Morrison and His Ministries

Compared to its political cousins in the United Kingdom and Canada, Australia has less concentration of power in the prime minister’s office. This is mostly a result of the process by which party leaders are elected. Unlike the U.K. and Canada, Australia hasn’t abandoned the Westminster ideal that party leaders are simply members of parliament (MPs) with extra responsibilities, elected solely by their fellow MPs. They have no other source of power and can be replaced by their parties in a matter of hours.

The idea was to make the administration of executive authority a collective effort of the cabinet. The Australian Constitution makes no mention of the role of a prime minister, only the “ministers of state.” The role exists for practical purposes, as the country requires a head of government for official duties, and the cabinet needs a deciding voice should it be split on issues.

Yet there has been a series of recent revelations that Australia’s former prime minister, Scott Morrison, significantly undermined the principles of a cabinet-based government, secretly having himself sworn into five other ministries by the governor-general in order to take control of portfolios that were not his direct responsibility. It was an extraordinary power grab by Morrison, even if he used these powers only once to override a ministerial decision.

The governor-general – Australia’s de facto head of state, whose role is ceremonial – made a statement that he believed that when he swore Morrison into these additional ministries the members of cabinet would have been informed by Morrison that he had created two ministers for their portfolios. It was a remark that, although subtle, demonstrated that he felt he had been used by Morrison in a duplicitous manner.

Australia’s solicitor-general – the senior apolitical lawyer for the Australian state – provided advice to current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Morrison’s actions didn’t directly subvert the wording of Australia’s constitution, but this was mostly because the constitution doesn’t specifically say it is forbidden. This is most likely because the authors of the constitution didn’t consider it possible. However, the solicitor-general added that Morrison’s actions “fundamentally undermined” the principles of responsible government.

Morrison’s actions also undermined the spirit of cabinet governance, and the expectation of collective decision-making that prevent concentrations of power in a single figure. Westminster parliamentary systems are heavily reliant on conventions; these norms are the backbone of the system. There is an expectation that the politicians will act in good faith and the political parties themselves will regulate those who do not. Australian political parties may overuse their ability to swiftly replace their leaders (even when that leader is the prime minister), but it remains an important tool of the system. The confidence of your party’s MPs is essential.

Morrison’s justification was that the COVID-19 pandemic had created extraordinary circumstances that required him to make extraordinary decisions. This may well be true, but in doing so secretly, without informing those cabinet colleagues whose roles he was subverting, Morrison demonstrated that he did not think he needed the trust and confidence of his cabinet colleagues. Or perhaps he knew it couldn’t be justified to the cabinet.

Despite being unaware of Morrison’s actions, prior to May’s federal election there was a movement within the party to replace him as party leader. Morrison was deeply unpopular with the public, and had a reputation for being deceitful and evasive. The reason he wasn’t challenged for the party’s leadership was not because he had the confidence of his party’s MPs; it was due to fear that the public had grown tired of leadership challenges. Despite the conservative coalition’s loss at May’s federal election, Morrison became the first prime minister to remain in the job for a full three-year parliamentary term since John Howard in 2007.

There is now the question of whether Morrison feels ashamed enough of his behavior to resign from his seat in Parliament, or whether the Liberal Party feels it needs to push him out. The latter would be an extraordinary move given that Morrison had been a Liberal Party prime minister. But one of the key important features of Australia’s political system – at least in comparison to the United States – is the ability for political parties to regulate who represents them. Demanding Morrison resign his seat would be a strong indication that the Liberal Party is committed to Australia’s political conventions in a global era where commitments to democratic conventions are weakening.