tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/cabinet-7174/articlesCabinet – The Conversation2023-12-31T20:27:44Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2178122023-12-31T20:27:44Z2023-12-31T20:27:44ZCabinet papers 2003: Howard government sends Australia into the Iraq war<p>By far the most significant decision the Howard government made in 2003 was to support the invasion of Iraq. Journalists and historians have <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/iraq-lessons-the-cabinet-submission-that-never-was/">long maintained</a> there was no submission to full cabinet weighing the pros and cons of the Australian intervention. Cabinet papers from 2003 released today by the National Archives of Australia confirm this.</p>
<p>While the Howard government had many other important issues to manage in that year, the Iraq War consumed most attention and sparked most debate in the wider community.</p>
<h2>Entering the war</h2>
<p>Cabinet’s National Security Committee had been closely monitoring Iraq and its possible possession of weapons of mass destruction. But in March 2003, Prime Minister John Howard <a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/iraq-2003-retrospective">asked the full cabinet</a> to confirm the decision to commit Australia to war. </p>
<p>Despite US urging, the UN Security Council failed to authorise the use of force. It preferred instead to exhaust all opportunities for diplomacy. </p>
<p>On March 18, Howard informed his cabinet colleagues that US President George W. Bush had given Iraqi President Saddam Hussein <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/iraq.usa1">an ultimatum</a>. Australia was asked to support the United States if Iraq did not fully comply with Bush’s demands. </p>
<p>In the absence of explicit Security Council authorisation, Howard relied for legal justification on a <a href="https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA108837721&sid=sitemap&v=2.1&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eeba0625d&aty=open-web-entry">memorandum of advice</a>, signed by two officials at the level of first assistant secretary from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General’s Department. Iraq, the memorandum argued, had not complied with earlier Security Council resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, Australian participation in military intervention would be legal.</p>
<p>Gavan Griffith, Australia’s solicitor-general from 1984-1997, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/this-war-is-illegal-howards-last-top-law-man-20030321-gdggwb.html">regarded the legal advice</a> as “untenable” and “Alice in Wonderland nonsense”. </p>
<p>The memorandum was nonetheless important for persuading public opinion. Governor-General Peter Hollingworth had earlier asked to see legal advice from the attorney-general, perhaps assuming the decision would be his, acting on advice from the government. Howard advised Hollingworth there was <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3033384">no need</a> to refer to the governor-general any decision to commit Australia to war. </p>
<p>The Howard government instead proceeded with the defence minister using his legal powers under the Defence Act as amended in 1975. This alleviated any need for the attorney-general to provide legal advice to the governor-general, as Sir John Kerr <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/kerr-fraser-conflict-a-precedent-for-gg-intervention-20220821-p5bbjl">had demanded</a> of the Fraser government in 1977 in regard to appointing the head of the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator, for which Howard was the responsible minister. </p>
<p>The cabinet minute of March 18 2003 smoothed the legal and constitutional difficulties. The attorney-general, it read, agreed with the memorandum submitted by the first assistant secretaries. The governor-general had been consulted but did not need to give his approval, and cabinet had agreed to send Australian troops to war. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/iraq-20-years-on-death-came-from-the-skies-on-march-19-2003-and-the-killing-continues-to-this-day-201988">Iraq 20 years on: death came from the skies on March 19 2003 – and the killing continues to this day</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Proceeding without a cabinet submission enabled Howard to <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-enduring-lessons-of-the-iraq-war/">dispense with advice</a> to cabinet on four other matters. </p>
<p>One was the <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/iraq-how-we-were-duped-20050514-ge05vq.html">circumstantial nature</a> of the intelligence used to justify the invasion. </p>
<p>Another was the <a href="https://theconversation.com/iraq-20-years-on-death-came-from-the-skies-on-march-19-2003-and-the-killing-continues-to-this-day-201988">sectarian chaos</a> that could have been predicted to follow in Iraq. </p>
<p>A third was the danger of military intervention <a href="https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/iran-and-iraq-war-2003-real-victor">empowering Iran</a>. </p>
<p>A fourth was the consequences for the Australian-United States alliance. Any decision to rebuff Bush’s request would have been treated coldly by his administration. Howard <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/iraq-lessons-the-cabinet-submission-that-never-was-part-2/">was determined</a> to take advantage of the Iraq war to strengthen the alliance. </p>
<p>Another middle power and NATO ally, Canada, demonstrated its independence without incurring Washington’s enduring resentment. Prime Minister Jean Chretien <a href="https://opencanada.org/how-canadas-intelligence-agencies-helped-keep-the-country-out-of-the-2003-iraq-war/">insisted</a> Canada would not join in military action without United Nations authorisation. The leader of the Labor opposition, Simon Crean, eventually <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/simon-crean-stuck-to-his-guns-on-the-iraq-war-and-was-proven-right-20230626-p5djif.html">adopted this position</a> too. </p>
<p>Officials in the Department of Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/iraq-lessons-the-impact-of-the-howard-fib/">did not regard it as their role</a> to offer strategic advice on matters already decided by ministers. This pattern of policy-making indicated the <a href="https://meanjin.com.au/essays/my-how-things-have-changed/">increasing subordination</a> of the public service to ministers since the 1980s. It also reflected the increasingly presidential view Howard had of the office of prime minister. </p>
<p>In 2003, public opinion <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/polls-apart-on-whether-this-is-a-conflict-worth-waging-20030401-gdgizs.html">was opposed</a> to Australian participation in the war. However, the government was aided by the <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/node/62/wrap-xhr#mtr">effusive support</a> of News Corporation papers for its position on the war. </p>
<h2>Beyond the war</h2>
<p>The release includes many other submissions and decisions. Some relate to negotiation of a free trade agreement with the United States. </p>
<p>Ten years after the agreement came into force, however, <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/the-costs-of-australias-free-trade-agreement-with-america/">analysis showed</a> it had diverted trade away from the lowest-cost sources. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was also affected. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-us-trade-deal-undermined-australias-pbs-32573">How the US trade deal undermined Australia's PBS</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Other papers relate to health policy. Howard sought to blunt an effective Labor campaign against the erosion of the rate of bulk-billing under Medicare. Accordingly, Health Minister Kay Patterson introduced a A$900 million package.</p>
<p>“A Fairer Medicare” was highly criticised, including by a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/medicare/fairer_medicare/index">Senate inquiry</a>. It described the package as a “decisive step away from the principle of universality that has underpinned Medicare since its inception”. </p>
<p>With the 2004 election looming, Patterson was replaced by Tony Abbott, who later announced a compromise package called <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-backs-medicare-plus-reforms-20031202-gdhwa7.html">Medicare Plus</a>. It achieved more success by including higher reimbursements for doctors and an extended Medicare safety net aimed at addressing out-of-pocket costs. </p>
<p>A decision on the environment is also noteworthy. Howard appointed a committee to devise an affordable long-term plan to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. An emissions trading scheme was recommended.</p>
<p>The plan received the backing of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as well as that of Treasurer Peter Costello, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Environment Minister David Kemp. In July, the strategy was taken to cabinet but later, after discussions with industry representatives, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/howard-blows-hot-and-cold-on-emissions-20061115-ge3kkq.html">Howard dumped it</a>. </p>
<p>Years later, in 2006, under pressure from the “millennium drought”, Howard changed his mind and accepted Treasury’s advice to adopt an emissions trading scheme. Howard’s Labor successors, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, implemented the scheme. In 2013, the Abbott government demolished the scheme with the enthusiastic support of business. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-too-hard-basket-a-short-history-of-australias-aborted-climate-policies-101812">The too hard basket: a short history of Australia's aborted climate policies</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Resources boom – and missed opportunities</h2>
<p>In October 2003, the leaders of the United States and China both visited Australia. This offered hope Australia could maintain a constructive relationship with its closest ally as well as its major trading partner. </p>
<p>By 2003, Australia was on the cusp of one its greatest resource booms, fuelled by Chinese demand. The boom gave the government space to turn its attention to a range of reforms in areas such as defence, health, communications and education policy. </p>
<p>Three opportunities were missed in 2003. </p>
<p>One was to establish a sovereign wealth fund to invest the temporary windfall gains from the mining boom. </p>
<p>A second was to establish an emissions trading scheme. </p>
<p>A third was to advance progress on constitutional recognition of Indigenous people.
This had to wait until 2007 when Howard at last <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/the-quest-for-indigenous-recognition/john-howard#:%7E:text=I%20n%20October%202007%2C%20in,was%20to%20be%20re%2Delected.">recommended a referendum</a> to recognise the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australian history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Lee is a member of Australians for War Powers Reform. </span></em></p>The 2003 Cabinet papers, released today by the National Archives of Australia, reveal the machinations over Australia’s entry into the Iraq war.David Lee, Associate Professor of History, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1928892022-10-24T08:38:33Z2022-10-24T08:38:33ZSouth Africa’s parliament fails to hold the executive to account: history shows what can happen<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491018/original/file-20221021-22-3ulusp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Cyril Ramaphosa addresses a parliamentary session.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">GCIS/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In South Africa’s <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa">apartheid era</a> from 1948 to 1994, the executive arm of government dominated over parliament. In any system, this allows a small group of politicians to dominate the larger body of elected representatives from which they are drawn, with no effective limitations. Corruption and abuse of power almost always follow directly. </p>
<p>At the start of the new democratic era, the drafters of the <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/images/a108-96.pdf">1996 constitution</a> changed this. The constitution gives the legislature the authority and the obligation to oversee the exercise of public power, and hold the executive accountable. </p>
<p>The constitution contains nearly 40 provisions to do this. Chief among these provisions is <a href="https://myconstitution.co.za/en/04.html#powers-of-national-assembly">section 55 (2)</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The National Assembly must provide for mechanisms – (a) to ensure that all executive organs of state in the national sphere of government are accountable to it; and (b) to maintain oversight of (i) the exercise of national executive authority, including the implementation of legislation; and (ii) any organ of state.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The foundational values of “<a href="https://myconstitution.co.za/en/01.html#republic-of-south-africa">accountability, responsiveness and openness</a>” in section 1(d) of the constitution demanded a radical change in parliament’s relationship with the executive.</p>
<p>In 1994, the Speaker of Parliament began a range of initiatives to get the change under way. I undertook three projects at her request between 1996 and 1999: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>a system of mandatory disclosure of financial interests by every MP and their immediate family members </p></li>
<li><p>a system of parliament scrutinising every piece of subordinate legislation made by the executive to test it for constitutional compliance</p></li>
<li><p>setting out parliament’s obligations under section 55 of the constitution. This is now known as the <a href="https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/268/">“Corder Report”</a>. I wrote this report with two colleagues. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The report recommended legislation to set standards of accountability and institutional independence. It proposed new rules about how the two houses of parliament should report to parliamentary committees. And it suggested there should be a Standing Committee on Constitutional Institutions, essentially what the constitution calls the State Institutions supporting Constitutional Democracy, <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/saconstitution-web-eng-09.pdf">or the Chapter 9 bodies</a>. These include the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission and the Auditor-general.</p>
<p>Parliament responded only partially and ineffectively. It referred the matter to the Rules Committee, which changed some portfolio committee processes. But the changes did not embrace the spirit of the constitutional obligations.</p>
<p>Parliament failed to live up to its constitutional mandate. This failure was noted by the <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202206/electronic-state-capture-commission-report-part-vi-vol-ii.pdf">State Capture Commission</a> as having contributed to the relative ease with which the administration of former president Jacob Zuma, and its fellow travellers, could <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-state-capture-commission-nears-its-end-after-four-years-was-it-worth-it-182898">corrupt state behaviour</a>. </p>
<p>The absence of standards of accountability and the fact that portfolio committees are not independent, are the reasons parliament is failing in its constitutional mandate to hold the executive accountable. </p>
<p>This matters because the lack of parliamentary vigilance has a number of consequences. The first is that the executive and public administration will succumb to the temptations that their power gives them. The second is that the electorate is failed by its direct representatives. Thirdly, that the organs of state which must secure integrity (the courts and <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/saconstitution-web-eng-09.pdf">Chapter 9 institutions</a>) are placed under undue stress. And finally, it falls to civil society and public-spirited individuals to take on the burden of challenging the abuse of power.</p>
