It’s perfectly fitting that Scott Morrison’s final official act as prime minister should have been one of pure self-interested political bastardry at the expense of vulnerable people. Stick that on his headstone — it’s all he deserves.
Instructing Border Force to publicise the turnback of an asylum seeker boat from Sri Lanka was transparently revolting, but will there be consequences? Short answer: no.
It didn’t break any laws. The goings-on of the grandly named Operation Sovereign Borders, militarised for show as they have been ever since Morrison’s term as immigration minister, aren’t actually classified. The secrecy attached to “on water matters” has never been about national security, just political optics, openly breached whenever it suited Morrison to splash about some threat of incoming boat people.
While our laws criminalise pretty much any disclosure of government information by public servants, the government can choose what and when to reveal. So legally speaking it was within Morrison’s power to make sure we all learnt about the interception of a “vessel en route to Australia”.
What were broken were the “caretaker conventions”. These refer to the period between the calling of an election and the appointment of the new government, the so-called caretaker period. The basic idea is that a government ceases to hold the electorate’s mandate to institute policy and proactively govern once the campaigning starts, because it may not be the government after the election. So it goes into “caretaker mode”, keeping its hand on the tiller but doing the bare minimum to maintain governance.
The caretaker conventions are a serious business, generally treated as such by all parties and formally documented; the current version of the guidance document issued by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet was updated in December 2021.
As the guidelines say, the critical point comes when the governor-general dissolves Parliament in anticipation of an election. The temporary non-existence of Parliament means that the executive arm of government is no longer subject to its oversight, and so a key part of the three-cornered system of government breaks down. Government, accordingly, goes small.
The major conventions are that the caretaker government should avoid making major policy decisions or significant appointments or entering into major contracts or undertakings. And it should not use the resources of the government and public service “in a manner that may advantage a particular political party”.
The guidelines go into great detail on the practicalities of ensuring the conventions are followed, but really the principles are very straightforward: do as little as possible, and leave the public service out of it.
According to media reports, Morrison’s office directly requested Border Force (part of the Department of Home Affairs) to publicly release details of the boat turnback operation while it was in progress. Home Affairs officials were concerned that doing so could breach caretaker conventions but presumably concluded it would not.
That, it seems to me, was obviously wrong. The question that should have been asked was: what important public interest would be served by the public announcement. That question should have considered the context: it was election day, and making the announcement would directly contradict longstanding policy of the government with respect to precisely such matters. That is, the announcement would be a dramatic departure from precedent in a highly politicised context.
The obvious and only conclusion that should have been drawn was that there was no public interest justification available, but plenty of reason to appreciate that the government’s request was motivated by its own political interests. Border Force should, accordingly, have resisted and refused to allow itself to be used in this obviously politically partisan way.
That failure by the officials should have consequences for them. However, the far greater evil is that they were placed in such an invidious position. The question should never have been asked. That is on the now former prime minister.
The caretaker conventions have no legal force. A breach of them isn’t unlawful. Nobody will be punished. While the public servants could theoretically face disciplinary action (they won’t), there is no mechanism for holding Morrison accountable for his flagrant breach.
That is also fitting, because the Morrison government stands out as the Australian government that most consistently and wilfully breached the conventions of our democracy. In its conduct of the business of Parliament, disregard of ministerial responsibility, politicisation of government appointments and the public service and attacks on the independence of the judiciary, it never met a convention it didn’t instinctively want to trash.
It ended as it began: a disgrace.
It was John Howard who began the unraveling of trust in the federal public service when he stood over the AFP and entrenched known conservatives in oversight positions.
There is no halo over John Howard.
And made it clear that public servants were there to do what the Government wanted regardless, leading to a culture of yes-men and women in positions of authority.
Hopefully there will be karma – if/when the ‘Liberal’ Party implodes because of its move to the right, it will be the Lying Rodent’s lasting legacy.
Yes, funny that the most vitriolic observations about the cons come from their own side.
No halo, but originally a 20 watt light bulb. That, with the passage of time, has morphed into a searchlight, growing increasingly brighter as more and more of the hidden ramifications of his mendacious life are shone upon.
If they ever develop a sense of morality, the cons should stop wheeling him out as an exemplar – he was roundly rejected by the electorates where he was sent to stem the flow of blood.
But the cons will never accept that there is any measure of political greatness greater than winning elections – no matter how and no matter the sheer bastardry, wrong-headedness and incompetence of those who pursue that line. May all such mongrels be excoriated and dismissed.
We’ve made a start but we’re not finished until we’ve thrown out 90% of the remaining cons.
He trashed the Menzies legacy when he pushed out the Wets in the party. The Broad Church become a cult.
Gee this is a tough one. Should just Pezzullo be sacked? Or Pezzullo and Outram both?
Scott Morrison is still in Parliament, so this is probably not his last act of political bastardry, just his last as Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, there is no means to sack Morrison from parliament, but if the media had any integrity, they would turn their backs on him as a confirmed liar and manipulator so that no utterance of his could be trusted.
To “…sack Morrison from parliament…” would be an affront to democracy and the good burghers of Sylvania Waters…sorry Noelene,… Cook.
Surely even they deserve a voice?
After all, they know and, inexplicably, like their Representative enough to have re-elected him with a Primary vote of 56.25% with a swing against him of 7.45%.
For comparison, in 2019, he had a Primary vote of 63.7% with 5.4% swing to him so maybe even they are not completely benighted.
ScoMo is not a conservative. His disregard for the basic conventions which under gird democracy and integrity are disgraceful. Disgraceful.
Indeed. He’s a vile reactionary, as most of the Coalition have been since Howard’s reign of terror.
In political science, a reactionary is a person who holds political views that favour a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which that person believes possessed positive characteristics absent from contemporary society. (Wikipedia)
I don’t think this describes “Scomo.” Populist would be better.
No he’s going back to days of serfdom.
Nah, he’s looking back towards the days of theocracy, as in the Old Testament. That’s not just being snarky either. Having grown up in the Pentecostal Church, their number one form of government is theocracy. Democracy comes a distant second. It’s only tolerated because all the alternatives are much worse (except absolute monarchy perhaps).
OK, how about proto-fascist ?
Fascism is an ideology. I don’t believe Scomo ever had a thought-out ideology. He just said whatever seemed advantageous at the time.
Spot on. Thought bubbles were his sub in trade. Stop the boats and buy the subs.
How about arseole.
I never saw him wearing an Ass Hat – I am sure he has one in the closet, though.
Until he ran out of hats, ran over kids, and admitted he was a bulldozer 🙂
Populist or a person who tries to manipulate the people for their own ends. It depends on whether you see actions as reflecting the broader population or trying to manipulate them so that they, usually questionably, align themselves with your thinking, in this case the venal, fundamentalist right wing that too often masquerades as ‘christian’.
A proven liar will be his legacy – thanks Crikey.
I want an inquiry that calls not only Morrison to give evidence, but also Phil Gaetjens, Mike Pezzullo, Isaac Levido and Yaron Finkelstein. Levido was imported to run the campaign and Finkelstein has shown himself on other issues (eg the Brittany Higgins non-inquiry) to be a key player and fixer for Morrison. He’s been able to fly under the radar by a lazy media but I reckon putting the spotlight on him might show up all sorts of other nasty stuff.
Morrison has left our country with a last minute, everlasting talisman of his personal value system – He is in political danger, stuff his Party’s and the country’s best interests. His electorate supporters need to have a good at their reflections when next in front of a mirror. Is this the sort of leader and political party that represents their best interests? If their collective answer is “Yes” shades of Trumpian times will govern their road ahead.