According to polling published in the Guardian Australia, 76% of Australians want Prime Minister Scott Morrison to tell Craig Kelly to shut up.
His refusal to do so is a defining failure of leadership and morality. That’s obvious. My question is whether it may also have legal consequences: could his government become liable for the resulting public harm?
Kelly, a backbencher who holds his seat only because Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull before him pre-empted the preselection processes that would have removed him as the Liberal Party candidate two elections ago, is politically powerful and a dangerous idiot.
Starting out as just an irritatingly stupid climate change denier — your run of the mill Coalition backbench fathead — Kelly has morphed regressively into a Pete Evans-level conspiracy theorist. On COVID-19, he is a public menace, spouting deeply dangerous rubbish about vaccines and miracle cures.
Asked squarely to publicly repudiate Kelly’s crap, Morrison plays the “free speech” card which the Coalition uses casually to excuse racism, misogyny, homophobia and George Christensen’s existence.
It is legally and ethically specious, as Morrison knows, but the charge of hypocrisy worries him not a bit. His ministers have fallen into the same line, making it clear that Kelly will remain free to sell snake oil to the gullible on Facebook.
By contrast, Turnbull has come out strongly, insisting that Morrison and his ministers “should be saying, at the very least, that Craig Kelly is wrong and that it is reckless and irresponsible to be misleading the Australian public on matters of public health”.
That’s interesting, partly as an example of the limitless courage of Turnbull’s convictions since his release from captivity, but also because Turnbull always chooses his words with care. There is some legal weight in his terminology, I think.
Here’s my theory: as a basic proposition, governments owe their citizens a duty of care. Whatever its outer boundaries, it certainly includes the duty to not wilfully, recklessly or negligently cause them harm. If Morrison’s RAAF jet crash-landed in your backyard because he was pretending to fly it for a photo op, the government would be liable.
While Morrison has successfully avoided responsibility for almost everything to do with COVID-19, including (spectacularly) quarantine, which the constitution explicitly says is his problem, he was never going to be able to shift the vaccination issue on to the states. Nor can his government escape exposure to liability if it spreads harmful misinformation about the treatment of the disease.
The first thing the lawyers would say is that Kelly is not part of the federal government. The executive government, legally speaking, comprises the governor-general, the ministers he appoints and the public service. Backbench MPs of the ruling party are free agents with no executive power or accountability. Therefore it doesn’t matter what Kelly says in the exercise of his freedom to be publicly insane.
That, so far as it goes, is true. However, negligence can be just as easily perpetrated by omission as it can by action. Failure to act — to repair a road, enforce a law, listen to the science — can amount to a breach of the government’s duty of care, leaving it open to suit for the consequences.
If you think about Kelly as a force of nature, like a large mountain of cretaceous sludge that is threatening to topple on to an unsuspecting village in the valley below, then the legal leap is not high.
He is out there now, a known and present danger to public health. The populace is not to be concerned with fine constitutional distinctions of whether he speaks officially or just as an itinerant clown; he is a member of parliament with the accompanying platform.
In its refusal to silence or even contradict Kelly’s claims, the government can fairly be accused of endorsing them or, at the very least, clothing them with the imprimatur of arguable validity. By not saying that he is full of shit, it is saying that he may have a point.
Placed in the context of a pandemic, the apotheosis of a public health crisis in which the government has invoked all of its extreme powers under the Biosecurity Act, it is not just staggering from an ethical perspective that Morrison should be allowing our country’s survival of COVID-19 to be literally imperilled by the rantings of a backbench lunatic.
Kelly’s handiwork is going to do real harm, measurable in deaths, illnesses and economic loss. Because of its negligent failure to prevent that harm, the government could be on the hook for the lot.
It would be wonderful to see the Morrison gang to held to account for its failure to rein in Kelly. Indeed, it would be wonderful to see the Morrison gang to held to account for anything. But it has already flatly denied it has a duty of care to the public in its response to legal challnges to its Robodebt extortion, so good luck with this one.
Yes, I would have thought that a duty of care to its citizens, would be one of the basic responsibilities of government; but apparently not. I do wonder what they think is the purpose of government is then? Is it just keeping the opposition out of power? Serving the interests of your donors? Scoring debating points? Or just personal aggrandizement?
