The immediate outcome of Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue’s advice on Scott Morrison’s multiple ministries will be a change to the publication arrangements for ministerial appointments, with the possibility of a legislated change to that effect, according to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. An inquiry will also occur examining what Morrison did and how he did it, in a form to be determined.
That all follows Donaghue’s advice that what Morrison did was legal, but the result was “the principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined”. Morrison, in another of his bizarre defences yesterday, seized on the legal bit and justified his actions by invoking the pandemic. Still, he generously admitted, “some of these decisions will be reflected upon now and lessons learned”.
That’s more than you’d ever get from Donald Trump, admittedly, and perhaps the penny is dropping in Morrison’s mind about just how damaging his actions were — if not to Australian democracy than to his own party and whatever scattered debris remains of his legacy.
One of the questions being asked about how Morrison did what he did is why there was no pushback from his own office, from the governor-general’s office, or from Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). For those of us who like their governors-general to follow the advice of their prime minister, David Hurley’s actions were unexceptionable — it was not for him to publish something his prime minister wanted kept secret, if there was no legal issue with that.
The lack of pushback from Morrison’s office is a political issue. And, frankly, if they didn’t baulk at smearing the partner of an alleged sexual assault victim, or Morrison’s incessant lying, or his relentless pork-barrelling, or his stacking of board appointments, there’s no reason to think they would have batted an eyelid at his multiple ministries.
Prime Minister and Cabinet is a different story. If pushback was to come from anywhere, it should have come from PM&C — senior officials there, and the secretary, should have pointed out that what Morrison wanted undermined responsible government.
But PM&C was fatally compromised, because it was controlled by a long-term Liberal Party staffer, Phil Gaetjens, who was repeatedly used as a political prop by Morrison in response to scandals and embarrassments.
That is, one trashing of a political norm was enabled by another: the gross politicisation of the Australian Public Service helped the undermining of responsible government. It’s not illegal to appoint a veteran political staffer to be head of PM&C any more than it’s illegal for a prime minister to secretly hold multiple ministries. But it is a convention, a norm — one that, like so many others, has been trashed in recent years.
Should we now have legislation to prevent the politicisation of the public service too? What about other norms that have been trashed? For example, misleading Parliament isn’t illegal, it’s just a norm for which you lose your job. Or used to be — Scott Morrison blatantly misled the House of Representatives as PM and nothing happened. Should that, too, be formalised?
Formalising and legislating norms defeats their purpose: they are meant to be universally agreed standards within a group that enable that group to function effectively, not rules imposed and administered by those in power. Democracies accrete norms and conventions that enable them to work effectively and that have been proven by long practice. They’re not set in stone, they’re somewhere between Manchu court-style ritual and chaos, capable of evolving, but only by agreement of the whole group.
Faced with a determined norm-breaker like Scott Morrison, who readily tramples on conventions that impede his own personal interests, formalising norms is like whack-a-mole. There’ll always be some other norm that he will break to get his own way. The record of the Morrison government is one that assiduously looked for ways around rules and norms to get its way — the sports rorts program that was put in an agency beyond the ambit of Commonwealth grant guidelines, the programs designed so that ministers could simply decide what they liked about where money went and still be compliant with the rules.
Until the Coalition accepts that trashing norms is unacceptable, the same problems will occur next time it is in government. Likely, the same problems will occur if Labor remains in power for any substantial length of time. For all our back-slapping talk of what a successful democracy we are, the fact is we have outsourced politics to a small class of professionals, have few basic protections built into our system of government, and rely on a highly concentrated media that struggles to play the role of watchdog on power.
Perhaps the only genuine solution is the disruption of major party politics by independents who can force governments to adhere more strongly to norms. It certainly isn’t by trying to legislate our way back to responsible government.
Do we need to rethink our approach to political norms in Australia? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and
2 concerns. 1. The usual defence from Crikey of the G-G following orders. Given this view of the role why not give the job to anyone (me? any other reader?) at considerably less outlay if the G-G is to simply do what they are told because “it’s legal”? This is a nonsense. If the actions by Morrison were bizarre and extreme then it was the duty of the G-G to caution,question and if need be decline to sign off even if this meant resignation. We need to know whether Morrsion ordered the G-G to stay silent: if so, this makes his cooperation even worse. Is anyone seriously suggesting a G-G could not publish details of an action without the approval of the PM? It’s unclear to me how we benefitted from the G-G cooperating and staying silent but it’s very clear what benefit there was personally to the G-G. 2. BK asserts that Labor would likely act in the same way given time. Evidence? None. Just the usual, lazy media trope of “they are all as bad as one another”.
