Note: this article discusses suicide and sexual assault.
As matters stand today, the prime minister has, among the 16 male members of his cabinet, a senior minister who is accused of raping a 16-year-old girl in 1988. I’ll put this upfront: The victim was my client, and I know who the minister is. My commentary is based purely on what’s on the public record.
The question confronting Morrison, his cabinet ministers, his outer ministry and his entire government is politically explosive but ethically straightforward. What should they do?
As a legal fact, it is theoretically possible for a criminal rape prosecution to proceed despite the alleged victim having died. As a reality, that won’t happen. The evidentiary burden on the prosecution and the legal protections afforded the alleged perpetrator cannot be bridged.
The coronial inquest into the victim’s tragic death is unlikely to address (and cannot resolve) her allegation of rape. Its purpose is to determine the cause of her death.
In simple terms, there is no ordinary legal process which is going to move forward the case.
That leaves a situation which is untenable: a senior cabinet minister under the cloud of an untested allegation of extreme gravity.
The political consequence is paralysis; the government won’t be able to effectively function because the integrity of almost its entire front bench is in question. There is no possibility of clear air.
Political calculation may continue to determine what Morrison and his colleagues do (as it consistently has in relation to Brittany Higgins’ alleged rape). However, it is not too late for them, collectively or individually, to consider what would be the right thing to do.
The first obvious step is for the minister who is the subject of the allegation to come forward, identify himself and make a public statement. He should also step down — or be stepped down — while the matter is formally addressed.
Secondly, the prime minister should institute an independent inquiry into the matter, to fully investigate the allegation and its surrounding circumstances, and determine on the civil standard of proof what happened. This is similar to what the High Court did in response to the allegations against Justice Dyson Heydon.
Given the seriousness of the allegation and the potential consequences, such an inquiry needs to have real substance. A judicial inquiry may be most appropriate, with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence on oath. It should not be internal, secret or capable of being buried. In fairness to everyone, it must be beyond suspicion.
It is of course not optimal that there will never be a determination of criminal guilt in this case, from the perspective of the victim, the accused, and the public. The unavailability of that resolution, however, forces us to make do with the remaining available tools.
What if the cabinet minister remains silent? Then the prime minister must step up and make the identification himself.
What if he doesn’t, and refuses to institute an inquiry at all, relying instead on the presumption of innocence as a sufficient justification for doing nothing?
That scenario would be untenable, I would hope, for the other members of the cabinet. How could they continue, their own reputations smeared, and one of their colleagues carrying on with the allegation left hanging? They should resign their commissions.
The same cascading collision of corporate and individual responsibility rolls all the way to the bottom of the government. It is ultimately a personal question of integrity and ethics: with what standard of unaccountability are you prepared to be associated?
It’s one thing to sit in cabinet, the ministry, or the party room with colleagues who have no apparent compunction about using public money for partisan gain. It is quite another to sit next to a man who is accused of raping a schoolgirl but won’t stand up and face up.
If this were rugby league, the player would have been stood down by now. That is because the integrity of the “game” is paramount, taking precedence over the rights of the accused. Can we seriously tolerate a lower standard in government than in sport?
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.
For anyone seeking help, Lifeline is on 13 11 14 and Beyond Blue is 1300 22 4636
The parliament is paralysed and compromised. The role of a leader is to be willing to make hard decisions. Scott Morrison must stand the minister down or insist on his ‘voluntarily’ stepping aside. His remaining in the cabinet is intolerable and unworkable.
Normal legal proceedings are not available. Anything less means that the alleged perpetrator cannot be legally convicted, though his reputation is already destroyed.
To make it easy on himself, he should resign from parliament and slink off to lick his wounds and reflect on the meaning of the word ‘justice’
Agreed 100%, chances of something along those lines happening are much closer to 0%.
Morrison and the escaped criminal will try to bluff it out, and the the pressure will continue to mount for someone to name and shame him.
Which “escaped criminal” would that be?
I think the AG knows who it is…..and if you have escaped punishment for a criminal act, doesn’t that make you an escaped Criminal?
Words on which to build a solid foundation – “think” (sic!), “if“, “escaped criminal”
yet no sight of the most important one – “ALLEGED“.
Consider how comfy you’d be in a society run along such lines when the pitchfork brigade decides that 2+2=5.
I feel that there will no admission of guilt after all why would he admit to the rape of a minor with the attendant personal consequences.Much better for him to remain silent.
Better for whom?
“His remaining in the cabinet is intolerable and unworkable.”
