The noise around the Morrison government’s move to prevent Christian Porter’s blind trust being referred to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee is very loud, mostly because the politics of Porter’s actions and position have become a lightning rod for the government, opposition and media. All roads, it seems, tend to lead to Porter.
That obscures the real significance of what has happened. Geoffrey Watson SC, one of the nation’s most respected voices on public integrity with a fiercely apolitical reputation and record, said this:
“The last two years I’ve sat on the sidelines and I’ve watched this same government, they’ve trashed transparency, they’ve trashed integrity, and now they’re in the process of trashing parliamentary procedure. Enough is enough. Something’s gone wrong with this government; I’d say that it’s time for this government to go. This is a very black day.”
It is a black day because another convention has just been thrown under the bus, and it’s a big one. Never, since Federation, has a recommendation by the speaker to refer a member to the Privileges Committee been overruled by the house. Convention has always dictated that that not happen. Now it has.
It is important for all of us to understand that Parliament regulates itself. It is a special place, literally immune from the rules — including the rule of law — that govern the rest of society. Parliamentary privilege — the exclusive right MPs have to say anything they like with impunity — is an example. The courts have no jurisdiction over parliamentarians in their conduct as MPs. If they misbehave, the only institution which can regulate and discipline them is the house itself.
Because of that unique privilege, which derives from the original notion that Parliament is sovereign and not subject to the Crown or judiciary, a set of conventions has been developed and honoured over time to hold members of parliament to their oaths to serve the public interest.
These conventions are all we have, in the end, to protect and preserve democracy. If the politicians trash the conventions, then Parliament becomes a rabble; a lawless place where literally anything goes. These people, remember, govern themselves; or not, as they choose.
The choice which the government has made, with respect to Porter’s blind trust, is to neither ask nor care. The speaker had determined that there is a prima facie case for referral, presumably on the basis that Porter’s actions may be non-compliant with the requirements binding on all members of Parliament with respect to disclosure of financial interests. Those requirements are made by the House of Representatives itself.
The government of the day, generally speaking, has the numbers to make, change, enforce or ignore the rules. By convention it does not simply flout them. It now has done just that.
Which leaves us with the question: what next? For the issue of Porter’s blind trust, nothing, though the broad issue — the use of trusts, crowd funding — has been referred to the committee for examination. Expect a report after the next federal election.
But in relation to investigating Porter, there is no procedure or body which can do what the government has prevented.
More importantly, there are no conventions of the conduct of Parliament which anyone can now assume is safe. The reason that Watson has come out with such open alarm that he is calling for the government to fall, is that he understands in how much danger our parliamentary democracy now is, by virtue of the actions of this government.
The vandals are in the building, and they’re burning it down.
“The vandals are in the building, and they’re burning it down.”
Yes, they are. And they’ve been at it for years, white-anting here, chipping away there, covering up with the rote boiler-plate clichés about how good all this democracy is while their actions tell us something very different and the media, Murdoch in particular, gives them every encouragement.
And that’s exactly the right way to destroy our system of government. A sudden open assault on it would risk an effective backlash. History shows that revolutions and coups are bloody and uncertain. Slowly and covertly weakening the institutions and taking over power by degrees is the way to do it. It need not be a conscious and fully-formed plan. The steps being taken by the Liberals and Nationals are probably undertaken just by following their instincts to remove obstacles and cement their grip, given they have no regard for any democratic principles or the rule of law anyway, just a desire to seek and hold power. The results are deadly to parliamentary democracy. What is left still looks something like the original design, but it is only a facade.
Yes, the flesh is eaten away, and all that remains is the skeleton.
Well said. John Howard inspired the ‘rodent’ nickname and it became a one-word training manual for a Coalition generation.
Scott Morrison will throw friend or foe under the proverbial bus if he thinks he can gain a few political points. The man is a total grub. I’ve had cracks at Tony Smith’s tin ear on occasion but he does do a reasonably good job, one of only a few Coalition politicians that I can respect. The lack of respect shown to him by his own party must be humiliating and hurtful. I find that unforgivable.
