Under both sides of politics, ministerial responsibility has steadily diminished in recent decades. The idea that the buck stops with ministers has now become a historical relic. After Bob Collins rode out the pay-TV debacle under Labor in 1994, the only basis for ministerial resignation became personal wrongdoing or mistakes by ministers themselves. Mistakes or wrongdoing by their bureaucrats or ministerial staffers were no longer the basis for resignation.
The caveat to that, notionally, remained misleading Parliament, long considered to be the political equivalent of a capital offence. A minister found to have misled Parliament was expected to resign. But that, too, began to slip: John Howard plainly misled Parliament about meeting Manildra’s Dick Honan in 2002 but refused to resign and insisted, contrary to Hansard, that he hadn’t misled anyone.
The circumstances around Julie Bishop misleading Parliament on the letter from Man Haron Monis to George Brandis are more serious than whether John Howard was lobbied by a business mate. The handling of the letter, and the convenient failure of the Attorney-General’s Department to provide it to the government’s inquiry into the Sydney siege, represent a significant error on a major national security issue. Bishop misled the House in claiming it had been referred to that inquiry, and senior officials within Prime Minister and Cabinet, Attorney-General’s and the Prime Minister’s own office failed to take any action to correct the record upon learning of the House being misled until several days later — and even discussed ways to talk around the fact that the House had been misled. This is plainly the stuff of cover-ups.
Bishop has been placed in this position due to the incompetence of AGD; she represents Brandis in the House of Represenatatives and must rely on AGD advice. Even under a strict interpretation of ministerial responsibility, there’s no clear case for her resignation. But the bureaucrats and staffers in the PMO, PM&C and AGD who allowed Parliament to remain misled have no excuse. They should resign or be sacked.
Misleading Parliament on an important national security matter must, surely, still mean something.
Thank heaven for those fire-walls?
My favourite Parliamentary mis-leader is Peter Reith, the hero of the Waterfront Dispute and the man who wrongly claimed asylum seekers chucked their kids over board.
After crapping on about this and how those kinds of people, being the kinds of people who throw kids overboard, should not be let into Australia, Reithy did not stand for re-election but sloped off to a job in the defence industries.
I assume he is still receiving his overgenerous Parliamentary pension.
I would like him dragged back and investigated by the Parliament, and if it is determined he is a mis-leader, stripped off his pension.
At the least.
Honest John too.
If they can’t have any respect for the institution, why should we?
A national security event? Really?
I recall day after day back in January, reading in Crikey that this was nothing to do with national security but just a deranged criminal gunman carrying out some domestic violence fantasy.