<h2>History of accountability</h2>
<p>A condition of the exercise of power in a constitutional democracy is that the administration or executive is checked by being held accountable to an organ of government distinct from it.</p>
<p>Accountability means explaining decisions or actions, making amends for any fault and taking steps to prevent a recurrence. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview.aspx">separation of powers</a> has been the foundation stone of democratic government since the 17th century. Public power was divided among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. Methods of mutual checking and balancing were established. </p>
<p>During the 20th century, executive power expanded so as to meet the needs of growing populations in a changing world. </p>
<p>The executive branch thus came to dominate the legislature. The judicial authority rose in prominence after 1945. This, as bills of fundamental rights and an increasing emphasis on the lawful exercise of public power made their way into national constitutions. </p>
<h2>African experience</h2>
<p>Almost all African countries experienced these developments in their formal liberation from European imperialism in the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/place/central-Africa/The-end-of-the-colonial-period">second half of the 1900s</a>. </p>
<p>The pattern of allocating power began to shift in the early 1990s, with freedom coming finally to <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/namibia-gains-independence">Namibia</a> and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/question/How-did-apartheid-end">South Africa </a>. This coincided with the collapse of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-fall-of-the-berlin-wall-30-years-ago-resonated-across-africa-126521">Soviet empire</a>, and a rash of constitution-making in central and eastern Europe. This soon followed in mainly Anglophone Africa.</p>
<p>These new constitutions typically gave pride of place to bills of rights. They gave the superior courts the authority to test whether rights had been infringed and whether government decisions and actions were lawful and constitutional. The judicial branch of government rose in political prominence. This, in turn, focused attention on judges’ independence and accountability. </p>
<p>Given the experience in the developed world, the drafters of these new constitutions recognised that politicians would put pressure on the courts. So the inclusion of what the <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/images/a108-96.pdf">South African constitution</a> calls <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/saconstitution-web-eng-09.pdf">state institutions supporting constitutional democracy</a> took hold. </p>
<p>Most modern constitutions in Africa followed suit. They established bodies such as the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/759228#metadata_info_tab_contents">ombudsman</a> or <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/23644677#metadata_info_tab_contents">public protectors</a> and <a href="https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/africa/overview/factors.html">human rights</a> and <a href="https://cge.org.za/">gender commissions</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0027328/">Independent electoral commissions</a>, <a href="https://www.oagkenya.go.ke/">auditors-general</a>, and <a href="https://www.acc.gov.zm/">anti-corruption commissions</a> also came into being. These bodies, collectively known as the integrity branch of government, complement the review powers of the courts in holding the executive to account.</p>
<p>How have these arrangements translated into practice?</p>
<p>The general picture across Africa is patchy. There are only isolated examples of the legislature demanding answers from the president and cabinet. This results in the denial of constitutional rights. It puts even more pressure on the courts to come to the rescue and exposes the judiciary to <a href="https://theconversation.com/rule-of-law-in-south-africa-protects-even-those-who-scorn-it-175533">unwarranted attack</a>.</p>
<p>The South African legislature is no exception.</p>
<h2>Failure of accountability</h2>
<p>There are many reasons why the South African parliament has failed to hold the executive accountable. </p>
<p>Foremost is the control that political party bosses exercise over members of parliament. This is due to the country’s <a href="https://www.elections.org.za/content/Elections/Election-types/">party-list proportional representation</a> electoral system.</p>
<p>The majority party in parliament (the African National Congress) has held that position since 1994. It chairs all but one of the portfolio and standing committees, which are the chief mechanisms for accountability.</p>
<p>Where the party whip demands unquestioning obedience, <a href="http://www.channelafrica.co.za/sabc/home/channelafrica/news/details?id=82e4a0ee-0d92-471e-bb17-67ed587a816d&title=Ramaphosa%20defends%20ANC%20MPs%E2%80%99%20need%20to%20toe%20the%20party%20line">as has been the case</a>, parliamentary committees ask few questions and fail to hold the executive to account. This, despite the best intentions of opposition (and even some governing) MPs. </p>
<p>It forces people to use <a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/promotion-access-information-act">access to information routes</a> or other less open means of exposing the abuse of power or maladministration.</p>
<p>For this reason, the <a href="https://www.statecapture.org.za/">State Capture Commission</a> has advised that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-court-ruling-heralds-changes-to-south-africas-electoral-system-140668">electoral system</a> and some aspects of the committee functions should be reviewed. This would weaken the grip of the party on its MPs. </p>
<p>Given the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factionalism-and-corruption-could-kill-the-anc-unless-it-kills-both-first-116924">divisions within its ranks</a>, the ANC is unlikely to promote any steps that undermine the influence of its leadership cohort.</p>
<p>All those who value the responsible exercise of public power in a constitutional democracy will support such a recommendation. But few will be holding their breath.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192889/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Corder has in the past received funding from the NRF of South Africa. He is affiliated with the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution and Freedom under Law. </span></em></p>Parliament’s failure to live up to its constitutional mandate was noted by the State Capture Commission as having enabled former president Zuma’s regime to corrupt state behaviour with ease.Hugh Corder, Professor Emeritus of Public Law, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1892302022-08-24T02:21:19Z2022-08-24T02:21:19ZMorrison and Berejiklian scandals show the importance of trust – and a well-functioning Cabinet<p>In the wake of the controversy over former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s secret cabinet appointments, there’s talk of the need to formalise the conventions the former prime minister breached. </p>
<p>While codification is sometimes necessary when conventions break down, this ignores the simple truth that cabinet itself is a convention.</p>
<p>At the heart of a well-functioning cabinet is collective responsibility, and most importantly, trust.</p>
<h2>Cabinet is an organic institution</h2>
<p>Cabinet is the apex of political authority in our system, but there isn’t a word about it in the Australian constitution.</p>
<p>It has remained at the heart of executive government in countries that inherited the British tradition because it is an accepted, if ill-defined, organic institution. It is capable of adaptation in changing times and imperatives, and open to a variety of uses by different governments and their leaders.</p>
<p>An Australian constitutional commission in the 1980s explicitly rejected proposals to formalise cabinet’s role and functions.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/news-centre/government/solicitor-general-opinion-validity-appointment-mr-morrison">solicitor-general’s advice to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese</a> this week specifically references the importance of flexibility, noting Australia’s constitutional framers anticipated the institution of responsible government would continue to evolve. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1561955348860338176"}"></div></p>
<h2>Collective responsibility</h2>
<p>That said, a cabinet cannot work if ministers, in particular government leaders (who set the rules for Cabinet), do not respect the fundamentals.</p>
<p>From its origins in 18th century Britain, the primary purpose of cabinet has always been to produce collective decision-making among a group with different outlooks on the world, differing (sometimes conflicting) portfolio responsibilities, and competing ambitions.</p>
<p>Collective responsibility is not just a convention: it’s the essence of a well-functioning cabinet. The British constitutional lawyer, Sir Ivor Jennings, wrote that any government that cannot maintain the discipline of collective responsibility is “riding for a fall”.</p>
<p>When ministers leak against their colleagues or publicly brawl over matters to be determined by cabinet, we know we are witnessing a government in its death throes.</p>
<p>Trust lies at its heart, and good “cabinet craft” is overwhelmingly concerned with maintaining this trust. Those charged with managing cabinet processes have the responsibility to ensure an honest debate that enables ministers to concentrate on agreed facts, and focus on those matters that only they can resolve.</p>
<p>If they are to go out into the public and defend a decision with which they do not agree, ministers must feel they had a reasonable opportunity to convince their colleagues, and lost following a fair debate.</p>
<p>Inevitably, there must be compromise. In a well-functioning cabinet, ministers must be prepared to trust the judgement of the government leader or a colleague. This is why the failure to disclose personal interests is so deeply corrosive. It is also why <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/cabinet-handbook">cabinet handbooks</a> and <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/code-conduct-ministers">ministerial codes of conduct</a> are concerned with such matters.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1560061683904675841"}"></div></p>
<h2>Breaching trust</h2>
<p>We await the decision of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) on the events that led to former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s resignation.</p>
<p>It’s unlikely she broke the law. But in failing to disclose a personal relationship at the heart of several judgement calls, her position as a key member and later head of cabinet became deeply problematic.</p>
<p>From the strong sentiments <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-16/karen-andrews-says-morrison-should-resign-as-he-apologises/101336646">expressed by some of his former colleagues</a>, it’s evident Morrison’s failure to declare his assumption of ministerial powers would have undermined his ability to function as an effective prime minister. This was compounded by the fact he presided over a coalition government.</p>
<p>It’s unwise, but not inherently improper, to have two ministers with concurrent powers. Secrecy was the issue here – a breach of trust so profound that the former prime minister lost the confidence of his colleagues when it was disclosed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-reverts-to-type-in-an-unconvincing-defence-188911">View from The Hill: Morrison reverts to type in an unconvincing defence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The solicitor-general concluded that Morrison’s failure to inform the public and the parliament of his appointment to multiple ministries “fundamentally undermined” the principles of responsible government. This is because secrecy rendered impossible their ability to hold ministers accountable.</p>
<p>Given the informality and flexibility of cabinet government, it would be counter-productive to codify these conventions. But there’s a strong case for them to be restated – as they have been in the solicitor-general’s advice.</p>
<p>Government and opposition leaders around the country have been taught an invaluable lesson about the centrality of trust in the efficient working of cabinets. It seems likely that current, former and prospective cabinet ministers will now think more carefully about how they exercise the principle of collective responsibility.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189230/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Tiernan has previously received research funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). She is a member of the Centre for Policy Development's (CPD) Research Committee.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Sturgess does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trust is at the heart of a well-functioning cabinet. A cabinet cannot work if ministers do not respect the fundamentals.Anne Tiernan, Adjunct Professor of Politics. Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityGary Sturgess, Adjunct Professor, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1675402021-09-14T20:52:45Z2021-09-14T20:52:45ZThe government is determined to keep National Cabinet’s work a secret. This should worry us all<p>Earlier this month, the Morrison government introduced a <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr6782%22;querytype=;rec=0">bill</a> to parliament that would amend the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00055">Freedom of Information Act</a> to allow meetings of the National Cabinet to receive the same exemptions from releasing information to the public as the federal cabinet.</p>
<p>The protection would be considerable. The bill would expand the definition of “cabinet” in the act to include the National Cabinet or one of its committees, and would redefine “minister” to include state ministers. </p>
<p>The exemption would also cover not only National Cabinet meetings themselves, but a host of other bodies associated with it under the convoluted architecture for intergovernmental relations in Australia. <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/federal-relations-architecture-diagram.pdf">This chart</a> shows just how confusing it gets.</p>
<p>The bill has been referred to a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/COAG">Senate committee</a>, which is due to report on October 14. There is a lot at stake. The bill certainly should not pass in its present form.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-national-cabinets-in-and-coags-out-its-a-fresh-chance-to-put-health-issues-on-the-agenda-but-there-are-risks-140165">The national cabinet's in and COAG's out. It's a fresh chance to put health issues on the agenda, but there are risks</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What’s this all about?</h2>
<p>The bill is a response to the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in a <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2021/2719.html">case</a> brought by Senator Rex Patrick to force the government to release certain National Cabinet records. </p>
<p>In that decision, the AAT rejected the government’s claim that National Cabinet documents were exempt from release under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. The tribunal did so on the basis that a forum in which heads of Australian governments meet is a completely different kind of body to a cabinet. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nowhere-to-hide-the-significance-of-national-cabinet-not-being-a-cabinet-165671">Nowhere to hide: the significance of national cabinet not being a cabinet</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A cabinet comprises ministers in the same government, who are elected to the same parliament, to which they are accountable and collectively responsible. </p>
<p>By contrast, a meeting of National Cabinet comprises the leaders of nine separate jurisdictions, with cabinets, parliaments and lines of accountability of their own. </p>
<p>The government decided not to appeal the AAT decision, but has moved to amend the FOI Act instead.</p>
