This is the sequence of events. Angus Taylor, federal cabinet minister, used a doctored document to publicly accuse Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore of being a hypocrite on climate change because her councillors spent, allegedly, $15 million on travel in a year (the real figure was about $6000). The document was a forgery, but Taylor insisted his office had downloaded it from the council’s website. That’s been shown to be wrong.
As far as Taylor is concerned, that’s it. He has denied any impropriety by him or his office, but not explained where the fake document came from. FOI requests for correspondence relating to the train of events have been refused and he hasn’t answered questions in parliament about it. The mystery persists.
Yesterday, it came out that the Labor Party had written to the NSW Police and that the police have launched an investigation. The nature of that has not been revealed; presumably they’re looking at some form of potential forgery or fraud offence.
When asked about this development in question time, Scott Morrison said it was news to him. He said he would speak directly to the NSW Police and find out. He came back later in the day to announce this:
I have since spoken with the NSW Police Commissioner about the investigation and the nature and substance of their inquiries which he advised me were based only on the allegations referred by the shadow attorney-general. Based on the information provided to me by the commissioner, I consider there is no action required by me.
The action that Labor was demanding was that Morrison stand his minister down while he is under an active police investigation, in compliance with the ministerial guidelines. These are not binding, but it is conventional that a minister stands aside from their office when their conduct is under a serious cloud. Most recently, the Liberal minister Arthur Sinodinos stood aside voluntarily during an ICAC investigation into him (which ultimately exonerated him).
The conventions of ministerial responsibility have become progressively honoured in the breach in recent years, so it’s no real surprise that neither Taylor nor Morrison proposes to take this matter seriously or pay the public the respect of providing an actual explanation of what happened.
However, there’s something even weirder here: the prime minister’s open acknowledgement that his first instinct was to call up the police chief for a personal chat about the current investigation of potential criminal conduct by one of his cabinet ministers.
If that sounds a bit off to you, that’s because it is. Whatever the status of the investigation may be, and whatever its prospects of leading anywhere are, it is in the hands of an agency of the executive government of the state of NSW. It is axiomatic that the police are required and expected to function with independence, unaffected by political influence.
So, is it appropriate that the prime minister should go straight to the police commissioner and ask him for details of a current investigation into his political ally and a member of his government? Is it appropriate that he should blithely tell parliament and the country that that’s what he’s doing? Is it appropriate that he should then announce, essentially, that “I’ve had the word from the cops, it’s a beat up, it’s all going to go away”?
None of those things are appropriate. Morrison should have made a discreet inquiry through proper channels to confirm the report that the police were investigating Taylor. He should have consciously ensured that he not ask about the details of the investigation nor do anything that could suggest he was trying to influence its course or outcome. Having confirmed that Taylor is under active investigation, he should have stood him down immediately and advised parliament accordingly.
Michael Bradley states: “Most recently, the Liberal minister Arthur Sinodinos stood aside voluntarily during an ICAC investigation into him (which ultimately exonerated him).”
“Exoneration” is not my understanding of the ICAC outcome. Effectively ICAC backed off findings about Sinodinos in a matter not directly related to his conduct and further inquiry in Operation Credo,( I think it was to be called) , was jurisdictionally neutered by the High Court decision that whatever Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen did in relation to her interactions with her son’s fiancee, it was not “justiciable’ as corrupt conduct by ICAC.
The inquiry into on or near ‘water operations” and extraordinary expectations and donations around Sydney , so far as Senator Sinodinos was concerned, were hoist on the Cunneen case petard.
That lapse of process was no exoneration. To the extent that Sinodinos was mentioned I thought in some ICAC analysis in one matter, that tribunal was less than outrightly prepared to adopt his account; understandable given his recall seemed remarkably unvicelike for details.
Little wonder that our Amabassador to Washington, Mr Sinodinos, is today apparently on record that Angus Taylor has no reason to step aside. Why should he indeed? Why should a little matter of a Federal Minister hurtling falsified figures around about a Sydney Mayor, and allegations of forgery or uttering by whoever concocted the false figures, be of concern? Thoughts and prayers be with them.
I’m going to speculate that Morrison sought Trump’s advice during their phone call yesterday, because he has done what Trump would do.
But was there a “quid-pro-quo”?
We all know what Morrison should do but we know that he will not do it because of his lack of understanding of the Westminster form and his lack of ethics – sorry I apologise he is a good christian chap according to Pastor Houston
Or lack of integrity.
Good old Arfur Sinodinos …. or is it Martha? … Bless his Sgt Schultz defence.
What does it say about the NSW Police Commissioner that he’s willing to play a role in this? ….. Maybe he’s just auditioning for a job with the AFP?
If you, as the Boss of any organization find yourself being of direct interest to the “Prime” Minister it’ll give you pause for thought.
Thoughts about your current job prospects, and future career path.
Not much different to AFP going through your underpants/knicker drawer and house. No verbal threats or promises needed.