It is extraordinary that a Liberal Party leadership manages to be outside the bubble when anything might go wrong. Concepts of right and wrong have no place in what it does, and even what it says it does. Its only concern is the exercise of power, to satisfy its current whimsies and to excuse and cover up mistakes, blunders and policy errors.
The power it exercises is entirely divorced from the way governments generally, and the Australian government specifically, are legally as well as morally required to act. It ignores the concept that elected and appointed government officials are in a trust relationship with the public.
As the High Court made clear a century ago (and has reaffirmed recently) government officials have a public duty and a public trust. The “public trust” requires them to serve not their personal interests but the interests of the public. As several judges put it, the fundamental obligation of a member of parliament is ‘the duty to serve and, in serving, to act with fidelity and with a ‘single-mindedness’ for the welfare of the community.
You don’t have to know what the High Court judges have said. Just think about what our country is called – the Commonwealth of Australia. Commonwealth (apart from having republican connotations which don’t yet apply) means that the political entity exists for the benefit of all its people. The people we elect to Parliament are obliged to act in our general interest – not their own personal interest, not the interests of their party, not the interests of only those who vote for them (or might be persuaded, by misuse of public moneys) to vote for them.
The various rorts in which Ministers have been involved recently were designed and have been executed to advance the government’s political interests by favouring electorates that either elect a coalition MP or are marginal and might be persuaded (with the help of a grant or two) to do so.
Most, like the various sports rorts, appear at first glance to be legitimate. They have stated aims, published criteria for evaluation and a process of ranking the bids that are made in accordance with those aims and criteria. It’s all rubbish, because ultimately the minister makes the decision and does so for reasons that are not stated overtly.
It turns out that it is not the quality of the submissions you make (if you even make one) or the proven needs/utility/community benefits of your project that matter, but your political connections or possible political value to the minister or government.
It is OK for ministers to use the grants to help win or hold marginal seats or reward safe Liberal/National Party seats. The grants, the Prime Minister insisted in one of the latest scandals (involving Home Affairs Minister Peter (‘I pride myself on my integrity’) Dutton, were ‘not outside the rules’. (Actually, they appear to have been outside the legislative guidelines in effect at the time.)
In any event (inside or outside those rules) the Minister or Prime Minister, or their respective ministerial officers, could (and would) have changed the rules, after the event if necessary, to let the government do whatever it pleased. Mostly, however, the rules and the published criteria are simply ignored and/or are irrelevant in the decision-making process.
The ministers’ obligations under the public trust doctrine are never considered.
Once upon a time (actually, back in the 1970s and 1980s) Ministers who blatantly ignored their obligations under the trust doctrine were obliged to resign or were sacked. A prime example was Labor Minister Ros Kelly, who put on a whiteboard the irrelevant considerations she was going to apply in making grants, was caught out and resigned.
But there were plenty of others who resigned or were dismissed for other reasons – such as misleading parliament, or conflicts of interest, or failure to observe regulations – Jim Cairns, Rex Connor for example in the Whitlam Government, Mick Young and John Brown in the Hawke Government and Jim Short and David Jull in the Howard Government.
Actually, there was a host of resignations for various reasons in the first Howard Government, but in his second government, Howard put an end to the practice of ministers resigning if they made mistakes for which they would be otherwise accountable. Regrettably, subsequent Prime Ministers have tended, like the later Howard, to tough it out, rather than have their ministers admit fault through resignation.
Senator Bridget McKenzie was different. Her resignation (for a fairly trivial conflict of interest) was aimed at deflecting attention from the really serious problems including possible breaches of the law and the Constitution, and other problems unveiled by the Auditor-General, and subsequent inquiries, involved in her administration of the sports rorts.
Reverting now to the issue of amorality, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the rape and sexual assault allegations currently dominating parliament and the media.
It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister apparently (judging him by his own words) needed to be told by his wife that rape is wrong – and that that is so even if that rape occurs in a ministerial suite in Parliament House and involved ministerial staff. Wrong. Not just wrong of course, but a serious crime.
For some commentators, this is just another example of the ‘culture’ issue that many people, including women Liberal MPs and former parliamentarians, have long complained about.
There can be no doubt that the Liberals do have a woman problem (as it is described). But there are two distinct issues. The first is the relative lack of representation of women in the ranks of the Liberal party in federal parliament, particularly at a senior level. The second is the bad treatment of women, by Liberal men, mostly involving bullying. It seems that this is replicated in the behaviour of Ministerial and other staff.
(As an aside: Labor is well on the way to overcoming the under-representation of women issue within its ranks. But there are still remnants of the male dominance/ superiority/ offensive behaviour syndrome among its parliamentarians – I say nothing about staff, lacking personal knowledge or reliable reports).
The Prime Minister’s response to the sexual assault allegations has been to set up a number of inquiries (the number changes from day to day) some of which are guaranteed (by the nature of the inquiry being conducted and the persons conducting them) to produce little of any consequence.