<p>There have been meetings of heads of Australian governments since before federation. For around 100 years, these were known as the premiers’ conference. In 1992, the name was changed to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Australian_Governments">Council of Australian Governments</a>, or COAG. </p>
<p>COAG today has ceased to exist — <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-national-cabinets-in-and-coags-out-its-a-fresh-chance-to-put-health-issues-on-the-agenda-but-there-are-risks-140165">National Cabinet has replaced it</a>. It is, however, essentially the same body with a new name and some altered procedures to respond to the pandemic. </p>
<h2>What the current bill would do</h2>
<p>None of these bodies was set up by legislation. Over the almost 30 years of its existence, however, COAG came to be mentioned in passing in a lot of legislation dealing with federal, state and territory government relations. </p>
<p>This explains the title of the current bill: the <a href="https://www.govtmonitor.com/page.php?type=document&id=1187832">COAG Legislation Amendment Bill</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the first two sections of the bill (“schedule one” and “schedule two”) amend a host of acts referring to the old name, COAG. None of the amendments, however, uses “National Cabinet” as a substitute. Instead, for example, the COAG Reform Fund would become the Federation Reform Fund and references to COAG alone would become First Ministers’ Council. </p>
<p>Against this background, the amendments in schedule three to the FOI Act — and many other acts — seem even more peculiar. </p>
<p>Here, National Cabinet is referred to by name, and the amendments define the federal cabinet to include “the committee known as the National Cabinet”. This begs the question: known by whom? If the answer lies in the terminology used by the prime minister, what other bodies might this bill ultimately cover? </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1423590802337320965"}"></div></p>
<h2>How confidential should National Cabinet be?</h2>
<p>The bill raises an important question of the extent to which decisions of National Cabinet should be available to parliaments, the media and the public.</p>
<p>The need for transparency and accessibility is pressing. Over the course of the pandemic, the National Cabinet has made a host of significant decisions about how public power will be exercised, when and by whom. Its decisions have dramatically affected the lives of all Australians for almost two years. </p>
<p>In many ways, the National Cabinet’s effectiveness relies on public cooperation and trust. The only publicly available information about its decisions, however, comes through bland press releases, discursive remarks at Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s press conferences, and the occasional leak to selected journalists. </p>
<p>The lack of public knowledge about what goes on in National Cabinet cuts across all the principles and practices of representative democracy — at the Commonwealth level and in each of the states and territories.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1420848847174082564"}"></div></p>
<p>There may well be a case for keeping some aspects of what goes on in National Cabinet confidential. The decisions are difficult and negotiations may be tense. Outcomes are sometimes unpredictable and public opinion can be febrile. It’s also in the public interest to encourage frank exchanges between political leaders and innovative thinking about solutions. </p>
<p>These considerations suggest there may be a case for the confidentiality of some aspects of the National Cabinet and preliminary working documents. </p>
<p>There is no comparable rationale, however, for withholding information about the decisions that have been made, any finalised documents on which they are based and understandings about the action expected to be taken. </p>
<p>These matters would be exempt under the bill. They should be in the public domain.</p>
<h2>Compounding the confusion</h2>
<p>By enshrining the words “National Cabinet” in legislation, the bill also entrenches the foolish and inappropriate name that was adopted without apparent deliberation as the pandemic began to unfold. </p>
<p>Perpetuating this way of describing the a forum of heads of government puts at least two of our most basic principles of government at risk. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-national-cabinet-change-federal-state-dynamics-145443">Will national cabinet change federal-state dynamics?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One is federalism. It is bizarre to describe the meeting of heads of Australian government as a subcommittee of the cabinet of one of its members (the federal government).</p>
<p>This could be destructive to healthy relations between federal, state and territory governments in the future. </p>
<p>The second risk is to the idea of a “cabinet” itself — and, by extension, responsible government. </p>
<p>The concept of a cabinet is hard enough for people to understand. It depends almost entirely on constitutional convention, reinforced by the logic of the relationship between government and parliament. </p>
<p>No doubt the frequency with which the term is used gives observers some general understanding of what a cabinet does. But if the understanding is muddled by applying the term “cabinet” to a body of an entirely different kind, the potential for confusion is magnified. </p>
<p>This comes with considerable loss to our democracy, and no gain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167540/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cheryl Saunders has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>In an open democracy, there is no rationale for withholding information about National Cabinet’s decisions or any documents these decisions are based on.Cheryl Saunders, Laureate Professor Emeritus, Melbourne Law School, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1657772021-08-06T14:50:27Z2021-08-06T14:50:27ZBeyond the cabinet reshuffle – what will it take to renew South Africa’s public sector?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415010/original/file-20210806-13508-1yvd1gw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has reshuffled his cabinet amid growing accusations of of graft, and an outbreak of violence unprecedented in 25 years.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Rodger Bosch/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/full-text-ramaphosas-cabinet-reshuffle-whos-in-whos-out-20210805">has linked his cabinet reshuffle</a> to a larger purpose. As he put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We are unwavering in our determination to build a capable state, one which is ably led and which effectively serves the needs of the people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Realising this vision will <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-way-forward-abandon-old-ideas-embrace-bold-experimentation-165539">take a transformation in the way</a> in which South Africans conceive of how to achieve public purposes – one that prioritises people and problem-solving over a preoccupation with plans and systems.</p>
<p>South Africans of many ideological hues have in their minds an image of the public sector as a well-oiled, top-down machine – always effective in delivering on clear goals set by planners and political leaders. “Get the plans right.” “Co-ordinate effectively.” “Fix the systems.” </p>
<p>These become the mantras of reform. But continuing pursuit of these dicta will not get the country where it needs to go.</p>
<p>For one thing, the image of a well-oiled machine presumes an omniscience which no organisation anywhere, public or private, actually has. For another, systems reform is a painstaking process; its gains are measured in years, with gains in the quality of service provision coming only after the upstream improvements are in place. Time is running out.</p>
<p>Most fundamentally, the preoccupation with plans and systems ignores a reality that increasingly has become recognised the world over – that, in shaping feasible ways forward, context matters. Even in places where bureaucratic “insulation” seems to prevail, public administrative systems are embedded in politics. </p>
<p>In some settings, background political, economic and social conditions support top-down bureaucratic machines. Such conditions are very far from South Africa’s current realities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-way-forward-abandon-old-ideas-embrace-bold-experimentation-165539">South Africa's way forward: abandon old ideas, embrace bold experimentation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But South Africa’s current public sector challenges are anything but unique. Indeed, counter-intuitive as it might sound to many South Africans, its public sector works somewhat better than those of most other middle-income countries, and those of almost all low-income countries. Yet many countries, even in the midst of messiness, have managed to achieve gains.</p>
<p>How? </p>
<p>By focusing on problems and on people.</p>
<h2>Problems and people</h2>
<p>A focus on concrete problems provides a way to cut through endless preoccupation with empty initiatives – endless plans for reform, endless upstream processes of consultation. Processes that are performative rather than practical, too general to lead anywhere. Instead, <a href="https://bsc.cid.harvard.edu/building-state-capability-evidence-analysis-action">gains in public capacity can come via a different path</a> – through learning-by-doing, focusing in an action-oriented way on very specific challenges, and on evoking energy to address them by the responsible departments (or individual state-owned enterprises).</p>
<p>Action to address concrete problems needs to come, of course, from South Africa’s public officials. How to evoke their sense of agency?</p>
<p>Engaging with South Africa’s public officials, one quickly discovers that even the best of them are deeply disillusioned by their experiences. Yet many continue to have a deep reservoir of commitment to service. Evoking commitment is a classic challenge confronting managers everywhere. As <a href="https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801442926/state-building/#bookTabs=1">Francis Fukuyama puts it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All good managers (private and public) know that it is ultimately the informal norms and group identities that will most strongly motivate the workers in an organisation to do their best … They thus spend much more time on cultivating the right ‘organisational culture’ than on fixing the formal lines of authority.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Looking beyond the public sector, what of South Africa’s citizens more broadly?</p>
<p>A focus on people also involves transforming the relationship between the public sector and civil society (including the private sector). For reasons both good and bad, public officials generally engage with civil society cautiously. The good reason is that such relationships can all too easily fester corruptly in the shadows. The bad reason is a more generalised wariness – fuelled by a combination of arrogance, fear and inertia – to step outside the comfort zone of tightly managed bureaucratic processes.</p>
<p>The benefits of a transformed relationship can be large. It can be the basis for new, cross-cutting alliances between public sector reformers and reformers within civil society, across national, provincial and local levels. Investment in such alliances can help developmentally oriented stakeholders to overcome resistance to change, including by pushing back against predation.</p>
<p>To renew a relationship, all parties need to change their behaviour. What new behaviours does civil society need to learn?</p>
<h2>Civil society and transparency</h2>
<p>Shaped by its history, South Africa’s civil society organisations generally focus on holding government to account. This is a constricted vision of the role of civil society in a democracy. Indeed, it sometimes can have the unintended consequence of fuelling cynicism and despair, thereby deepening dysfunction. The <a href="https://www.thegpsa.org/about/collaborative-social-accountability">Global Partnership for Social Accountability</a> highlights how less confrontational approaches can add value:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have learned that focusing only on scrutinising and verifying government actions can have limited value in our problem solving. When they engage to focus on the problem at hand, civil society, citizens and public sector actors are better able to deliver solutions collaboratively – especially when they prioritise learning. When social accountability mechanisms are isolated from public sector processes they are not as effective as collaborative governance. Collective action requires efforts that build bridges.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Transparency remains key. Transparency in how civil society engages with officials in the public sector can reduce the risk that more collaborative governance becomes a vehicle for corrupt collusion. Transparency vis-à-vis outcomes can signal to citizens that public resources are not being wasted but are helping to improve results. The combination of participation and transparency can help enhance social solidarity and legitimacy of the public domain.</p>
<p>As Ramaphosa put it in his cabinet reshuffle speech:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The task of rebuilding our economy and our society requires urgency and focus. It requires cooperation among all sectors of society and the active involvement of all South Africans.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Or, as per Hugh Masekela’s classic song (quoted by Ramaphosa in his <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphosa-2018-state-nation-address-16-feb-2018-0000">first state of the nation address to parliament as president</a> in early 2018, “Thuma Mina”. Send me.</p>
<p><em>This article builds on a <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-way-forward-abandon-old-ideas-embrace-bold-experimentation-165539">piece that appeared</a> in The Conversation’s ‘foundation’ series.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165777/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Levy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>South Africa’s public sector works somewhat better than those of most other middle-income countries. Yet, unlike them, it has not managed to achieve gains in the midst of messiness.Brian Levy, Professor of the Practice of International Development, Johns Hopkins UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1528802021-01-08T20:48:14Z2021-01-08T20:48:14ZFederal leaders have two options if they want to rein in Trump<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/377802/original/file-20210108-19-9n0wti.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C6%2C4408%2C2850&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Donald Trump gestures during a Jan. 6 speech in Washington, D.C.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/ElectoralCollegeProtestsTrump/46db79d8388b40efa51cf0c28c11b44c/photo">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the world reacts to the Jan. 6 armed attack on the U.S. Capitol encouraged by President Donald Trump, many Americans are wondering what happens next. <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4935177/speaker-pelosi-calls-invoking-25th-amendment-remove-president-trump-office">Members of Congress</a>, high-level officials and even <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nam-25th-amendent-trump/">major corporations and business groups</a> have called for Trump’s removal from office. </p>
<p>Prominent elected and appointed officials appear to have already sidelined Trump informally. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard/index.html">Vice President Mike Pence was reportedly the highest-level official</a> to review the decision to call out the D.C. National Guard to respond to the assault on the Capitol. </p>
