It's the vibe: the PM and GG belong in Canberra and so do their houses

I DRAW your attention to Section 125 of the Australian Constitution which deals with the establishment of Canberra.

I DRAW your attention to Section 125 of the Australian Constitution which deals with the establishment of Canberra. It states that the seat of government should be located within a new territory and no closer than 100 miles (or 160 km) from Sydney.

The reason for this section and for the fact each state has an equal number of senators (even though NSW has 12 times the population of Tasmania) is that the founding fathers were adamant that no city be given an advantage by the co-location of the seat of government.

The reason for the provision that the seat of government be sufficiently distant from Sydney likewise was to prevent that city gaining a benefit. If this were not the intent, why have this statement? The 100-mile radius reflected the prevailing view about the limits of rail technology: no-one could live in Sydney and commute to Canberra.

The same section goes on to determine that parliament should sit in Melbourne until a federal capital could be built. In effect this meant that parliament sat in Melbourne between 1901 and 1928.

As a sop to Sydney, the governor-general was based in that city (in the state's Government house) whereas the prime minister was based in Melbourne (at No 1 Collins Street).

In 1928, parliament shifted to newly constructed premises in Canberra.

The prime minister and the governor-general also moved to Canberra then, the governor-general to Yarralumla on Lake Burley Griffin and the prime minister to a temporary residence in Forrest known as The Lodge. However a parcel of land for a grand prime-ministerial residence is reserved beside Yarralumla.

The tussle between Melbourne and Sydney over the siting of the seat of government and the spoils of the new commonwealth are evident in the fact Melbourne got the Post Office (and which later spawned Telecom then Telstra) and Sydney got the Commonwealth bank. And Melbourne got the PM and Sydney got the GG.

But here's the thing. Slippery Sydney didn't yield the residence of the governor-general in 1928; rather a second residence was and still is kept there for this office. Then in 1956, shamefully during Melbourne's Menzies watch, not only was the governor-general frequenting a second residence in Sydney but the prime minister acquired Kirribilli House.

Why is it necessary for the prime minister and the governor general to have Sydney residences? I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

I can sort of understand the prime minister needing a retreat (although a retreat should be in the country, not in the city) but not the governor-general. Why can't she doss down in the NSW Government house when she's in Sydney? Isn't that where the Queen stays when she's in town?

Can I take you back to Section 125 of the Constitution?

What do you suppose is meant by the term "seat of government"? There is no accompanying definition. I think it means the place where the Executive (meaning the PM, the GG and the Cabinet) work and live.

Clearly in the late 19th century it was not apparent that it might be possible for the GG and PM to live in one city and conduct the business of government in another. Had the founding fathers countenanced such an eventuality I think they would have been more explicit in their determination about where the Executive was expected to live.

In either case I think a case can be made that second residences for the governor-general and the prime minister in Sydney are a breach of Section 125 of the Australian Constitution. At the very least these residences contravene the spirit, if not the word, of Section 125. In the words of The Castle's Dennis Denuto, these residences go against the vibe of the constitution.

Why should Sydney get the gravitas of retaining the unofficial residences of both the governor-general and the prime minister? Those who label my complaint Melbourne parochialism should think about the intent of the constitution and the purpose of Canberra.

If this is not an issue, why does Canberra exist? And if it is okay to bend the rules on this section of the constitution, what else can we fiddle?

I would like to see the prime minister and the governor-general dispose of their Sydney residences. If you want these jobs you do the time in Canberra and not in pretty city Sydney.

There are two options. Either sell both houses and The Lodge and use the proceeds from all three to build the originally intended grand prime-ministerial residence next to Yarralumla. This has the advantage of being cost neutral but it transfers historic buildings out of the public domain.

The second option is to transfer all dwellings to other government uses and build a new prime-ministerial residence out of general revenue. This keeps the residences in the public domain but it comes at a cost.

I am aware that no prime minister would suggest such an action and yet, if this logic always prevailed, Canberra would be devoid of fine public buildings because there is always a better use for public money.

I think its time to establish a bipartisan committee to look into prime-ministerial and governor-general residences and to recommend a way deliver a new prime-ministerial residence by 2020.

That way it is unlikely any current leader could be seen to benefit personally from such a decision.

Bernard Salt is a Melbourne-based KPMG Partner

www.twitter.com/bernardsalt