Scott Morrison’s various attempts to explain his multiple ministries have left more questions than answers. Here constitutional expert Professor Rosalind Dixon seeks to explain the ex-PM’s possible motivations.
Fear and felt necessity
One possibility is that Morrison genuinely felt afraid of what COVID might bring — and the capacity of the cabinet to step up to the challenge of managing the pandemic.
Many of us in February and March 2020 experienced something like this feeling. I certainly bought a lot of (though not more than my fair share of) groceries, toilet paper and even an industrial freezer to store groceries for my immuno-compromised parents. And to the consternation of colleagues, in February I started wearing an N95 mask.
This might also help explain Morrison’s first overlapping ministerial appointment — i.e. his decision to appoint himself backup health minister in March 2020.
Morrison may not have needed to make this appointment. There are already well-established paths for ministers to delegate their power to colleagues, in the event of illness or absence. And this is clearly what should have happened in this case.
But he might have genuinely felt panicked, and acted in good faith in making this appointment. We are also told that he informed Greg Hunt about the decision. This is also why, earlier this week, I wrote an opinion piece that tried to credit the good faith of at least part of this version of events.
But for most subsequent appointments, the timing and secrecy of Morrison’s multiple roles just don’t fit with this account. At a stretch, this might explain his decision to appoint himself as backup finance and trade minister at the end of March 2020. But it is a real stretch.
You do not order emergency groceries and forget to tell the people they are designed to help.
And it simply does not explain the actions he took in April and May 2021, with the benefit of 12 months of pandemic management behind him.
Presidentialisation
The more likely explanation is that Morrison sought these appointments because he had a misguided view of how our constitutional system is supposed to operate: he saw the prime minister’s role as equivalent to the role of an executive president.
His statement at his press conference yesterday was consistent with this view: he suggested that he was ultimately responsible to the Australian people for all aspects of pandemic management.
That may be true politically. But it is not true legally.
Our system of responsible government depends on individual and collective responsibility on the part of members of cabinet: ministers are individually responsible to Parliament for the performance of their ministries. And cabinet is responsible collectively for the performance of the government and maintaining the confidence of Parliament and the public.
Morrison, therefore, may simply have been spending a bit too much time talking to other presidents — and prime ministers with presidential tendencies.
In isolation, Morrison’s relationship with the likes of Narendra Modi, Shinzo Abe and Boris Johnson may have been good for Australia. But the downside is that some of their centralising, presidentialist — indeed proto-authoritarian and nationalist — tendencies may have rubbed off on Morrison.
And that is before he spent time with former US president Donald Trump.
Personalisation
Trump was not only an executive president. He was someone who equated public, institutional power with personal power.
He saw no distinction between the White House and Mar-a-Lago, and classified public documents and his own tax returns. Both were his personal enclaves. And it seems there is a good chance he squirrelled away or shredded both.
He also had no compunction inciting violence against members of Congress or his vice president to save his own position. Institutions did not matter, only his own personal brand mattered.
Morrison was a lot more restrained and pro-institutions than this.
But he still had a strong personalist, ant-institutional vein. He dismantled the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in favour of a highly presidential form of national “cabinet” or committee that excluded many key cabinet colleagues at a state and federal level.
He downgraded the importance of institutions such as the Australian Public Service, and independent institutions such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
And he thought it was enough to take the word of ministers such as Alan Tudge and Christian Porter about their conduct, rather than insist on an independent institutional response and investigation, and the importance of preserving public confidence in institutions such as the attorney-general.
Why this was so is anyone’s guess. Maybe Morrison’s remarkable success at the 2019 election, seizing victory from the jaws of defeat, went to his head. Perhaps being a Pentecostalist, a religion that emphasises individual charismatic authority, played some role.
Or maybe Morrison is just something of a megalomaniac.
Lessons going forward
Whatever the explanation, Australian voters cannot accept Morrison’s attempt to justify his actions as necessary and appropriate.
They were unnecessary, secretive and in breach of basic commitments to responsible government and institutional checks and balances in our democracy.
And we need consensus on that before we can move forward — because our system works well when these norms are upheld, but quite poorly otherwise.
Modest reforms should be adopted in Parliament to mandate that all ministries go on the legislative register, no matter how temporary.
But the biggest change we need is in how we talk about Morrison’s actions. If not unconstitutional, they were certainly against the spirit of our constitutional system.
And there is simply no good reason for them ever to be repeated.
“But the biggest change we need is in how we talk about Morrison’s actions. If not unconstitutional, they were certainly against the spirit of our constitutional system.”
Most Coalition politicians – there are a very few exceptions – would not agree. Judging by their responses so far, they would not even understand or admit the concept behind this remark. Joyce, Dutton and others, at federal and state levels, insist the only test of acceptable conduct in political life is whether one is convicted of a crime as a result. And, until convicted, of course you are innocent.