<p>Informal actions like this may continue, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reported request that Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/08/katherine-clark-house-vote-trump-impeachment-4564485">restrict Trump’s ability to use the nuclear codes</a>. But political leaders are considering more formal options as well. They have two ways to handle it: impeachment and the 25th Amendment.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/377803/original/file-20210108-13-9ywqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A scene of the Senate voting in Trump's impeachment trial in 2020" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/377803/original/file-20210108-13-9ywqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/377803/original/file-20210108-13-9ywqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377803/original/file-20210108-13-9ywqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377803/original/file-20210108-13-9ywqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377803/original/file-20210108-13-9ywqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377803/original/file-20210108-13-9ywqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377803/original/file-20210108-13-9ywqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Donald Trump has already been impeached once, but was not convicted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TrumpImpeachment/accf4e94d99c4948b9ed08bb54d69e12/photo">Senate Television via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Impeachment</h2>
<p>Article II of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to impeach and remove the president – and other federal officials – from office for “<a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-4--2">Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors</a>.” The founders included this provision as a tool to punish a president for misconduct and abuses of power. It’s one of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/well-impeachment-didnt-work-how-else-can-congress-keep-president-trump-in-check-130992">many ways</a> that Congress keeps the executive branch in check.</p>
<p>Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives. A member of the House files a resolution for impeachment. The resolution goes to the House Judiciary Committee, which usually holds a hearing to evaluate the resolution. If the House Judiciary Committee thinks impeachment is proper, its members draft and vote on articles of impeachment. Once the House Judiciary Committee approves articles of impeachment, they go to the full House for a vote. </p>
<p>If the House of Representatives impeaches a president or another official, the action then moves to the Senate. Under the Constitution’s <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-3-">Article I</a>, the Senate has the responsibility for determining whether to remove the person from office. Normally, the Senate holds a trial, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/precedent-nah-the-senate-gets-to-reinvent-its-rules-in-every-impeachment-130449">it controls its procedures</a> and can limit the process if it wants.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the Senate votes on whether to remove the president – which requires a two-thirds majority, or 67 senators. To date, the Senate has never voted to remove a president from office, although it almost did in 1868, when <a href="https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm">President Andrew Johnson escaped removal from office by one vote</a>.</p>
<p>The Senate also has the power to disqualify a public official from holding public office in the future. If the person is convicted and removed from office, only then can senators vote on whether to <a href="https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm">permanently disqualify that person</a> from ever again holding federal office. Members of Congress proposing the impeachment of Trump have <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2021/01/07/house-prepared-to-impeach-trump-if-pence-cabinet-dont-remove-him-pelosi-says/">promised to include a provision</a> to do so. A <a href="https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html">simple majority vote</a> is all that’s required then.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/377807/original/file-20210108-15-g6v0oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The 25th Amendment" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/377807/original/file-20210108-15-g6v0oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/377807/original/file-20210108-15-g6v0oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377807/original/file-20210108-15-g6v0oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377807/original/file-20210108-15-g6v0oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377807/original/file-20210108-15-g6v0oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377807/original/file-20210108-15-g6v0oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/377807/original/file-20210108-15-g6v0oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TrumpNewYorkTimes/bdd89b1012ca49c0b4d2bf7b73b67039/photo">National Archives via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>25th Amendment</h2>
<p>The Constitution’s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-25#amdt25_hd1">25th Amendment</a> provides a second way for high-level officials to remove a president from office. It was <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/25th-amendment">ratified in 1967 in the wake of the 1963 assassination</a> of John F. Kennedy – who was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, who had already had one heart attack – as well as delayed disclosure of health problems experienced by Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower.</p>
<p>The 25th Amendment provides detailed procedures on <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xxv/interps/159?ftag=MSF0951a18">what happens if a president resigns, dies in office, has a temporary disability or is no longer fit for office</a>. </p>
<p>It has never been invoked against a president’s will, and has been used only to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/what-is-the-25th-amendment-how-it-works.html">temporarily transfer power</a>, such as when a president is undergoing a medical procedure requiring anesthesia.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-does-the-25th-amendment-work-and-can-it-be-used-to-remove-trump-from-office-after-us-capitol-attack-152869">Section 4 of the 25th Amendment</a> authorizes high-level officials – either the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet or another body designated by Congress – <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv">to remove a president</a> from office without his consent when he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Congress has yet to designate an alternative body, and scholars disagree over the role, if any, of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22217641/25th-amendment-section-4-pence-trump-cabinet">acting Cabinet officials</a>.</p>
<p>The high-level officials simply send a written declaration to the president pro tempore of the Senate – the longest-serving senator from the majority party – and the speaker of the House of Representatives, stating that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. The vice president immediately assumes the powers and duties of the president. </p>
<p>The president, however, can fight back. He or she can seek to resume their powers by informing congressional leadership in writing that they are fit for office and no disability exists. But the president doesn’t get the presidency back just by saying this.</p>
<p>The high-level officials originally questioning the president’s fitness then have four days to decide whether they disagree with the president. If they notify congressional leadership that they disagree, the vice president retains control and Congress has 48 hours to convene to discuss the issue. Congress has 21 days to debate and vote on whether the president is unfit or unable to resume his powers. </p>
<p>The vice president remains the acting president until Congress votes or the 21-day period lapses. A two-thirds majority vote by members of both houses of Congress is required to remove the president from office. If that vote fails or does not happen within the 21-day period, the president resumes his powers immediately.</p>
<p>It is possible that Trump will remain in office through the <a href="https://theconversation.com/president-trumps-term-ends-on-jan-20-the-constitution-is-clear-148065">end of his term on Jan. 20</a>. But once he leaves office, he will no longer have the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer-idUSKCN1QF1D3">presidential immunity</a> that has at least <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump/u-s-supreme-court-rebuffs-trumps-immunity-claim-lets-prosecutor-get-financial-records-idUSKBN24A1C6">partially shielded</a> him from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/25/donald-trump-prosecution-post-presidency">many criminal and civil inquiries</a> about his time in office and before.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article was updated on Jan. 9, 2021, to include additional informal measures taken to limit Trump’s power.</em></p>
<p>[<em>Get our most insightful politics and election stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-most">Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152880/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirsten Matoy Carlson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Calls have emerged from many sources for Congress or the Cabinet to remove Trump from office in the wake of the U.S. Capitol incursion Jan. 6. Who could act, and what could they do?Kirsten Matoy Carlson, Associate Professor of Law and Adjunct Associate Professor of Political Science, Wayne State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1523222020-12-18T05:40:08Z2020-12-18T05:40:08ZView from The Hill: aged care to cabinet, Tehan to trade in Morrison’s modest reshuffle<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375845/original/file-20201218-23-u7lsqk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The most important changes in Scott Morrison’s limited reshuffle are centred on two vital and controversial issues – aged care and trade – that will severely test the government in coming months.</p>
<p>Aged care has been elevated to cabinet and put in the safe hands of Health Minister Greg Hunt, who has performed strongly during the pandemic.</p>
<p>The current Aged Care Minister, Richard Colbeck, retains responsibility for aged care services, including delivery of residential and home care packages and the regulation of the sector.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-six-issues-on-scott-morrisons-mind-over-summer-152181">Grattan on Friday: Six issues on Scott Morrison's mind over summer</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>With the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-23/aged-care-royal-commission-told-implementation-of-changes-patchy/12808910">royal commission</a> due to deliver its final report in February, Hunt will spearhead the policy response. Importantly, he will carry the government’s public case as it works through one of the most difficult policy challenges of early 2021.</p>
<p>The choice of Dan Tehan for trade is logical. He comes with an extensive background in the area before his parliamentary career, including serving in the Foreign Affairs and Trade Department, and as an adviser to a former trade minister, Mark Vaile.</p>
<p>Tehan arrives in the portfolio – shed by Simon Birmingham who is <a href="https://theconversation.com/simon-birmingham-to-become-finance-minister-and-senate-leader-as-australia-nominates-cormann-for-oecd-147742">now Finance Minister</a> – when trade tensions with China are an all-time high, and Australia is looking to negotiate trade agreements with Europe and the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>Tehan’s education portfolio goes to Alan Tudge, who will also have responsibility for youth (previously under Colbeck). The recent <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-09/four-corners-investigation-christian-porter-alan-tudge/12862632">Four Corners expose</a> about Tudge’s private life hasn’t affected his ministerial career. Questioned at his news conference on Friday, Morrison said those matter related to years ago.</p>
<p>Morrison has also elevated some spear carriers of the right.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-canberra-having-a-metoo-moment-it-will-take-more-than-reports-of-mps-behaving-badly-for-parliament-to-change-149819">Is Canberra having a #metoo moment? It will take more than reports of MPs behaving badly for parliament to change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Queensland senator Amanda Stoker is promoted from the backbench to become Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General. ACT senator Zed Seselja moves from being an Assistant Minister to become Minister for International Development and the Pacific.</p>
<p>Rewarding the Liberal party right might be politically useful next year, if Morrison needs the conservatives’ forbearance for a shift on climate policy.</p>
<p>Andrew Hastie is also from the Liberals’ conservative wing, but his move up from the backbench will be seen through a foreign policy prism.</p>
<p>He has been an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/17/china-calls-on-liberal-mps-to-repent-after-beijing-study-tour-ban">outspoken hawk on China</a> and the Chinese will be particularly noting his appointment as Assistant Minister for Defence.</p>
<p>Hastie has been well respected on both sides of politics as chair of parliament’s influential intelligence and security committee.</p>
<p>A former soldier in the SAS who served in Afghanistan, he will potentially be able to help manage the <a href="https://theconversation.com/allegations-of-murder-and-blooding-in-Brereton-report-now-face-many-obstacles-to-prosecution-145703">fallout from the Brereton report</a> on alleged Australian war crimes, which is proving difficult for the government.</p>
<p>The new Immigration Minister will be Alex Hawke, Morrison’s strong factional ally. This position has been in limbo for a year, in the hands of an acting minister, while David Coleman has been on <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/immigration-minister-david-coleman-takes-indefinite-personal-leave-hands-over-duties">personal leave</a>.</p>
<p>Coleman is to become Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, an area Morrison has given high priority in the pandemic.</p>
<p>It is notable Ben Morton, who is very close to Morrison, has not been moved up to the junior ministry. He stays as Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, where he can have a bird’s eye view on many matters, as distinct from the narrower focus demanded by a ministerial portfolio.</p>
<p>Morton formally takes over from Hunt to become Assistant Minister for the Public Service — a role he has had <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/129975-assistant-minister-ben-morton-put-in-charge-of-aps/">anyway</a> while Hunt has been preoccupied with the health crisis. A former Liberal party director in Western Australia, Morton will also have the politically-sensitive position of Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-china-plays-reverse-poke-the-bear-151390">Grattan on Friday: China plays reverse 'poke the bear'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Jane Hume moves up from assistant minister, with expanded responsibilities as Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy.</p>
<p>Communications Minister Paul Fletcher adds urban infrastructure and cities to his responsibilities, but loses cyber safety.</p>
<p>Morrison emphasised key portfolios relating to the economy and security remained unchanged, as did the positions held by the Nationals, and the number of women in cabinet.</p>
<p>He said the changes reflected a “very strong focus on stability in key portfolios, together with a commitment to bring forward some new talent”. </p>
