Whatever one's opinions about the Linda Reynolds and Christian Porter affairs there should be no disagreement that it is the Prime Minister who hires and fires his ministers. He makes the call. Their future is in his hands.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The twin ministerial matters in dispute in the Federal Parliament are ultimately matters for personal judgment, not matters which can be resolved by the rule of law. They are within the purview of the rules of Westminster system politics rather than the rules of criminal or civil law. The latter can assist by providing the context, but other than determining the eligibility of a minister to sit in the parliament, cannot determine who holds the office of minister in the government of the day.
That matter sits with the Prime Minister, who selects ministers and allocates their portfolios. The Liberal Party has held strongly to that traditional position. In a Coalition government the allocation, but not the selection, is carried out in consultation with the Nationals.
The Labor Party selects its ministers by a vote of its parliamentary members (the caucus), making it more of a collective decision, but the Prime Minister allocates portfolios. In matters of dispute, as the Whitlam government found, the whole business of hiring and firing can be a matter of great tension, but the wish of the Prime Minister prevails.
The Parliament plays a role in holding ministers individually accountable and may pass a vote of no confidence in a minister, but the government majority in the House of Representatives precludes this happening. A Senate vote of no confidence in a minister can be brushed aside by the government.
This means that Prime Minister Scott Morrison, despite his attempts to obfuscate, is the centrepiece in the current dilemma. Both his party and his cabinet might form and express a view about the fitness of a minister to hold office, but the decision is his alone. Only his own removal would change the situation.
The other possibility is that the minister offers their resignation. Even then it needs to be accepted by the Prime Minister, which is sometimes not the case. The Prime Minister remains the key actor.
This is the context for the future of both Linda Reynolds and Christian Porter as ministers in the Morrison government. Ultimately only the opinion of Morrison matters directly. Their future is a matter of his personal judgment.
At the heart of so many of the matters under discussion is the maintenance of the party brand. Former deputy prime minister Julie Bishop made clear during the week, on the ABC's 7.30, that anything pertaining to the party brand, especially during an election year, is always the party's first priority and constrains how matters are dealt with. Even claims of rape made by a staffer like Brittany Higgins would fall into this category, as would an allegation of rape against a minister.
As Prime Minister Scott Morrison has set himself against losing any minister because it would be an admission of government failure and perceived as a victory for the opposition. That is his default position and his approach to the cases of his ministers, Angus Taylor, Bridget McKenzie, and Richard Colbeck. The same will be true for Reynolds and Porter.
For all his talk about the rule of law and not bowing to trial by media in the case of Porter and about Reynolds' health issues, Morrison will be making a primarily political judgment. There is nothing particularly new about that approach. There will be some internal considerations about party dynamics, particularly cabinet dynamics, but the major considerations will be external. What will or will not hurt the party? What can be sold to the electorate? Like any big policy decision, including the budget, Morrison and his cabinet and parliamentary followers now must adopt the posture of selling the cabinet status quo to the community.
MORE OPINION:
The judgment of the community on Morrison's judgment or lack of judgment will be delivered indirectly at the next election. The voters in Porter's marginal House of Representatives' seat of Pearce in Western Australia will play a more direct role, but as a senator Linda Reynolds is safe from any community judgment.
Among the considerations Morrison will take into account are whether he can fight on two fronts at once and whether he can avoid taking the initiative by sacking a minister.
Defending the fitness for office of two senior ministers at once is certainly undesirable. As both are linked to the same broad issue, rape and sexual abuse of women, it is doubly undesirable. One possible tactic for Morrison is to keep one and sack the other. But as one is a woman and the other Attorney-General any choice is fraught with difficulty.
Whatever the eventual decision Morrison will greatly prefer that the departure of one or both of his ministers occurs by voluntary resignation rather than an enforced sacking. The typical wording of such resignations is that it is done to avoid damage to the government in the court of public opinion. No other admissions are ever made.
In these cases, both these ministers also have ideal cover for a resignation as both have taken leave for health grounds. The advantage for the government of any such resignations is that they can be sold to the public as worthy ministers being driven from office by an insensitive and uncaring opposition.
Whatever eventuates, the central role of the Prime Minister should never be overlooked. It is his job to hire and fire his ministers.
- John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.