‘I do wonder what they think is the purpose of government is then? ‘ All of the above.
Number four, definitely, they want to be the party in government forever.
The freedom to deny scientific facts widely accepted as legitimate, combined with the nervous nellie media’s false equivalence, has been fundamental to this parallel universe we now inhabit.
Combine it with the cynicism-for-profit of the Murdoch misinformation media and reinforced by the little-sir-echoes of the shockjock industry and we end up right here……..ripe for another Hitler.
Unfortunately Scott M. has all the hole mark of a dictator: hate dissent (abc, union, journalists etc), punish people who don’t agree with him, has double standards, lies about his agenda, protects his mates ( no criminal charges against bank executives) feels above accountability and never ever admits responsibility (Cruiser boats (Ruby Princess) unlike refugee boats “not a matter for border security” Centerlink robot debt not the minister’s fault no admission of liability; Chonky sport’s minister still works for him, Christian Porter “immoral maybe but not criminal”;water scandal never dealt with, Afghanistan’s war crime under his watch but no-one lost their jobs… only labor states are too blame for quarantine issues and despite aged care being a federal responsibility “sorting out the problems is a matter for the private organisations who run them; in other words they can do what they like…to cite a few only example.
Like Trump all he has to do is deny, discount, show self righteous anger of do nothing!
One could just change ScottM’s name in the above diatribe to RuddK or GillardJ and the nonsense would make more sense.
What???
Do you pray together?
Slanderous,vile and utterly ludicrous.
I disagree.
Fuse bait. 😛
I hope no one thinks he’s related to that freedom fighter Ned Kelly.
Neddie was a petty crim first and an opportunistic murderer second. His attempt to break his Ma out of gaol attests to his mental soundness. The papers did get it right.
Subjective by which side you’re on. I could see you whipping slaves.
No you could not mate. Slaves, anywhere, were expensive and any business man looked after them. Jefferson (among others) extended his household in that regard. Moreover, during Antiquity, there were numerous classes of slave which included teachers and physicians. Similarly for classes of freeman until about Edward III.
As an aside slavery as an institution wasn’t viable after about 1835 for numerous reasons. Do read the research.
If you think the criminal acts of Neddie and his mates were ok then there is nothing else to say.
Bad laws are the worst kind of tyranny. I still see you swing a cat o’ nine tails.
But he’d do it with such an eloquent intellectual justification.
You’re making the simplistic ruling class error of equating criminality with evil, as in:
‘In its majestic equality, the law punishes rich and poor alike for sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing loaves of bread.’
OK Peter. Any number of contemporaries had similar childhoods to Neddie and many not so good but they made the choice to eschew crime. Nolan became romantic as did Carey whose True Story was anything but true.
For Tony, at the risk of wandering off topic, as to biblical authority justifying chastisement, I recall from Divinity classes : 1 Kings 12:11, John 2:15, Proverbs 26:3 – that had to be memorised – along with any number of sermons from notible theologians over the centuries. Believe it or not, such is our heritage.
Slavery is fine according to the bible, you can even bash the daylights out of them as long as you don’t kill one. When you shave in the morning do you argue with the reflection projecting from your mirror?
Slavery was considered normal until the late 18th century Tony and then the abolitionists to the mid 19th century were not in great numbers as a percentage of the population. Although the British abolished slavery it existed in Boer governed South Africa for both white and black farmers to the Boer War.
From now on, please (1) review the history if you intend to remark on a topic and (2) if possible desist from (immature) school yard quips.
I am happy to answer sensible questions from you or anyone.
Nothing to do with justifying Kelly’s actions via his psychological make-up, Rassie. Kelly’s actions in a brutal, corrupt and unjust society may not match your comfortable bourgeoise expectations, but were no more evil than those of the British imperial system that exploited and harassed anyone other than the squattocracy. Some evil is criminalised, while other evil is just accepted as normality. Some evil doers are hanged. Others are worshipped, knighted, or have statues erected in their honour.
The most that we can hope for, Peter, is consistency in the law and with politics. Agreed, failures occur but as to “brutal systems” Australia had the highest standard of living in the world from the mid 1880s to, roughly, WW1.
