Scott Morrison’s strange and secretive prime ministership is a reminder that the standards of Australian politics can always, somehow, fall faster than voters’ expectations.
A review of Mr Morrison’s undeclared self-appointments to cabinet is continuing but this is not the kind of political scandal that will follow a familiar arc ending in resignation and catharsis. It points instead to problems that are unlikely to be easily resolved.
This is a rare case where wrongdoing has come to light after a politician has left high office. Rarer still it was Mr Morrison himself who disclosed it, to a News Corp journalist co-writing a new book about the former PM’s leadership during the pandemic.
Books like this can define a prime minister’s legacy but this one is not likely to do so in the way that Mr Morrison seems to have intended.
There was a fleeting suggestion that angry Liberal MPs would join a call made by Karen Andrews for Mr Morrison to quit public life entirely.
None stepped forward.
But the former Prime Minister, John Howard, criticised his successor on Thursday after previously holding his tongue: “I can’t really have imagined the circumstances where there was any need to swear myself in as a duplicate minister”.
That comes after Malcolm Turnbull said the behaviour was “sinister” and Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey spoke against a rewriting of “the whole principle of cabinet government”.
Nose thumbed at convention
Frustrating any inquiry into the legalities of the Morrison ministry is that there is very little in black and white about how politics must be done in Australia. Everything down to the office of the Prime Minister is derived from hundreds years of parliamentary conventions not the constitution.
Questions will now certainly arise about whether this amounts to a loophole.
But legislation is no guarantee of meeting these standards. It is not easy to regulate the behaviour of people who make laws but they seem most motivated by a fear of falling foul of what passes as socially acceptable.
Prime ministers often bump up conventions and Mr Howard centralised power in his own office with comparative subtlety and his image as a strong leader.
ANU Emeritus Professor John Uhr argues Liberal PMs have been caught between this impulse and conservative ideas about limited government.
But he says something must have inspired Mr Morrison to take such a brazen approach to expanding his own power.
“We have seen holders of the prime ministership redefining what that office is; it’s not defined in the constitution so in a way it’s an open opportunity, as they understand it,” Dr Uhr said.
“What’s astounding is the kind of determination that Scott Morrison was bringing to bear.
‘‘What you had … is a kind of Trump envy.”
‘‘Morrison wanted to imitate that in some way to try and accumulate some of the kinds of expanse of executive power that was not naturally allowed under our parliamentary system.”
Many conventions of Westminster democracy, like public servants providing frank and fearless advice without thinking of politics, have slowly declined without much notice.
But Mr Morrison’s secret portfolio scheme was an unusually direct challenge to pretty core principles of democracy.
Australian democracy has always been a form of ministerial government: one person is vested with the legal authority to administer a portfolio and be held responsible for it.
By repeatedly inserting himself as an alternative decision maker Mr Morrison violated a key principle and one likely to feature in a legal challenge over a project he cancelled while secretly acting as the Resources Minister.
The secrecy that surrounded Mr Morrison’s accumulation of power was also incompatible with transparent government.
But a secrecy fetish alone does not entirely explain behaviour he had only recently disclosed.
Mr Morrison revealed on Wednesday that journalists from The Australian had been let in on his secret position as the minister in two portfolios.
If that was based on a calculation that no one would much care, it was very nearly proven right.
The Australian ran the story about these extraordinary arrangements in a small square below the fold on its front page.
It was based on excerpts from a book by its journalists that did not anticipate the fallout and casts Mr Morrison instead as a man who had rolled up his sleeves in a time of crisis.
Most other newspapers failed to distinguish themselves by following up the story the next day with coverage that reflected its seriousness.
Only after a news.com.au story punched a hole in the justification that the extra powers were needed during the pandemic did the issue take off.
There was not much sign of the principle that underlies all democratic checks and balances: power that does not face constraints is soon abused.
We may never truly understand Scott Morrison’s thinking but to make his successors more accountable we might need to look at what made him feel allowed to dream so bigly.