The can be little doubt that the G/G was complicit in remaining silent which probably harks back to his military career in seeing a division between officers & troops, the latter obey, unquestioningly, the former.
it’s a small step to regarding the general population (hoi polloi) as the troops to be commanded, neither consulted nor taken into the confidence of their betters.
If he were a true soldier with honour, having failed in his duty, he’d now fall on his, methaphorical, sword.
The ADF showed during the Howard war crimes era a willingness to cooperate with disgraceful executive actions and in Afghanistan (unlike Iraq where the ADF did nothing dangerous) treated the public and accountability with contempt. An ex ADF head was a perfect match for Morrison’s agenda.
thanks Bernard – I’m endorsing your perspective of talking of norms and conventions…I’ll bet there is a convention and norm that the Australian of the Year smiles for the cameras and at the PM. BUT, this norm/convention does NOT need to be solidified in law or regulation, etc.
Bringing it back to former PM Morrison – his displeasure at former Aus of the Year for her “side eye” (ie not smiling nicely) is very mild compared with the citizenry’s dismay and disgust about his disregard for convention and norm (ie multiple ministries on the quiet).
#gracetame #scomo
ooooh – there’s a great idea. Grace Tame for GG ?
Yes, or Gillian Triggs, or Christina Holgate.
Agree with either of Grace or Triggs but it’s doubtful that Holgate would want the reduced salary & status.
Grace for Pres of the Aus Republic would be more her style. Why would she want to be the Queen’s local corgi?
Good article. I commented in much the same vein a couple of days ago. The way our government, in the broadest sense, is meant to work is as a collective. The PM, for example, is not supposed to be, except for the limited term in office, an absolute monarch. The top of the executive is meant to be directed by the cabinet, all together. The different branches of government are supposed to know what each other is doing and, within their constitutional limits, keep each other running properly.
It’s inevitable that at times someone in politics will show bad judgement, not understand how it’s meant to work or be inclined to break the conventions without good reason. Whether it’s innocent or not, others who are aware should intervene to defend good governance and the public interest. There should not be anything partisan about this. It should be recognised universally as a primary duty by all politicians, whether in government, the back benches or opposition, and by all the public servants and other office holders, in federal or state politics. What we see with Morrison’s power grab, and all the preceding scandals, is that the politicians believe anything they can get away with is perfectly fine, the only test that matters to them is that they have not been convicted in a court of law. Until then, they brazen it out, while whining piteously if the media or public express any concerns. As for the public service and all the others who assist and advise, it is apparent that they either actively assist this corruption and degradation of convention and ethics, for which they are generally well rewarded, or they at least keep they mouths shut, knowing full well the dreadful fate of whistleblowers and the career-killing consequences that arise from anything less than mindless obedience.
Morrison’s power grab, like several other of his initiatives, is like an infection of the body politic that should have been easily dealt with by its immune response as soon as it began. Anyone Morrison talked to about his bright idea should have told him it was wrong and insisted, at the very least, that it be discussed by the whole cabinet and that, if implemented, it must not be secret. The abject failure of the immune response allowed the disease to multiply and spread as Morrison took on more and more portfolios, just as it has failed to respond to endemic rorting and so much more. As the article says, more independents and minor parties in parliament should help, at least up to a point. But there’s much more needed. All those involved need to be committed to upholding the letter and spirit of the constitution and the law, ahead of any other consideration. Those who challenge bad actions should be well protected from retaliation.
Bravo
Ironically, Governor general could not refuse because of convention…. What they could have done is pushed back and then resigned.
He def should resign or be dismissed imo given the specious lie that he had no reason to believe the appointments wouldn’t be made public. As Samantha Maiden said on Insiders: doesn’t he watch TV or read the papers? Zip credibility or integrity imo.
The casual dismissal of any scrutiny of the G-G by writers at Crikey is disturbing. If Morrison’s actions were irregular so were the G-G’s actions. If secrecy trashed accountability how come the G-G went along with secrecy? If he was directed to stay silent this surely should have raised alarm bells.
I was under the mistaken view that conservatives strive to uphold existing arrangements.
That was in the old days, when conservatives would look to figures such as Edmund Burke for guidance. Now, those who are referred to as conservatives are seditious radicals, more likely to resemble Mussolini in their politics and adopt millenarian fantasies in their religion.
It’s well worth finding a web page of Burke’s quotations and contrasting his style of conservatism with today’s.
But if they can’t trash norms, how are they going to prove ‘how smart’ they are?