mark Dreyfus With events moving so swiftly, there is little point at this stage in taking issue at any length with Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus's admirably dogged defence of the government's minimalist reading of the caretaker guidelines. Nothing he wrote altered my basic proposition that the prevailing guidelines concerning vacancies arising after a dissolution are ill-suited to the circumstances in which the nation has found itself throughout this year. This critique is ironically reinforced by Dreyfus's attempted defence of the reappointment of the Electoral Commissioner, Ed Killesteyn; given then prime minister Julia Gillard's announcement about the date of the election, it was clear that the vacancy in the commissioner's office would not arise until the new Parliament had convened. An expiring government should not make appointments which an incoming government may wish to undo. Even if the Attorney-General's defence is accepted, it simply shows that these various procedures for reappointing statutory officials need to be reconsidered when a term of office expires after a dissolution of the House of Representatives is likely (either by reason of the applicable calendar or, as in this case, before the announcement). This question has arisen previously, as Dreyfus would know (for example, in relation to appointment of the public service commissioner after the 2001 election; it also has relevance to the reappointment of the Reserve Bank's governor for three years from September 17, 2013). The basic point has been expressed by Sir Paul Hasluck; namely, that an expiring government should not make appointments which an incoming government may wish to undo. That is why there is merit in considering consultation with the opposition. The Attorney-General, in his article, chose not to address Hasluck's observation. A not uninteresting point about Dreyfus's defence of how the government handled the Electoral Commissioner's reappointment is that the arguments he now adduces are not fully in tune with the caretaker guidelines nor with the Cabinet Handbook (he could usefully think about what he meant in Annex K, paragraph 4). Dreyfus's arguments would be a good deal more acceptable had he advanced them in his astonishingly brief media release of April 12. He simply did not bother to explain this reappointment at all, clearly unusual as it was. It should also be stressed that questions of this kind can usually be handled expeditiously and without drama if there is consultation with the opposition (the alternative government), as is not inappropriate in the type of circumstances we have experienced this year and as is itself contemplated by the guidelines in certain situations. The Attorney-General is right to say that the caretaker guidelines are there to aid in stability in government, but his own approach places this objective at risk. This is why application of the guidelines must not only observe the letter of the guidelines but also take account of underlying doctrine and purpose; this hardly represents new theory in decision-making nor is it at odds with the general tenor of the guidelines. Another attempt to defend the Electoral Commissioner's reappointment appeared in Inside Canberra. The argument there is based on the need to have the Electoral Commissioner in situ for the 2013 election, whenever it might be held. Inside Canberra is so agitated by the matter it expresses dark fears of a constitutional crisis had Killesteyn not been reappointed. Inside Canberra's grasp of the electoral timetable is very shaky. It claims that, were an election to be held on September 14, 2013, the writs would not need to be returned until "at the latest, January 11, 2014, six days after Killesteyn's current appointment lapses." In fact, the writs would be returned on or about November 20 at the latest (that is, not more than 100 days after issue); and it would be necessary to have a meeting of the Parliament before Christmas. Another Inside Canberra scenario is based on an election date of November 30. The first scenario can be completely accomplished within Electoral Commissioner's current term; in the event that the second scenario came to pass, the proper approach would have been to reappoint Killesteyn for preferably not more than six months, though 12 months might be acceptable. The Attorney-General is obviously hostile to the possibility that matters of this kind could be handled by some measure of consultation between the government and the opposition, often referred to in books as "the usual channels." His preference is that Australia, as Winston Churchill once observed, conduct its "political battles with a fine 18th century vigour." J. R. Nethercote is an adjunct professor with the Public Policy Institute at the Australian Catholic University.