<p><em>The new Morrison ministry list <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/ministry-list-proposed-20201218.pdf">can be found here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152322/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The most important changes in Scott Morrison’s limited reshuffle are centred on two vital and controversial issues that will severely test the government in coming months.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1509352020-11-27T01:28:08Z2020-11-27T01:28:08ZBiden’s cabinet picks are globally respected, but one obstacle remains for the US to ‘lead the world’ again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371648/original/file-20201127-23-1piyhdm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=960%2C40%2C4469%2C3573&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Carolyn Kaster/AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The “team of rivals” was the term historian Doris Kearns Goodwin <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Team-Rivals-Doris-Kearns-Goodwin/dp/0743270754">used</a> to describe US President Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet. It included three men who had run against Lincoln for the Republican nomination for president in 1860: William Seward (secretary of state), Salmon Chase (treasury secretary) and Edward Bates (attorney general). </p>
<p>Appointing these strong-willed figures could have been disastrous were it not for Lincoln’s personal qualities. </p>
<p>Goodwin describes how Lincoln was willing to acknowledge when policies failed and change direction. He gathered facts on which to base decisions. He sought compromise but took full responsibility for his decisions, respected his colleagues and set an example of dignity. (In all these, he sounds like the antithesis of Donald Trump.)</p>
<p>President-elect Joe Biden has taken a different approach to filling out his cabinet so far. Aside from choosing <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-is-kamala-harris-joe-bidens-pick-for-vice-president-144122">Kamala Harris</a> as his vice president, he’s looked past his main Democratic rivals for the nomination — Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders — and appointed mainly technical experts with relevant experience and an international outlook. </p>
<p>Biden may have seen these more technocratic appointments as fitting with his less partisan style. It also sends a signal to the world that the US wants to reengage. </p>
<p>In Biden’s words, the US is “<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/e9f7fc88-7f08-43af-976c-9b164cf32ed8">ready to lead the world, not retreat from it</a>”. And as <a href="https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/189469.htm">Linda Thomas-Greenfield</a>, the new UN ambassador put it, “multilateralism is back”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371649/original/file-20201127-23-fbyfc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371649/original/file-20201127-23-fbyfc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371649/original/file-20201127-23-fbyfc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371649/original/file-20201127-23-fbyfc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371649/original/file-20201127-23-fbyfc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371649/original/file-20201127-23-fbyfc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371649/original/file-20201127-23-fbyfc9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Linda Thomas-Greenfield is a career diplomat and former ambassador to Liberia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AHMED JALLANZO/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Team of talent</h2>
<p>Biden may not have filled his cabinet with rivals, but he has also not surrounded himself with clones or an “echo chamber”. He <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/24/bidens-foreign-policy-team-lays-out-a-national-security-vision-that-differs-sharply-from-trumps-.html">made clear</a> he wanted his cabinet to </p>
<blockquote>
<p>tell me what I need to know, not what I want to know.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As secretary of state, he has appointed <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-america-first-to-america-together-who-is-antony-blinken-bidens-pick-for-secretary-of-state-150739">Antony Blinken</a>. A francophone internationalist, Blinken served as former President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser and deputy secretary of state. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-america-first-to-america-together-who-is-antony-blinken-bidens-pick-for-secretary-of-state-150739">From 'America first' to 'America together': who is Antony Blinken, Biden's pick for secretary of state?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>He once made a charming <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYnViieUh7w">appearance on Sesame Street</a>, telling Grover about the United Nations and refugees. He commented </p>
<blockquote>
<p>we all have something to learn and gain from one another even when it doesn’t seem at first like we have much in common. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The message is a long way from “America first” and the disdain for the rest of the world shown by the Trump administration.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MYnViieUh7w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Advocates of free trade and climate change action</h2>
<p>As treasury secretary, Biden has appointed <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-janet-yellen-the-very-model-of-a-modern-madam-secretary-150836">Janet Yellen</a>. She was chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014–18 and currently heads the American Economic Association. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz <a href="https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2013/10/10/joseph-stiglitz-yellen">recalled her</a> as one of his brightest students. </p>
<p>It is quite an achievement to be the most famous economist in a family that includes a Nobel Prize winner (her husband <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2001/akerlof/facts/">George Akerlof</a>).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371650/original/file-20201127-15-1m922j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371650/original/file-20201127-15-1m922j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371650/original/file-20201127-15-1m922j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371650/original/file-20201127-15-1m922j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371650/original/file-20201127-15-1m922j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371650/original/file-20201127-15-1m922j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371650/original/file-20201127-15-1m922j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Janet Yellen is a strong supporter of open trade.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Craig Ruttle/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An advocate of free trade and expert in labour markets, she understands the damage that <a href="https://theconversation.com/slow-minded-and-bewildered-donald-trump-builds-barriers-to-peace-and-prosperity-128840">Trump’s trade wars</a>, especially with China, have done to working Americans. </p>
<p>Being chair of the Federal Reserve also gave Yellen an important role in international organisations, such as the Bank for International Settlements. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-janet-yellen-the-very-model-of-a-modern-madam-secretary-150836">Vital Signs: Janet Yellen, the very model of a modern Madam Secretary</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/23/john-kerry-biden-climate-envoy-appointment">John Kerry</a> has been appointed to the new post of climate envoy. He is globally respected as a former secretary of state, and ran unsuccessfully for <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/kerry-would-win-by-a-landslide-if-the-world-voted-20041015-gdyt3f.html">president himself</a> in 2004. </p>
<p>His <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/31d93942-6481-4e64-ba85-a6871a142862">appointment</a> signals that the Biden administration recognises the importance of recommitting the US to climate action. Most significantly, Kerry was <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2020/11/john-kerrys-appointment-as-climate-envoy-shows-the-world-were-back-in-the-game/">highly influential</a> in the final week of negotiations of the Paris Agreement in 2015 and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-36116084">signed it</a> for the US the following year with his granddaughter on his lap.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371651/original/file-20201127-13-156bzhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371651/original/file-20201127-13-156bzhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371651/original/file-20201127-13-156bzhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371651/original/file-20201127-13-156bzhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371651/original/file-20201127-13-156bzhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371651/original/file-20201127-13-156bzhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371651/original/file-20201127-13-156bzhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kerry was personally involved in pushing the Paris Climate Agreement over the line.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Lennihan/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And following four years of Trump’s anti-immigration policies, Biden has selected a Cuban-born immigrant, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/23/politics/biden-picks-mayorkas-dhs-secretary/index.html">Alejandro Mayorkas</a>, to lead the Department of Homeland Security. After his nomination, Mayorkas <a href="https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1331304499621883908">spoke of his desire</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>to advance our proud history as a country of welcome.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Potential roadblocks in the Senate</h2>
<p>Biden has assembled a team with an international outlook that will re-commit the US to supporting international organisations, such as the World Health Organisation, and treaties like the Paris Agreement. He will seek to <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c4e1c0e3-ba5b-46f8-87c7-9a56ca7a0a1a">reform</a> rather than just impede the World Trade Organisation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-a-biden-presidency-means-for-world-trade-and-allies-like-australia-149735">What a Biden presidency means for world trade and allies like Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But there’s one significant hurdle still looming. If the Democrats can’t gain control of the Senate by winning the two run-off elections in Georgia in early January, the Republican-led chamber will likely aim to block Biden’s aims of resuming a constructive global role. </p>
<p>For example, Biden will be able to issue an executive order to rejoin the Paris Agreement on his first day as president. But <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#">major reforms to cut greenhouse gas emissions</a> or his proposed <a href="https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/">$2 trillion clean energy plan</a> would face <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-says-the-us-will-rejoin-the-paris-climate-agreement-in-77-days-then-australia-will-really-feel-the-heat-149533">opposition in a Republican-controlled Senate</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371655/original/file-20201127-13-1f2nca1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371655/original/file-20201127-13-1f2nca1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371655/original/file-20201127-13-1f2nca1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371655/original/file-20201127-13-1f2nca1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371655/original/file-20201127-13-1f2nca1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371655/original/file-20201127-13-1f2nca1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371655/original/file-20201127-13-1f2nca1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell once described Biden as a ‘trusted partner’, but it remains to be seen how well the Republicans will work with the new administration.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Susan Walsh/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Optimists have compared Biden to former President Lyndon Johnson (also known as LBJ), who may be able to use his decades of legislative experience to achieve more change than was possible for John F. Kennedy or Obama. </p>
<p>Ron Klain, recently announced as Biden’s chief of staff, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8FAEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=LBJ+might+not+have+been+the+wokest,+coolest,+hippest+Democrat,+but+he%E2%80%99s+the+person+who+got+the+most+actual+progressive+social+justice+legislation+done+since+FDR+%E2%80%A6+he+knew+how+to+make+the+Senate+work.&source=bl&ots=SogONWif0d&sig=ACfU3U0FbvQhV_exeUcHrc1EREJDXvNGSw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiusY_ntqHtAhVcyDgGHTcrAFwQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=LBJ%20might%20not%20have%20been%20the%20wokest%2C%20coolest%2C%20hippest%20Democrat%2C%20but%20he%E2%80%99s%20the%20person%20who%20got%20the%20most%20actual%20progressive%20social%20justice%20legislation%20done%20since%20FDR%20%E2%80%A6%20he%20knew%20how%20to%20make%20the%20Senate%20work.&f=false">once put it well</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>LBJ might not have been the wokest, coolest, hippest Democrat, but he’s the person who got the most actual progressive social justice legislation done since FDR […] he knew how to make the Senate work. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The rest of the world will hope Klain is right and that the Senate does not block the program of this promising new cabinet.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/winning-the-presidency-wont-be-enough-biden-needs-the-senate-too-145034">Winning the presidency won't be enough: Biden needs the Senate too</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150935/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Hawkins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>President-elect Joe Biden’s cabinet picks show a preference for ability and a desire to reengage with the world.John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1447962020-09-23T19:59:29Z2020-09-23T19:59:29ZIt’s a man’s (pandemic) world: how policies compound the pain for women in the age of COVID-19<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359291/original/file-20200922-16-1d32i13.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=221%2C0%2C3497%2C2000&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wes Mountain/The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>COVID-19 times have brought sober realisations about deep shifts in Australian society. Encroaching steadily over the past half-century, these have been largely submerged from daily view, until now. </p>
<p>Decades of cumulative attacks on the public sector have made privatisation and contracting out an unthinking government reflex. This includes areas the pandemic has revealed as highly unsuitable, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-role-of-profit-is-the-elephant-in-the-aged-care-room-145118">aged care</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-victorias-privatised-quarantine-arrangements-were-destined-to-fail-143169">quarantine security</a>.</p>
<p>Workplace deregulation has gone hand in hand with an enormous rise in casualisation. The pandemic has highlighted how many workers stitch together <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-19/workplace-coronavirus-transmission-in-victoria-in-aged-care/12470704">jobs at multiple workplaces</a> to earn enough to survive, multiplying the chances of community COVID-19 transmission. </p>
<p>Denied the paid sick leave enjoyed by people in permanent jobs, <a href="https://theconversation.com/far-too-many-victorians-are-going-to-work-while-sick-far-too-many-have-no-choice-143600">casuals have to keep working</a>, healthy or not. Precarity has turned out to be flexibility’s flipside, with unequivocally bad consequences for public health.</p>
<h2>Women are more affected</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/19/natasha-stott-despoja-urges-coalition-to-apply-gender-lens-to-pandemic-recovery">pandemic’s gendered impact</a> has been especially stark. Under pressure, dynamics many people thought were in deep retreat visibly sprang back into action. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-30/stark-statistics-reveal-precarious-position-of-women/12404274">More likely to occupy low-paid, precarious jobs than men</a>, women suffered first and disproportionately from pandemic job losses.</p>