What is already evident, however, is that the woman who was allegedly raped was not encouraged to report her experience to the police. The pervading ‘culture’ is well understood: a person who goes to the proper authorities with a complaint has no chance of advancement within the party and little chance of retaining the position they currently hold.
Couple that with a Liberal Party leadership that manages to be outside the bubble when anything might go wrong.
David Solomon is a former legal and political correspondent. He has degrees in Arts and Law and a Doctorate of Letters. He was Queensland Integrity Commissioner 2009-2014.
Comments
22 responses to “Morrison’s government: the most amoral in 50 years”
David, I have to totally agree .Since the time of the Howard Government, I have noticed a general decline in morality of the Federal Government’s behavior .It is either a result of a general decline in civil society’s moral code or society’s acceptance of government ministers conduct these days as being deemed acceptable when previously , as you outlined , Ministers who ‘stuffed up’, fell on their swords .
The litany of scandals afflicting this Government is becoming monumental.What angers me is that we have a P.M. who claims to be a practising Christian, trashing the very moral code which binds ordinary Christians to the practice of their beliefs. The Hypocrisy displayed by this Government towards allegations of sexual misconduct revealed over the last few months is breathtaking.
A good place to start in trying to sort out this mess is with electoral and donation support. A cap on how much a candidate can spend for starters. How about $5000 per candidate, it works in Tasmania for Legislative Council elections. The other thing, ban donations from anyone and anything to candidates/parties. Does anybody seriously believe that when a donation of $500000 to a party is made it’s because the donor likes them? They’re after a pay back in one way or another.
Alas for the old Westminster system, where Ministers took responsibility not only for their own behaviour but their public servants. Hasn’t applied in Australia for decades.
Agree completely. A government that knowingly tried to defraud nearly a million Australians through one of its departments and then walks away saying it was just an error. No resignations and sackings at ministerial and public servant level. That really says it all. Utterly amoral and corrupt.
Thanks foryour article, David It is true that the current Morrison LNP Government has been involved in many corrupts practices and certainly show little responsibility or remorse for what has happened
We have seen a plethora of issues eg the sports rorts; robodebt ripping off the most vulnerable, corruption over the distribution of the water in the Murray-Darling Rivers system, refusal to listen to the fire-fighting chiefs in the lead-up to the 2019/2020 bush fire season and still not purchasing adequate equipment required to effectively fight bush fires; refusal to give poorer Australian adequate financial assistance while pouring billions into the pockets of the wealthy and the big corporations (many of whom pay little or no tax); the refusal to pay Timor-Leste the money raised from its resources in the Timor Sea while attempting to imprison the 2 men who helped this long-suffering nation to achieve some justice; etc. etc. And that list is not exhaustive.
While I think you have raise some very valid points in your article, David, I wonder if describing the current government as being the most amoral one in 50 years really means much. I think the problems we are experiencing now go back a very long way. Earlier governments also have had very amoral policies – some of which have led to the current situation. Former leaders went along with Suharto’s illegal and brutal invasion of Timor-Leste and aided and abetted the Indonesian military- largely because Indoneseia was and still is a client US state.
All Australian governments going back to the Whitlam government were involved and then Howard and Downer attempted to defraud Timor-leste after all its people had suffered and despite being the poorest nation in SE Asia. And our governments have supported so many US illegal wars and subversive actions against democratic governments for decades and we host the CIA spy base at Pine Gap which is involved in many spying and belligerent actions against other nations.
Robert Menzies used underhand means to get Australian involved in the US war against the nations of Indochina .
Will it be that the latest scandal concerning sexual assault and rape of young woman working for politicians bring this sad mess to an end? Australians who value social justice, human rights, compassion, respect, rule of law etc. can only hope so. But at the next election, they will need vote to put those responsible out of office.
Maybe Keating was right all along. We are a banana republic.
I think you and Paul are correct Hans. Our leaders have made us a banana republic. It must be remembered too that Keating was as much a problem as the others. He famously described General Suharto as his spiritual godfather! This is a man who with the CIA overthrew the democratic government of former president Sukarno and committed bloodbaths in Indonesia, West Papua, East Timor and Acheh – crimes every bit as repugnant as those committed by the Nazis.
Thanks David (and other commentators) for a compelling overview of all the emergent properties of a failing system of governance. However what is to be done about it? In Ison & Straw 2020 ( – see https://www.routledge.com/The-Hidden-Power-of-Systems-Thinking-Governance-in-a-Climate-Emergency/Ison-Straw/p/book/9781138493995) the argument we make is that it is the systems of governance themselves that are failing (and not only in Australia). Thus our imperative is the design and development of new systems of governance (exemplified in five chapters in our book).
Let’s take a simple thought experiment and ask: how many inquiries, royal commissions and the like have there been within Australian governance systems in the last 10, or 20 years? Are these symptomatic of governance systems unable to govern complexity and uncertainty (or wicked problems) and to what extent, on balance, have these institutions ameliorated a failing governance system? Australians were able to invent a new system of governance once before. Given all the failings you so succinctly outline as well as the ones you did not e.g. Robodebt; Big carbon (and associated climate emergency); Big IT – then we need to reinvent our governance system once again – and do it quickly.