This Morrison government only craves power. They are not working for us, they are working for themselves and big business. The bastards are owned by big business.
An apt description of Morrison himself as covered by an article by Hewson in the Saturday Paper:
“Unfortunately, it seems the Morrison government’s attitudes to universities has been primarily driven by Morrison’s personal prejudices. It has been reported that Morrison considers universities to be fat and ugly – that they spend excessively and wastefully and are poorly administrated.”
Bolding mine, but I think it aptly describes Morrison himself.
I just wanted to write a short note Michael, to thank you for that excellent piece and to say how much I support your comments. I am usually fairly skeptical with lawyers but when Geoffrey Watson has something to say I really ‘sit up and take notice’. I have tremendous respect for his opinions.
It has always been the Coalition who have been willing to trash any convention for political purposes. They have little to do with either liberalism or Burkean conservatism. Just spivs and opportunists really, dedicated to staying in power and enhancing the wealth and power of the powerful. Their attitudes are grounded in that white privilege idea that I get to choose which rules apply to me. Labor, alternatively, are always the boy who desperately wants to be seen as the good one, please like me syndrome. They could use a bit more mongrel.
Just spivs and opportunists really, dedicated to staying in power and enhancing the wealth and power of the powerful.
Nice succinct summary.
After all one of the fundamentals that drove Menzies and co to found the Liberal Party in 1943/44 was “to keep Labor out of power”. Now, isn’t that a lofty ideal upon which to found a Political Party to run a Nation. Especially during a global War, that definitely shows that their founding aim wasn’t to make Australia a better place.
I believe the other two fundamentals were: Keep wealth in the hands of capital, and smash organised labour (ie, unions). You’ve got to hand it to them though, the number of times they’ve won elections mean they’re either exceptional salespeople, or the electorate as a whole, is plain dumb.
The Selfish Spiv Party, then and now!
The Porter saga and all the corruption/lack of transparency we have seen from the LNP shows that until (if ever) we have a robust ICAC no government should ever be elected for more than 2 terms. With three terms the LNP had all the time to build on and entrench their corrupt and secretive behaviour and weaken our system. Unfortunately with our Westminster system we are forever stuck with the LNP or Labor – aka the representatives of and beneficiaries from the mining and every other shady lobby – and both benefit from keeping the system as it is. I would love to know if there are any realistic ways to fix the system.
hopefully many more Independents in our Parliament!
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Have you found a new way of herding cats? Independents are just the latest brainfar+t of the well-to-do…those who can’t quite get the Libs to agree with their demands. Please explain how an independent representing a coal-mining electorate,will have anything in common with one who represents an electorate including the Great Barrier Reef (for example)? All you end up with is a group of representatives who can’t agree on anything.
A recipe for much greater instability!!
So, a “group of representatives who can’t agree on anything” or a gang of lying spivs and god-bothering hypocrites who are agreed and united: they will loot the country, rob us blind and sell us out to their greedy mates.
Jeez, that’s a tough choice.
My hope is that we will have a MAJORITY Labor government…that way we won’t have to worry about my ‘group of independents’, or your ‘gang of lying spivs…’. That was the message of my comment!
And then you are putting your trust in a majority Labor Government not becoming a gang of lying spivs or equivalent once they get a taste of power (the state Labor shananigans currently passing through IBACC in Victoria comes to mind). I have no problem with independents who are there in the interests of both their electorate and Australia as a whole. I have a big problem with any politicians that are there for the power or financial type gains.
Even if your “MAJORITY Labor government” is both honourable and effective, they are still only there for about a term or three, and the problems that are alluded to by Mr Bradley above are not resolved. Then a future Government can rely on the precedence of this week, or this government, to subvert the trusts and institutions that our democracy is built and reliant on.
And all of that said, I still think that Australia, with an independent electoral commission and compulsory voting is one of the better models for democracy in the world currently.
Agree to an extent as some charismatic independents with special focus could also be leveraged and manipulated the wrong way by and for bigger players, but not for the whole electorate.