<p>During lockdown, domestic violence — mostly committed by men against women — <a href="http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/an-end-to-domestic-violence-start-with-gender-equality/">has spiked</a>, and is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/covid-19-recession-is-trapping-women-in-violent-households-20200912-p55uyn.html">even more difficult to escape than usual</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-domestic-terrorism-how-to-stop-family-violence-under-lockdown-135056">Coronavirus and 'domestic terrorism': how to stop family violence under lockdown</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Women perform the vast share of lockdown-driven homeschooling, <a href="https://theconversation.com/return-of-the-1950s-housewife-how-to-stop-coronavirus-lockdown-reinforcing-sexist-gender-roles-134851">compounding their pre-pandemic</a> burden of an unfairly large share of domestic labour generally. </p>
<p>The Morrison government provided free childcare early in the emergency, giving many families their first experience of relief from worry around this fraught aspect of family life. But it was snatched away again in the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/she-wont-be-right-mate-how-the-government-shaped-a-blokey-lockdown-followed-by-a-blokey-recovery-140336">first act of pandemic policy rollback</a>. This doubly impacted on women as workers as well as parents, given the overwhelming bulk of childcare employees are female.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359241/original/file-20200922-16-pmqwgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359241/original/file-20200922-16-pmqwgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359241/original/file-20200922-16-pmqwgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359241/original/file-20200922-16-pmqwgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359241/original/file-20200922-16-pmqwgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359241/original/file-20200922-16-pmqwgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359241/original/file-20200922-16-pmqwgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women have borne the brunt of homeschooling during the pandemic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Daniel Pockett</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In contrast, many businesses received massive handouts with, it emerged later, highly variable flow-on to the workers the handouts were supposed to keep in their jobs. With little accountability attached to the government assistance, some employers <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/ato-investigates-employers-accused-of-rorting-jobkeeper-20200611-p551pm.html">were accused of outright rorting it</a>. The contrast with tight accountability provisions attached to government welfare for individuals who need help is stark.</p>
<p>Further, the Morrison government’s positive job initiatives, such as they are, favour men, with <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/scott-morrison-is-betting-on-a-shovel-led-recovery-but-the-jobs-bonanza-is-elsewhere-20200605-p54zz9.html">job-creation plans</a> focused on male-dominated industries.</p>
<h2>Good morning, ma'am, is your husband home?</h2>
<p>That this approach is based on, and reinforces, the idea of men as primary breadwinners is barely disguised. This is despite the fact women can be – and are in large numbers – primary breadwinners too and deserve the same opportunities.</p>
<p>Even the government’s tax cut bring-forward mooted for the October budget is heavily gendered: <a href="https://www.tai.org.au/content/early-income-tax-cuts-men-gain-more-twice-much-women">men are set to get</a> more than twice the benefit women receive on average from the tax cuts, according to Australia Institute modelling.</p>
<p>One unequivocal boon of the pandemic has been the widespread, <a href="http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/we-need-a-gender-lens-on-public-policy-more-than-ever/">high-quality analysis and reporting</a> of its gendered impacts. </p>
<p>Equally striking has been the expectation among many of these analyses’ authors that their findings would make the Morrison government change course, on the assumption that either the government did not realise its policies’ gendered impacts or because it would be shamed into adjusting them once these were revealed.</p>
<p>If you want to understand a government’s priorities, look at where it puts its money. The Morrison government is not just indifferent to the gendered impacts of COVID-19. The pattern of its <a href="http://www.broadagenda.com.au/home/dear-covid-committee-senators-a-late-night-missive/">pandemic policy decision-making</a> suggests an active if not explicit “men first, women and children second” approach.</p>
<p>This is disappointing but not unexpected, given the male dominance of the Liberal and National parties’ federal parliamentary ranks: <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members">73.2% of Morrison government MPs are men</a>. Let that sink in for a moment. Only one in four federal Coalition MPs is a woman.</p>
<p>Around <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/ministry-list-060220_0.pdf">the Morrison government cabinet table</a> the picture is the same: 73.9% of LNP cabinet ministers are men. There are just six women in the 23-person cabinet.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359236/original/file-20200922-24-1cgnhi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359236/original/file-20200922-24-1cgnhi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359236/original/file-20200922-24-1cgnhi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359236/original/file-20200922-24-1cgnhi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359236/original/file-20200922-24-1cgnhi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359236/original/file-20200922-24-1cgnhi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359236/original/file-20200922-24-1cgnhi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Defence Minister Linda Reynolds and Foreign Minister Marise Payne are two of just six female ministers in the Morrison government’s 23-person cabinet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Rick Rycroft</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the House of Representatives, from which the prime minister is drawn and where policy must initially be fought for and won to have the chance of being turned into law, 80% of Morrison government MPs are men. Again, it is worth pausing to reflect on this: four out of every five lower house LNP politicians is a man.</p>
<h2>A ‘men first’ approach to the pandemic</h2>
<p>It is not such a surprise, then, that the government pursues “men first” policies. </p>
<p>While some – perhaps many – LNP women may support this stance, a reasonable assumption is that fairer shares of parliamentary LNP seats for women would redress this skewed approach at least somewhat. </p>
<p>Anyone supporting fair shares for men and women in life’s burdens and benefits would surely support fair shares for men and women in terms of parliamentary power. </p>
<p>The Australian Labor Party long ago faced up to and solved this problem with an initially controversial, now unremarked upon, preselection quota system for winnable seats.</p>
<p>Today men and women are <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-s-first-casualties-in-defeat-are-its-women-20190528-p51s54.html">almost equally represented</a> in the federal Labor caucus: a bare majority (52.1%) of federal Labor MPs are men.</p>
<p>In contrast, the Liberal Party in 2016 adopted a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-06/liberal-partys-watershed-plan-to-attract-more-females/7819332">ten-year plan without quotas</a> to increase its female representation in federal parliament. It has visibly failed.</p>
<p>The problem has been compounded by the retirement from politics of senior female Liberal ministers like Julie Bishop and Kelly O’Dwyer <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-liberal-party-is-failing-women-miserably-compared-to-other-democracies-and-needs-quotas-110172">at the 2019 election</a>, as well as the loss of emerging talent such as businesswoman Julia Banks <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/stuck-in-time-julia-banks-is-back-to-combat-political-sexism-20200528-p54xg6.html">who resigned from the party</a> in disgust at its sexist culture.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/quotas-are-not-pretty-but-they-work-liberal-women-should-insist-on-them-103517">Quotas are not pretty but they work – Liberal women should insist on them</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>More than just numbers</h2>
<p>Longtime activist for women in politics, Ruth McGowan, says the extra pressures arising from the pandemic <a href="https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/will-the-pandemic-help-or-hinder-an-australian-womens-wave-in-politics/">could well discourage women</a> who might otherwise have considered a run from doing so. Women’s burgeoning domestic labour burden during the pandemic is likely to <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6867720/why-the-covidload-will-stop-women-entering-politics/">literally keep women in the home</a> and away from the House of Representatives, McGowan suggests. To the extent this could further depress women’s share of Coalition seats in parliament, this is very bad news.</p>
<p>A senior cabinet member, Environment Minister Sussan Ley, last year <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/marise-payne-says-female-mps-quotas-for-liberals-should-be-part-of-debate-20190104-p50pos.html">called on</a> the Liberal Party to introduce quotas for women. Her cabinet colleague, Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne, said “all options [should be] on the table”, adding she was as yet undecided about quotas. Others, such as Victorian Liberal senator Jane Hume, support a “Liberal alternative” to quotas to address the party’s skewed representation.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359242/original/file-20200922-22-nkbisy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359242/original/file-20200922-22-nkbisy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359242/original/file-20200922-22-nkbisy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359242/original/file-20200922-22-nkbisy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359242/original/file-20200922-22-nkbisy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359242/original/file-20200922-22-nkbisy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359242/original/file-20200922-22-nkbisy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Environment Minister Sussan Ley has called for the NSW Liberal Party to embrace gender quotas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The gendered nature and impact of the Morrison government’s pandemic policy responses makes the domination of men within the coalition cabinet and party room a matter of national significance. </p>
<p>The Liberal and National parties’ preselection processes are broken and need fixing. The fact that only one in four coalition MPs in the Morrison government’s cabinet and party room is a woman is proof.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-woman-problem-no-the-liberals-have-a-man-problem-and-they-need-to-fix-it-102339">A 'woman problem'? No, the Liberals have a 'man problem', and they need to fix it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Until the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-woman-problem-no-the-liberals-have-a-man-problem-and-they-need-to-fix-it-102339">structural sexism</a> within the Liberal and National parties’ ranks is fixed, the Coalition’s “men first” policies will likely continue. </p>
<p>Women and children need the Morrison government’s “senior six” female cabinet ministers to person up and get their parties to <a href="https://theconversation.com/quotas-are-not-pretty-but-they-work-liberal-women-should-insist-on-them-103517">adopt quotas for women in winnable Liberal and National party seats</a>. It’s the only thing proven to work and it’s way past time the problem was fixed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144796/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Wallace has received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Only one in four members of the Morrison government are women, so it’s little wonder their ideas for COVID recovery has all been “men first”.Chris Wallace, Associate Professor, 50/50 By 2030 Foundation, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1448942020-08-24T15:29:24Z2020-08-24T15:29:24ZChrystia Freeland and the merit myth that won’t go away<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354128/original/file-20200821-22-jum0b2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=69%2C107%2C4901%2C3144&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland responds to a question during a news conference on Aug. 20, 2020 in Ottawa.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Chrystia Freeland made history by becoming Canada’s first woman finance minister. The next day, she experienced what many high-achieving women do: her qualifications for the job were immediately challenged. </p>
<p>Journalists reported that Freeland <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-morneau-finance-minister-bay-street-experience-1.5691135">lacked the Bay Street experience</a> of her predecessor, Bill Morneau, that her “<a href="https://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-globe-and-mail-bc-edition/20200819/281831466101417">mastery of business issues was relatively untested</a>” and that she was merely a journalist with no business credentials. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1296081767884099585"}"></div></p>
<p>Such reporting ignores Freeland’s stellar performance in two cabinet posts over five years and overlooks the fact that she was an <a href="https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/chrystia-freeland-wins-national-business-book-award-512475541.html">award-winning financial journalist</a> before entering politics. For some, Freeland’s qualifications for finance minister were insufficient. </p>
<p>We shouldn’t be surprised. Denigrating or <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/16/carole-cadwalladr-women-politics-power">ignoring women’s credentials</a> is a common strategy to reinforce ideas about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1532917">who is entitled to the most powerful positions</a> in our society. My co-authored book, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/cabinets-ministers-and-gender-9780190069001?cc=ca&lang=en&"><em>Cabinets, Ministers, and Gender</em></a>, shows that downplaying women’s qualifications helps explain why so few make it into top government posts. </p>
<p>Women were entirely absent from Canadian cabinets until 1957, when <a href="https://time.com/4101443/canada-first-female-cabinet-minister/">Ellen Fairclough was appointed to cabinet</a> by prime minister John Diefenbaker. Since then, progress has been slow, and few women have <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/cabinets-ministers-and-gender-9780190069001?cc=ca&lang=en&">held the most powerful posts</a>. Just three women have served as justice minister, two have led foreign affairs and just one woman, Kim Campbell, has been defence minister, a post she held for less than six months. </p>
<p>Women’s gains in politics and the workplace over the past few decades are undeniable. Yet men continue to dominate the upper echelons of politics. Why? Our research digs into how qualifications and arguments about merit are deployed to women’s disadvantage. </p>
<h2>Qualifying for cabinet</h2>
<p>There are no formal qualifications for ministers in the countries we studied — Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. We interviewed former ministers and political advisers, read former leaders’ memoirs and dug into media archives to figure out why some people make it into cabinet and others don’t. </p>
<p>We found that even without written rules, there were still widely recognized expectations about the qualifications ministers needed. Political experience and policy expertise were central, but we found that friendship and loyalty mattered even more, especially to the person doing the appointing.</p>