Here, for example, is one of many repetitions of Joyce’s opinion: “Obviously I don’t agree with the prime minister taking on roles here, there and everywhere, I believe in a cabinet system of government […] but Mr Morrison has not broken any law.” So, nothing to see here, let’s move on. Parliamentary “conventions”, whatever they are, are for wimps. The “spirit of the constitutional system” is airy-fairy metaphysics and fairy tales, the concern only of ivory tower academics and similar weirdos. Real politicians get on with rorting and cheating and lying and plundering and avoiding accountability and giving themselves fancy fake jobs in nice places and have no time for such nonsense.
There is not much chance of changing how we talk about Morrison’s actions while the Liberal and National parties have this outlook, which is fundamental to their whole political method.
Thank you Rosalind, an excellent article!
I wonder if GGs who aren’t knowledgeable about constitutional law and conventions need to have some pretty serious professional development before taking on the role?
I suppose Morrison getting caught will make PMs and their ministers wary for a while but, people being people and politicians being politicians, we are likely to see another Morrison some time. PR
ofessional development won’t change their behaviour – it never seems to affect the behaviour of people like Morrison so the buck does stop with the GG role.
No, it would be a very bad idea to encourage the GG to become a referee, judge or overseer for the PM. We’ve seen what happens when a GG gets that sort of idea. Anyway, the biggest reason not to do that is that the job of oversight is already taken. It’s the role of parliament, and that is where the buck stops, not with the GG. The constitution spells it all out. Also, because the PM is a party leader, that party has a responsibility for finding a leader who is up to the job and then keeping that leader in line. The trouble here is Morrison found a way to grab all these powers and keep it secret, which meant neither his party nor parliament could react. Even the cabinet could not respond because it too was in the dark. There must be action taken to ensure that everyone currently appointed with any ministerial powers is openly identified along with their portfolio in some easily accessible register that is updated as soon as any change is made. The way it has been done up to now is a convoluted mess, not fit for purpose, but it did not matter previously while nobody was playing silly buggers.
The GG has a function of advising or warning the PM if it seems appropriate. For all we know, that happened. But it is a big mistake to put any blame on the GG for Morrison’s craziness. The blame for what happened here belongs to Morrison and those in the Coalition who elevated such an unfit candidate to both party leader and PM, and then defended him throughout; some are still excusing him. The GG is a distraction from the real issues.
We need to know that our GGs are confident in their ‘let’s have a chat about this’ role as much as we need to ensure that proper record keeping, etc happen.
Unless there is a law that forbids the GG talking to us about his role in this matter, I reckon he has a responsibility to explain what he did and why. He needs to be seen to be doing the right thing as a democracy is a living thing and that gives us all a level of accountability AND a need to demonstrate that we have done a good job when times are turbulent.
This is exactly what should not happen. It is not the job of the GG to get into open conflict with the PM, rather that is to be avoided at all times. Questioning, arguing with and contradicting ministers in public is what MPs are for. The conversations between the PM and GG, just like in the UK between the PM and the monarch, are private so that that the GG or monarch can speak without getting into into a public political row. It’s a basic feature of the system.
The GG is not accountable to the public, the GG is appointed on the recommendation of the PM to act on behalf of the monarch. It is only those who are elected by the public who are answerable to the public. It’s worth remembering that on that basis ministers do not answer to the public either, they are appointed too, and only answer to parliament (and do so with obvious reluctance and disdain far too often). Words like ‘democracy’ give the wrong impression and do not inform much when describing this political system.
If the GG is required to reveal the conversations with the PM, no future GG will ever have anything to say to the PM beyond remarking on the weather and asking if the PM would like some tea.
In a similar way to the GG having a role of advising and warning, the PM has a duty not to drag the GG into controversy. Morrison screwed up big time on that one, as he did with so much else.
I posted a reply that hasn’t appeared (I guess I hit the wrong key so hopefully it won’t also appear later).
If it’s legal to do so, the GG explaining what happened in a professional manner: creates no conflict but is likely to restore the good regard in which many hold him (at worst he was a dupe perfectly capable of learning from his mistakes and adjusting how he weights his various roles to make better decisions in the future, and at best he did an excellent job that was never going to have an impact on someone like the former PM), creates no obligation for any future revelations about discussions, disagreements or negotiations that the GG, ministers or PM are involved in as they go about their work, and combined with appropriate procedural changes is likely to restore faith in the system more broadly.
Hurley is the bloke most of us know for saying, “The standard you walk passed is the standard you accept”. It’s something a great many admire because of the enormous amount of bullying and harassment being experienced in workplaces. He has a lot of goodwill to draw on. He isn’t a former vicar who had to go because of his behaviour in his old job, and he isn’t someone struggling with alcohol addiction.