Every male in the cabinet, PM included, is tainted by suspicion until the perpetrator is known.
The REAL issue in all of this is women are marginalised and used; look at those who are getting support during a pandemic; it is not the marginalised people be they women or those simply unable to get work, or those sustaining the work of a disability; indeed the majority of the suits are males in power and they are not all white nor are they sexual predators BUT THEY wield all the power; and have further disenfranchised those deigned needy, lazy or “other”!; If I see one more photo of a young beguiling woman as story I will scream- young women get older and largely are scapegoats or labelled as less worthy- compare the unemployed mother and the unemployed bloke in a hard hat; both not working but one group get kudos and support and labelled “job keepers “whilst mostly marginalised women, and include in that group many older women and mothers mislabelled “jobseekers” ..This muck raking propaganda by fascist classic propaganda techniques by…the “cashed up’ few and supported by the selfish power elites and narrow neo-lieberals.. they should all be sacked and made to deal with the mental abuse and rorts and then gaslighted into the bargain… class action and ICAC for those abusing their solemn power.
Bradley writes with knowledge of the name of the alleged offender. He suggests a strategy for the PM to follow. I do not know the name of the offender, and in that context, wonder if the PM might be the offender – in which case it’s very unlikely that he will adopt the suggestions Bradley makes. This, incidentally, gets to the nub of the issue: in information darkness, all 16 male members of the Cabinet are suspects – even the PM.
PM is unlikely – I would be very surprised if it were him, given that the letter was sent to him and that it asked him (and the other recipients) to act. One of them was in relevant places at the time the victim-survivor met him and when the offence was allegedly committed. And he has been notably media-shy in the past fortnight, despite holding a position that would make him an appropriate person to comment on these matters on behalf of the government.
Greenwitch – Your 3rd sentence nails it, and him.
It’s not difficult to find out who it is. Media won’t name, but back forums are all over it.
Sad that apparently the female members of Cabinet seem happy to keep working with him.
Well for that matter that they are happy to work with all the men in the cabinet who choose to protect the alleged perpetrator, rather that force him into the open.
Good point. Regret casual sexism on my part. I should have asked Jenny.
The women in cabinet must feel uncomfortable, you would think. But then power corrupts doesn’t it?
As ‘sad’ is an understatement, may I suggest “shameless”?
My thoughts also, WillyLupin.
Morrison is guided by Christian values.
The values of the Attorney General?
Great question. And ‘natural justice’ is legalese for most constituents so you’d think it’s meaning and application to this matter would be explained by none other than the AG??
For those who wonder –
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/best-practice-guide-2-natural-justice.pdf
The Ombudsman can investigate a complaint and make an adverse report in relation to an agency that has acted in breach of natural justice.
100% he is.
Is that how you spell it?
Given that many Ministers know full well who has been accused (see New Daily reportage) one might wonder how they acquired this knowledge.
A bit of locker room boasting?
It is not the PM. For one he was one of the recipients of the alleged victim’s letters. Secondly he’s been briefed on the matter by the AFP, and if he were the suspect himself then the AFP would not, indeed could not, have done this.
The key to working out who it is is to see who was involved in the debating competitions mentioned in the first article today around this time. At both high school and university. There are two of them. One has been really busy in the past 48 hours removing all reference to it on his wiki page.
Nothing will happen. Then his name will somehow pop up in the press if questions remain persistent. He will state he is innocent until proven guilty knowing full well a conviction is impossible.
I think his conduct wasn’t a one off, so maybe other women would come forward.
This man wanted to become PM at a very young age, there are stories in the paper that fit, with a name. An educated guess can be made.
This is one helluva stinker for the Morrison govt. There seems to be an inevitability that the name of the alleged perpetrator will become public. A nice analysis of the dilemma by the writer.
By some people’s benchmark, it already is public.
Clues can found by cottoning to adjustments being made to various interwebs records, just yesterday, by someone (or more than one) operating under one or more pseudonyms in the ACT.
A personal record was altered, as was the record of an event held in ’87/’88.
At last count, the alterations to the personal record total 26 in the last 21 hours.
There’s sufficient publicly available information to work out the perpetrator’s identity. Quickly and easily.
Not exactly hitting Al Capone for tax evasion but, needs must.
When will pollies learn that it is often not the initial deed that brings them down but the cover-up?
F S. Fitzgerald said much the same thing.
SmoKo’s hero, The Rodent, was known as the Unflushable Turd but this current lot would block any toilet which suits them, being their natural habitat.