<p>Women have a harder time qualifying on these grounds. That’s because the networks where political friendships develop often originate in all-male or mostly male spaces like private school, fraternities and golf clubs. Examples include former British prime minister David Cameron’s “<a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/day-long-knives-ruthless-may-dispatched-notting-hill-set-14248">Notting Hill set</a>,” many of whom sat in his cabinet.</p>
<h2>The route to cabinet</h2>
<p>Another route to cabinet is having policy expertise, educational credentials and professional experience related to the post. Unfortunately, patterns of gender segregation in the workforce get reproduced in cabinet. Researchers find that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00158.x">women tend to be appointed to less prestigious</a> cabinet posts that correspond to stereotypically feminine professions like education, social services and health. </p>
<p>If qualifying for more powerful posts like finance, defence and foreign affairs requires occupational experience, women will be disadvantaged. Women lead a mere <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/us/fortune-500-women-ceos-trnd/index.html">7.4 per cent of Fortune 500 companies</a> and continue to be <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/women-in-the-forces/statistics.html">vastly under-represented</a> in the Armed Forces. The high-profile cabinet spot where women are most likely to be found is justice, which is unsurprising given the ever-growing number of women graduating with law degrees.</p>
<p>But the real reason why criteria requiring occupational experience undermines women’s chances of making it to cabinet are the ones exemplified by the reaction to Freeland’s appointment: qualifications are in the eye of the beholder. They’re not objective, and they’re not static. They shift and change depending on who’s being considered and who’s doing the judging. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Justin Trudeau elbow bumping Chrystia Freeland" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chrystia Freeland elbow bumps Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after being sworn in as Finance Minister on Aug. 18, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While doing research for our book, we encountered several cases of women’s qualifications for cabinet being ignored or downplayed. The most egregious — and sadly similar to Freeland — is when Theresa May, former British prime minister, was selected by newly elected prime minister David Cameron as home secretary, one of the most powerful posts in government. May had been in parliament for 13 years, served as party chairman, and shadowed six different portfolios. Yet the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/16/carole-cadwalladr-women-politics-power">media still challenged her qualifications</a> for the position.</p>
<h2>Merit as a strategic tool</h2>
<p>When Trudeau first appointed a gender-balanced cabinet in 2015, <a href="https://www.thebeaverton.com/2015/11/50-female-cabinet-appointments-lead-to-5000-increase-in-guys-who-suddenly-care-about-merit-in-cabinet/">the satirical <em>Beaverton</em> ran the headline</a>: “50 per cent female cabinet appointments lead to 5,000 per cent increase in guys who suddenly care about merit in cabinet.” The headline illustrates how merit arguments are deployed precisely when women’s gains threaten the status quo. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kim-campbell-sexism-freeland-minister-finance-1.5694539?fbclid=IwAR0WegGNc4pBB5UslYDuMtQ171PXtaWW_itTbjsI-sMm9ikYWFuAdtsoGxs">Journalists who ignore Freeland’s qualifications</a> or imply — contrary to the historical record — that Bay Street experience is a qualification for finance minister, are doing the same thing, except they’re not trying to be funny. </p>
<p>Instead, they’re sending an all-too-familiar message to women seeking high office: No matter what you accomplish, it will never be enough.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144894/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Franceschet receives funding from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p>Reactions to Chrystia Freeland’s appointment as finance minister demonstrate how qualifications and arguments about merit are deployed to women’s disadvantage in politics.Susan Franceschet, Professor of Political Science, University of CalgaryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1377412020-05-07T12:24:52Z2020-05-07T12:24:52ZFor Biden, naming Cabinet before election would be a big risk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333153/original/file-20200506-49589-gg63yy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=46%2C0%2C5187%2C3455&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who's on his list? And would it matter?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/88876166@N00/49331527821">Phil Roeder/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In addition to the rumblings about whom he’ll name as his vice presidential candidate, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden recently surprised many political observers by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-says-hes-already-choosing-a-presidential-transition-team/2020/04/17/63cbb5b4-805e-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html">suggesting that he might also announce</a> the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-joe-biden-will-appoint-to-top-cabinet-positions-axios-2020-3">selection of some Cabinet members</a> before November’s election. This would be an unusual move that poses some risks – as well as rewards.</p>
<p>Typically, presidential candidates wait until after winning the election to name their Cabinet members – the heads of the government departments like State, Treasury and Commerce – and other key White House staff. Though <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/26/opinion/essay-the-great-mentioning.html">sometimes they offer hints</a>, campaigns worry an early announcement might make it seem the candidate is assuming a win, taking the voters’ support for granted. </p>
<p>In addition, some legal experts have wondered whether announcing Cabinet picks <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/05/donald-trump-cabinet-picks-convention-announcement-legal-questions/">might violate campaign finance laws</a> because a presidential candidate could be viewed as offering someone a prominent position within the White House in exchange for their political support – effectively, a bribe.</p>
<p>Biden has assured voters that he will have an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/opinion/biden-campaign-covid.html">experienced White House team</a> – one that’s ready to help him lead on day one and to steer the ship of state if Biden, age 77, were to experience health problems or <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129">retire after one term in office</a>.</p>
<p>Given these factors, would announcing his Cabinet early help Biden to win the election? Bluntly put, no one knows for sure, especially in the extraordinary circumstances of an election-year pandemic. There’s just no modern precedent. </p>
<p>But from our research, we have a good idea of what to expect. That’s because in our forthcoming book “<a href="https://kansaspress.ku.edu/runningmates">Do Running Mates Matter?</a>” we look at the effects of the one team member that every presidential candidate names before the election: the vice presidential candidate. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333164/original/file-20200506-49589-vg515j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333164/original/file-20200506-49589-vg515j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333164/original/file-20200506-49589-vg515j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333164/original/file-20200506-49589-vg515j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333164/original/file-20200506-49589-vg515j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333164/original/file-20200506-49589-vg515j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333164/original/file-20200506-49589-vg515j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333164/original/file-20200506-49589-vg515j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Picking Jack Kemp, right, as his running mate didn’t help 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole win the election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidate-bob-dole-and-vice-news-photo/51980826">J. David Ake/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>There’s little direct effect on voters</h2>
<p>For our book, we analyzed a half-century of political science survey data to examine what effect a running mate has on the success of presidential candidates.</p>
<p>In short, we found that running mates have very little direct effect on voters. When people go to the polls, they are primarily expressing a preference for the presidential candidate, not the second person on the ticket. </p>
<p>On rare occasions, <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781784993382/">voters can be swayed</a> by running mates who are much more – or less – popular than their party’s main candidate. For instance, John Kerry’s vice presidential candidate in 2004, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, was relatively popular with voters early in the campaign. And, as our research shows, Edwards’ popularity made voters more likely to vote for Kerry, at least in the short term.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/17/bidens-top-12-running-mates-ranked-134256">Some political</a> <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/five-reasons-why-kasich-rubio-right-2016-ticket-myra-adams/">analysts believe</a> a vice presidential selection <a href="http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/veepwatch-part-2-first-do-no-harm-our-vp-contenders/">could draw key voters</a> from their own demographic group or their home state. We found that rarely happens, either. </p>
<p>In general, a candidate’s choice for second-in-command does very little to directly swing voters, so we think it’s unlikely that lower-ranking picks, like for Cabinet posts, would make much difference at all.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333166/original/file-20200506-49579-yoso38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333166/original/file-20200506-49579-yoso38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/333166/original/file-20200506-49579-yoso38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333166/original/file-20200506-49579-yoso38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333166/original/file-20200506-49579-yoso38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333166/original/file-20200506-49579-yoso38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333166/original/file-20200506-49579-yoso38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/333166/original/file-20200506-49579-yoso38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When John McCain, right, picked Sarah Palin, second from left, as his running mate in 2008.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:McCainPalin1.jpg">Rachael Dickson/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Shedding light on the candidate</h2>
<p>However, we found that voters view vice presidential choices as new information about the main candidate – and that information can shift voters’ views and change votes. The candidate’s choice gives voters insight into who the candidate really is, what he or she stands for, and how the person might operate once in office.</p>
<p>Take the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/president/votes.html">2008 presidential election</a>, for example, when Democrat Barack Obama ran against Republican John McCain with Joe Biden and Sarah Palin as their respective vice presidential nominees.</p>
<p>In our book, we explain that voters who doubted Palin’s qualifications also were more likely to doubt McCain’s judgment and think he was too old to be president. As a result, they were less likely to vote for McCain.</p>
<p>However, our analysis also showed that voters who believed Biden was well-qualified for office were more likely to approve of Obama’s judgment – and less likely to think he was too young to be president. As a result, they were more likely to vote for Obama.</p>
<p>Naming Cabinet members prior to the election might have a similar indirect effect. Depending on Biden’s choices, an early Cabinet announcement could indicate that the presumptive Democratic nominee would be ready with an experienced team to govern right from the start – or that he will give a job to anyone who can help him win the election, even if that person is not the right fit. </p>
<p>Those signals might gain – or lose – him some votes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316318/original/file-20200220-11017-15jqqp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C28%2C4774%2C2258&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316318/original/file-20200220-11017-15jqqp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316318/original/file-20200220-11017-15jqqp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316318/original/file-20200220-11017-15jqqp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316318/original/file-20200220-11017-15jqqp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316318/original/file-20200220-11017-15jqqp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316318/original/file-20200220-11017-15jqqp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many of Biden’s primary election opponents have been suggested as possible Cabinet nominees.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/debate?agreements=pa:77130&family=editorial&phrase=debate&recency=last24hours&sort=newest#license">Getty Images/Mario Tama</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A risky proposition</h2>
<p>Naming Cabinet members comes with other risks, too. It would give the incumbent, President Donald Trump, more targets to attack. And journalists would scrutinize Biden’s picks, as they do vice presidential selections. </p>
<p>If a prospective Cabinet nominee were linked to a scandal or a campaign trail embarrassment, that could hurt Biden’s campaign by bringing negative attention or distracting the media and voters from his primary message. At worst, a nominee’s struggles could call into question Biden’s judgment and ability to govern, potentially costing him votes. </p>
<p>Even if Biden wins, those campaign trail problems could make it less likely the Senate would later confirm the nominee to serve in the Cabinet.</p>
<p>In the short term, Biden’s surprise announcement that he might name Cabinet selections before November’s election has won him some welcome <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/493276-biden-assembling-white-house-transition-team">media coverage</a> amid the coronavirus pandemic. </p>
<p>But the risks of going through with this unprecedented move may outweigh the potential rewards: Cabinet picks are unlikely to help him win, and there is a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/06/biden-naming-cabinet-distraction-2020-referendum-trump-column/3086530001/">reasonable chance that at least one would backfire</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137741/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kyle C. Kopko is affiliated with the Elizabethtown Borough Planning Commission, Lancaster County Hospital Authority, and the Elizabethtown Area Republican Committee.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Devine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Vice presidential picks don’t have much direct effect on campaigns, but can give voters insight on a candidate’s judgment and leadership ability. Early Cabinet selections are likely to be similar.Christopher Devine, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of DaytonKyle C. Kopko, Associate Professor of Political Science, Elizabethtown CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1210092019-07-25T14:46:01Z2019-07-25T14:46:01ZSoft Brexit is more likely than ever, thanks to Boris Johnson’s new hardline cabinet – here’s why<p>Boris Johnson’s appointment of a cabinet full of Brexit hardliners will be alarming for anybody concerned about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, and the stewardship of the UK’s economy and public services. But it’s not the whole story. In practice, the appearance of a hardline stance on EU withdrawal by a Johnson government may be the very thing that unlocks the possibility of avoiding a chaotic break with the continent.</p>
