With the release on Tuesday of the solicitor general’s advice that found Morrison’s appointments were legal but “fundamentally undermined” responsible government, the question of how he may be held to account remains unanswered.
Despite the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, insisting the matter should not be dismissed, the member for Cook appears to have been doing just that – fending off calls to resign and joking with meme-creators about his controversial decision to secretly give himself five portfolios over the course of 2020 and 2021.
In the wake of the solicitor general’s advice, Morrison on Tuesday said “some of these decisions will be reflected upon now and lessons learned”, in a curious use of the passive voice, which suggested people other than the former prime minister would be doing most of the reflecting.
A further inquiry will be held that may yet identify more problems surrounding the portfolio hoarding, with Morrison’s role as shareholder minister during the finance department’s inquiry into Christine Holgate one potential conflict cited by Albanese.
The Liberal party is mostly standing by Morrison, sticking to Dutton’s script: extraordinary times, apology accepted, opposition supports an inquiry, it’s time to move on.
This is despite some unbridled fury behind closed doors about Morrison’s concealment of the ministries from cabinet and the ongoing political damage he is causing the party.
But if there is no further damning evidence, it seems the Liberal party will continue to defend Morrison. It’s impossible to imagine he would be booted from the party, with Liberals acutely aware of the risk of losing a by-election in Cook should he be pressured out of parliament.
Parliament has some options available to condemn Morrison but these are limited, and again, unlikely to lead to any immediate consequences beyond the reputational.
The Greens have written to the speaker of the House of Representatives, Milton Dick, asking him to consider a referral to the privileges committee, but there appears to be insufficient evidence for this to be acted upon – at least for now.
Prof Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert, has pointed out that while “it certainly is practice” that ministerial changes are announced in the lower house, it is not a clear “requirement”.
“If there is no standing order to require it and it is just a practice, you would be hard pressed to say it is a contempt of parliament not to do it,” she said.
The argument of misleading parliament “by omission” is one that may be debated, and further evidence may come to light regarding potential contempt of parliament.
The government has left open the possibility of supporting a referral to the privileges committee or a censure motion.
Censure of an individual MP is unusual, and according to the official practice guide, such motions “do not have a substantive effect and are regarded rather as an expression of opinion by the house”.
Parliament could demand an apology from Morrison, but would people expect anything more than the “I’m sorry you were offended” non-apology we’ve already heard?
Albanese said on Tuesday that “clearly” some officials in his department were aware of the arrangements, but the prime minister has not given any indication that these bureaucrats will face any consequences either.
Closing the loophole that created this mess appears to be the only likely concrete outcome – other than the further erosion of trust and confidence in government.
No comments:
Post a Comment