Cast an eye over “Robbery Under Arms”; the setting being about 25 years prior to the antics of Neddie and his merry men. The book, crafted by the author, dwells entirely on the choice that Neddie had.
Yet, even the larrikins of the 1890s,especially in WA and often from “good homes”, despite their behaviour (especially to young women) were, if not condoned, ignored where possible. Closer to tolerance it would seem.
Ahh yes David, the N card. Nice.
Now for St Michael. Are you a communist, Michael? It’s ok if you are, because that would be your right and free choice. If in fact you are one I would willingly and gladly support your choice to be so. I also admire the way you pander to the commenters here with your dislike of free speech because that is your choice and your right of free speech to do so.
I am sorry to break it to you Michael, but even the Craig Kellys of the world have that same right to free speech and one of these days you will have to get over it.
Making every allowance for Mr MB, I’d put it this way Hannah – but cast an eye over my substantive post.
MB is talking (so called) free speech into account but he is miffed at Kelly getting away with it – as it were. MB seems to have expectations as to how a “right-thinking” parliament should act in respect of (let’s say) irresponsible rogues.
For good OR ill MPs are principally delegates and thus are at liberty to act independently of the wishes of Mr MB. That they may act in a partisan manner is a matter for them, the MPs, (and not the electorate – ironically). At its option, the electorate may return the MP or “chuck” the MP at the end of the parliamentary term; exceptions permitting. Such is our system of government.
Yet, MB sees no inconsistently, apparently, by winging over the ill-read Kelly to and the serving Ministers who have mislead parliament or parliamentary committees. A shred consistency here would enhance his article.
Yes indeed : some comments have received up-votes and others down-votes for substantially the same content. Voters eh Hannah?
.” Voters eh Hannah?”
Yeah. One single voter and many votes. But my problem is I just have to win at all costs. I can’t help it. It’s a personality trait/curse I wish I did n’t have. But if I can’t win I do a Shimson and push the house pillars over and take the whole house down with me. My finger has been on the button so many times.
Vote on that one.
Disinfectant anybody?
Hannah. Most here would heartily agree with Craig Kelly’s right to his own inane opinion.
However, that’s where it stops.
Kelly has no right to “his own facts” and that’s where the problem lies.
I cannot steer a vessel safely through challenging waters based on my “opinion” of it being high tide right now.
It’s a matter of science and physics to determine the tide tables for any body of water, regardless of where we’d “like” the tide to be right now.
Kelly’s attempt to undermine, for example, requiring kids 12 and up wearing masks on public transport, given the science on aerosol transmissibility in enclosed spaces, is dangerously wrong.
Worse, Health Minister Hunt, the PM and doctor and MP Katie Allen don’t have the guts to even contradict/challenge his misinformation.
People can have their own opinions, but not their own facts.
You have confused the two!
But hey, don’t worry; there’s every chance that the Morrison government is currently working on a publicly funded information campaign, to counter the misinformation put out by members of the Morrison government. Coincidentally, the major theme of the campaign, will be just how great the Morrison government is.
Nice stroppy article – thank you. It raised my spirits to read such strong criticism of both Kelly and the PM – I’d add Hunt, too, as failing his responsibilities to provide proper health care advice to Australians.
The entire federal government is a clear and present danger to ordinary citizens – of course it should be held liable.
I’m still waiting for Katie Allen to lose her medical license over the repeal of medevac. She’s now also added her defence of Kelly to it by also espousing free speech/he may have a point on public TV.
To take a principled stand and rebuke a Kelly like individual takes backbone, principles and, clearly in SmoCo’s case, a focus group view that he should. Look at how long it has taken him to condemn Trumps egregious actions. Kelly is clearly proving much more challenging.
Morrison condemned Trump?! I’m aware he made some feeble meally-mouthed comment about being disappointed; what else has he done?
Thanks for that, SSR. As a matter of passing interest, has any member of the Coalition condemned Trump?
Not so far as I know. It seems fair to assume the Coalition rather admires Trump’s gritty determination to stay in power by any necessary means, including armed insurrection regardless of law or constitution. What a guy! For all I know Morrison is disappointed with Trump’s comments and his insurrection only because it failed (for now) to keep Trump in power.