The old comparison with the need for a complete washing out of these parliamentary “Augean Stables” should be implemented at once. Throw the lot out – have new elections – no currently serving MPs allowed to re-contest.
Let’s re-start. MPs (MHRs/Senators) to be sworn in with an oath to serve the people – all of them – in this common-wealth – no IPA/Gina or Twiggy or Clive and other vested interest lobbyists permitted within 500 kms of our parliament – you can tell I am getting wound up here – can you not? Excellent analysis from David Solomon.
And, maybe this is a good place to start? https://www.liberal.org.au/party-people
We are led to believe that these are August people, rubbish.
Yes Jim, the entire structure of Parliament, Public Services and all agencies need to been cleaned out, have been suggesting as much for some time now.
This situation has not occurred over night, it’s been a deliberate, slow and inexorable process from John Howard onwards.
Oh Jim, if only it was so easy.That would be a real blast!
We have heard nothing from former PM John Howard, inheritor of the Menzies mantle, as to his views on how his former colleagues now in office have responded to the Brittany Higgins matter. When it comes to evading responsibility, it seems the virtual walls in the PM’s office extend to the cabinet room and even the party room.
Grants rorts were bad enough, but Robodebt was much worse. Imagine if the expectations of the first Howard government still prevailed….we would have a new prime minister by now and even a different cabinet.
The majority of the Australian public who voted this mob into office are accomplices in the poor governance of the Commonwealth of Australia. Does this then say that over half the population are amoral?
No, Ken – it suggests that the Murdoch Press and the spin of his media shock-jocks so muddies the waters of honest discourse that they are easily led to vote against their own best interests.
GEORGE MONBIOT on persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I_ZhGHxnHQ
Gentlemen, it’s not either or, however a combination of both.
Sir, I agree with you absolutely that the LNP government “… ignores the concept that elected and appointed government officials are in a trust relationship with the public.” However, when I look at polls indicating that Scott Morrison is still very popular among the Australian electorate; at reports that Donald Trump still has more than 75% support among the Republicans, I ask myself “What if the electorate likes to be lied to?” I have come increasingly to the belief that the widening gap between the rich and the poor in many so called democracies is a deliberate ploy to keep them ignorant and so deeply engaged in the struggle for survival that they do not have enough time to think for themselves. In that desperate state, they could be lied to easily by promising them a Messiah-like promise of a better life. Just today, we hear news that part of Joe Biden’s Covid19 relief bill to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00 an hour has been blocked by the Senate. On ABC (America) news this morning, a Democrat Senator explained that $7.25 per hour works out to be $17,000/= a year, a poverty line wage.
Most of these workers struggling on poverty line wages would find it very difficult to work out the economics of what these glib-tongued politicians promise them. The conservative politicians make lots of promises but deliver little. When discontent brews with little tangible improvements, the politician use external ascription of blame – blame China for stealing our industries, selling too much to us and buying too little, blame Mexico for taking American jobs with lower labour costs, blame the allies for making the US pay for protecting them when they could do more to arms themselves (by buying more American arms); blame the terrorists. Externalising blame has the added advantage of preying on their patriotism and making it easier to send them off to war overseas without much protests or resistance. Because we adulate the Americans, we emulate them.
The idea that the government must act in the interest of the governed goes as far back as the 5/4th century BC. An account of the discourse can be found in Plato’s Republic; that a just ruler never acts for what is best for himself but what is best for the governed. Yet the public trust given to the LNP government by the people have been broken again and again.
Teow Loon Ti,
What a remarkable analysis you have written.This is an excellent outline of the Neo Liberal philosophy that people like Trump , Morrison and their kind are inflicting on the populace and we the gullible voters ( or at least 35-40% of us ) have been silly enough to take it in hook line and sinker !
The recent rejection of Trump by the U.S. Electorate may be a dimly visible sign appearing that the oppressed workers in our western democracies, who have endured this disastrous policy,as illustrated by the widening wealth gap, soaring house prices , idiotic gyrations in the stock market, stagnant wages and worsening living conditions , may at last be waking up to the fraud which is Neo Liberal Philosophy.
Mr O’Brien and davidb98 above. Thank you for the positive response to my comments. I am assured that there are other concerned Australians who agree with me.
$7.25 an hour for a normal US 40 hour week for 52 weeks (with no annual leave allowance) is just $15,080 per annum, substantially less than the Senator claimed. Another Republican Rep claimed that as a youth he was paid just $6.00 an hour, and it didn’t hurt him. It turns out that in his youth, (40 years ago) $6 an hour then would equate to $20 an hour today!
But for me the most galling response, that an immediate doubling of the minimum wage during the current pandemic and economic recession would send many employers to the wall, is utterly disingenuous and factually wrong.
The 628 page Bill, currently being read out loud from cover to cover to satisfy the confected outrage of one Republican Senator, contains a detailed plan for phasing in of the full $15 amount over a period of at least 4 to 5 years!