Also, we’re a society better educated than any other time in our history and the election results show that we’ve probably taken more interest in politics than we have for a while, so we’re better positioned than we ever have been to listen openly and fairly to an explanation.
This government is, at this point of the term and with its Kerr experience, demonstrating itself to be capable of handling the situation maturely and ethically. It’s also in the interests of the Libs and Nats to get things out in the open as it promotes ‘moving on’, so they won’t try to manipulate the situation.
This is the perfect time to act responsibly rather than immaturely putting up a brick wall and hiding our problems which will only lead to another problem later on, and possibly one much worse than those we have experienced so far.
“Words like ‘democracy’ give the wrong impression and do not inform much when describing this political system”
A democracy is a living thing and its health relies on the citizenry’s ability to nourish and protect it.
If many of us have the wrong impression, we should have the opportunities to learn. The research evidence for adults is clear – lifelong and life-wide learning is very effective.
The electorate of Indi is a good example. Helen Haines doesn’t ask (and I’m paraphrasing), “Would you like to volunteer in my Canberra office because you know how Parliament House works?”. She asks, “Would you like to volunteer in my Canberra office and learn how Parliament House works?”.
If you think that electing representatives can give anything resembling democracy, good luck to you, but it seems unlikely you have any grasp what democracy is.
By far the most democratic feature of our entire system of government is the jury used in some courts of law. For the rest, it does not even come close.
Democracies are created and run by human beings so we can expect them to be flawed, and politics seems to be very attractive to some of the most flawed of us.
That is all the more reason for the practitioners involved (including the GG) to be very well qualified and for voters to have confidence in those qualifications. It’s also a reason for voters to understand our systems well.
When insidious behaviour is the biggest threat to health of our inevitably flawed democracy, our knowledge is the most important prophylactic.
Hard to see how the secrecy GG Hurley participated in sits happily with the principle you argue. If we do not know what happened how can the system operate?
The flaw in the line being argued here (that parliament is the referee not the GG) is that the GG cooperated in keeping the deal secret from anyone.
My comment went on about the secrecy at some length – “The trouble here is Morrison found a way to grab all these powers and keep it secret…“, so please don’t suggest I was ignoring that point.
It’s not at all clear where exactly the reponsibility lies for this secrecy. The recent reports about the GG’s diary being completely silent about the appointments need to be explained. If it was the GG’s initiative to supress his appointments then it is inexcusable and the GG must go. If it was not routine and the GG was told to do it by the PM or the PM’s office, and he gutlessly complied instead of resigning, then it is shameful and the GG disgraced his office, but the blame still lies with the PM.
The intense focus on the GG still seems very misguided. It is increasingly obvious that various MPs, who were also in government, knew what Morrison had done, even if they did not necessarily have the full picture. And yet they said nothing, did nothing, made no protest. Barnaby Joyce, for example, rather than stand up for parliament and democratic accountability, has said he kept his mouth shut so the Nats could hang on to one more ministry. This is totally disgraceful. It shows that his hunger for power trumps every other consideration, he could not care less for the conventions that our system of government relies on, and he is too stupid to understand that holding a ministry when the PM has taken it over means nothing. As well as Joyce, there is Keith Pitt, Greg Hunt, Michael McCormack and no doubt others. They are all clearly unfit to be in parliament.
My short list of culpable MPs missed one who is possibly the worst of the lot, after Morrison. Christian Porter apparently advised the PM that this was a wizard wheeze, although he not only had a duty as an MP to stand up for parliament, he was AG, one of the most senior law officers, with a high duty to respect both the letter and and spirit of the constitution and to act with total rectitude on such matters. It was, apparently, Porter’s advice that obliged the GG to follow the PM’s request. Porter is a far greater villain in this story than the GG.
That was quite a performance by Barnyard on Insiders on Sunday – laid out for al to see his priorities and blind stupidity.
That was amazing. I usually make the teas when Barnyard is the politician being interviewed but I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen.
The Side Hustle Scotty presser and Barnyard’s interview within a few days of each other, experienced safe in the knowledge that they’re no longer running the country, has been quite something.
Can we lose this recent “good faith/bad faith” meme? Well known pontificators who love the sound of their own voice (looking at you Waleed) overuse it. Humans act in a grey zone on most moral issues. Saying “but my intentions were good” is the sort of moral cop out we expect from politicians. In truth we are agents who seek to maximise out own fortune, whether that is measured in dollars or plaudits. Saying “X is a bad faith actor” because they lied ignores the reality that most of them think they are doing the morally correct thing and humans are more than capable of deluding themselves about even verifiable truths. In the choice between evil and stupidity the latter is usually the reason for most “bad faith” acts.