<p>We saw the worst and best of Johnson on his first day in office. The appointment of people with <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172426">highly reactionary views</a>, or those who have shown contempt for both Britain’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/commons-report-rules-dominic-cummings-in-contempt-of-parliament">democratic system</a> and <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/0256baf2-6c34-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6d84">national security laws</a>, purely because it suits immediate political interests, paints a disturbing picture of the character of Johnson’s premiership.</p>
<p>At the same time, the assembly of Team Boris may just have demonstrated – no less disturbingly, perhaps – Johnson’s supreme skills as a political operator.</p>
<h2>Johnson’s Brexit</h2>
<p>It’s generally believed that Johnson is not being entirely truthful about his Brexit plans. Conventional wisdom suggests that he will simply rebrand Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement – which he did <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/102879/numbers-how-every-mp-voted-third-brexit-deal-division-vs">eventually vote for</a> – and force it through parliament with sheer bravado. </p>
<p>But this scenario understates the problem of <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-why-is-the-irish-border-backstop-so-crucial-to-securing-a-brexit-deal-113398">the Irish border backstop</a> designed to kick in if alternatives to a hard border on the island of Ireland cannot be found. Without Labour’s support, there will still be enough true-believing Brexiters on the Conservative backbenches to block any deal containing May’s hated backstop – even ministerial resignations would be likely. But the EU will not countenance anything resembling May’s deal without a backstop-like mechanism for the Irish border.</p>
<p>In Johnson’s cunning plan, however, the backstop is likely to become the first stop. I think he will soon signal his willingness for Britain to remain in both the single market and customs union as part of a lengthy transitional period – possibly as long as five years – before a UK-EU free trade deal is agreed. Short of permanent single market membership via the European Economic Area – which the EU will never offer to Britain – this would represent the softest possible Brexit. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-whats-the-difference-between-hard-and-soft-brexit-66524">Explainer: what's the difference between 'hard' and 'soft' Brexit?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>All he requires from the EU is a commitment to this timetable, in return for ongoing budget contributions for several years, and of course payment of the divorce settlement when the UK finally departs from the single market and customs union. </p>
<p>This doesn’t fully alleviate the need for something like the backstop – since even five years may not be enough time to agree a trade deal – but with May’s 21-month “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/25/brexit-transition-period-likely-limited-20-months-eu-officials-say">implementation period</a>” now irrelevant, it starts to feel purely hypothetical.</p>
<p>Crucially, Britain will still leave the EU in a formal sense on October 31, 2019, relinquishing all political representation. With ironic inevitability, if it leaves with a deal involving a lengthy transition, Britain will become the rule-taking “vassal state” of which Johnson <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuMPS4XX7fo">once warned</a>. An elongated Brexit will be deemed a price worth paying for an irrevocable Brexit.</p>
<p>Johnson’s masterstroke is to tie the key figures of the Leave campaign now in his cabinet to this strategy, while effectively conceding the demands of Tory Remainers. The former know this might be their last chance to secure Brexit, and the latter know this might be their last chance to avoid no deal.</p>
<p>We can then expect a general election to be called, for early November or sooner if the new withdrawal process has been agreed. Johnson’s minority government cannot possibly function beyond Brexit with so many ousted ministers on the backbenches. However, whether he wins a workable majority or not, I also expect the complexion of his government to change dramatically after this point, with the return of senior Remainers such as Jeremy Hunt and Greg Clark, and the promotion of people like Johnson’s brother Jo.</p>
<h2>No deal</h2>
<p>It would be foolish to discount the continuing possibility of a no-deal Brexit, not least because Johnson will prove himself incompetent and indifferent, in equal measure, when it comes to delivering his plan in practice. While his political strategy depends on stuffing his cabinet with hardliners, their ideological myopia renders them ill-suited to the task of managing a major constitutional upheaval, yet perversely over-confident in their ability to do so.</p>
<p>Even the best laid plans often go wrong. And best laid plans, these are not.</p>
<p>Yet it’s worth remembering that nobody on the Leave side in 2016 envisaged a no-deal Brexit. It was May herself who, <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-very-short-history-of-no-deal-brexit/">almost by accident</a>, raised this possibility in her 2017 Lancaster House speech. May quickly backed away from the notion of leaving without a withdrawal agreement, yet accepting the prospect nevertheless became a test of purity among the Brexiters.</p>
<p>The Johnson government will now ramp up planning for a no-deal Brexit, but the fact that this job has been <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-s-cabinet-feud-ends-as-gove-is-given-key-role-in-brexit-plans-pzzkcdr36">handed to Michael Gove</a> – who thwarted Johnson’s leadership ambitions in 2016 – is highly revealing. If we listen only to Johnson’s rhetoric, we could deduce he has appointed Gove to a significant and indeed pivotal role. In practice, it will be a highly demanding job, but one which could end up being rather marginal to the main thrust of the Johnson government’s plans.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-deal-brexit-does-latest-parliamentary-vote-make-it-less-likely-120632">No-deal Brexit: does latest parliamentary vote make it less likely?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Immigration implications</h2>
<p>The fate of Britain’s position on immigration is perhaps the most fascinating element of the multi-dimensional debacle. Johnson’s deal is likely to see free movement continue – certainly for several years, and perhaps indefinitely. Do not be fooled by references to an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/jul/25/boris-johnson-new-cabinet-prime-minister-chairs-first-cabinet-as-critics-say-party-now-fully-taken-over-by-hard-right-live-news?page=with:block-5d3988818f08cf92bb776b4c#block-5d3988818f08cf92bb776b4c">Australia-style points-based system</a>, designed only to reassure Tory voters but practically meaningless. Johnson and the <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/07/britannia-unchained-free-market-book-defines-boris-johnson-s-new-cabinet">“Britannia Unchained” brigade</a> of free marketeers are almost unabashedly pro-immigration.</p>
<p>But we tend to underestimate how much May’s insistence on ending free movement hamstrung her premiership. As such, if he accepts free movement, Johnson risks handing Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party a new stick with which to attack his strategy. This is all the more reason for an early election, before the immigration policy implications of Johnson’s approach become clear among the wider electorate.</p>
<p><em>This article was co-published with the <a href="https://ukandeu.ac.uk/">UK in a Changing Europe</a> initiative.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121009/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Berry is a member of the Labour Party.</span></em></p>What is Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan?Craig Berry, Reader in Political Economy, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1181192019-05-31T04:36:00Z2019-05-31T04:36:00ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Ken Wyatt’s appointment - and Labor’s frontbench<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6MrTaINXUwE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor Geoff Crisp speaks with Michelle Grattan about the week in politics. They discuss the Coalition’s new ministry, including Indigenous Minister Ken Wyatt and Stuart Robert who will oversee the NDIS and service provision, what could happen with treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s tax package, and Labor’s frontbench and former leader Bill Shorten’s place in it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118119/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Geoff Crisp speaks with Michelle Grattan about the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1179092019-05-28T19:50:07Z2019-05-28T19:50:07ZInfographic: who’s who in the new Morrison ministry<p>As Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s ministry is sworn in today, we’re taking a closer look at the members of the newly revamped cabinet. </p>
<p>Some of the faces are new – Stuart Robert, for example, takes over the new portfolio overseeing the National Disability Insurance Scheme. And some of the portfolios have shifted, notably Sussan Ley replacing Melissa Price as environment minister.</p>
<p>We’ve asked our experts to appraise the performances of the ministers and highlight what could be the key challenges in their new roles.</p>
<p>In some cases, ministers hold more than one portfolio. To simplify the policy analysis, we’ve chosen a key policy area for which they’re responsible and asked our experts to analyse those.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-409" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/409/3e383b8155fd6a829f391e02280e6276c27d4b57/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117909/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Scott Morrison’s new ministry includes a few new faces and several new roles for familiar cabinet members. Our experts take a closer look at each portfolio.Emil Jeyaratnam, Data + Interactives Editor, The ConversationShelley Hepworth, Section Editor: Technology, The ConversationJustin Bergman, International Affairs EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1171282019-05-17T08:07:57Z2019-05-17T08:07:57ZSouth Africa has a new presidential advisory unit. Will it improve policy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274864/original/file-20190516-69213-ay572n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Union Buildings in Pretoria, South Africa, the country's seat of government. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa is <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-12/ramaphosa-to-appoint-advisory-unit-in-the-presidency-bus-day">establishing</a> a unit in the presidency which he hopes will improve policy development and coordination. This is an important initiative designed to help him address the huge challenges facing his incoming government.</p>
<p>There is no question that strengthening the government’s policy capacity is a priority. South African cabinet ministries are often individualistic and departments tend to operate as silos. There tends to be poor alignment, let alone coordination, of policies and programmes within national government and between the spheres of government. The president has some power to impose discipline. But this power depends on being very well-informed and well-briefed by his team.</p>
<p>The unit – called the Policy Analysis and Research Services – will be headed by Busani Ngcaweni, a seasoned mandarin in the Presidency. Ngcaweni was Chief of Staff when Ramaphosa was Deputy President. He had, remarkably, occupied this senior and sensitive post for four consecutive deputy presidents over a 10-year period. </p>
<p>Over the decade he also managed to publish around eight books of essays by himself and other writers on serious South African topics such as <a href="https://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica">AIDS</a>. Before becoming chief of staff he also served as a policy researcher in the presidency during the <a href="https://www.mbeki.org/profile-of-former-president-thabo-mbeki/">Thabo Mbeki</a> era. There is no doubt that he is a committed and able intellectual, and a skilled political manager. </p>
<p>What is the unit intended to achieve? Can it be compared with the unit that operated during the Mbeki and Kgalema Motlanthe presidencies?</p>
<h2>Priorities</h2>
<p>The unit’s <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2019-05-13-cyril-ramaphosa-sets-up-policy-war-room/">priority</a> areas will be “the economy, infrastructure planning and development, agricultural development and government service delivery”. It will also lead on the National Health Insurance <a href="https://www.gov.za/about-government/government-programmes/national-health-insurance-0">initiative</a> which is designed to provide health care to all South Africans. </p>
<p>Ngcaweni is quoted as saying that <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2019-05-13-cyril-ramaphosa-sets-up-policy-war-room/">the unit’s</a> mandate will be: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>policy analysis and co-ordination across government and working with the forum of directors general and the cabinet;</p></li>
<li><p>the co-ordination of presidential advisory councils and working groups; </p></li>
<li><p>the provision of research support to the President’s advisory councils and working groups; and</p></li>
<li><p>the provision of research support to the president’s advisers and co-ordination of strategic programmes like the NHI. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The unit’s role is expected to evolve over time as capacity is developed.</p>
<p>This is all reminiscent of the role played by a unit set up by Mbeki called the Policy Coordination and Advisory Services. I served as its chief economist and deputy head between 2002 and 2009. </p>
<p>But there are some differences. The earlier unit had additional responsibilities. These included preparing advisory memoranda for the President for cabinet meetings, developing a five-year <a href="https://www.dpme.gov.za/keyfocusareas/outcomesSite/Pages/default.aspx">strategy</a> at the beginning of each term of government and monitoring its implementation. </p>
<p>It also published reports on development indicators, on policy outcomes and on political scenarios. The unit worked in close cooperation with the Cabinet office which manages cabinet processes. Top officials attended cabinet or cabinet committee meetings. </p>
<p>President Jacob Zuma dismantled the unit in 2009. This was for two reasons. The first was that the unit was an Mbeki creation. The second was that he wanted to <a href="http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/content/resignation-director-general-policy-coordination-and-advisory-services-pcas-presidency">rid himself</a> of <a href="http://www.mistra.org.za/Aboutus/Ourpeople/Pages/Executive-Director.aspx">Joel Netshitenzhe</a>, its powerful head and a brilliant communicator for the African National Congress (ANC) in exile. </p>
<p>The unit’s various responsibilities were devolved to other parts of government. For example, the Department of Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation was given some of the research advisory tasks. </p>
<h2>Delivery</h2>
<p>Can the new unit achieve its objective to improve policy and implementation coordination in the South African government? </p>
<p>There were several reasons why the earlier unit was relatively successful during the Mbeki and Motlanthe presidencies. Firstly, it was led by one of the most influential and prominent of all ANC activist intellectuals. Netshitenzhe had developed relationships of trust with top ANC leaders such as <a href="http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/national-orders/recipient/oliver-reginald-kaizana-%E2%80%9Cor%E2%80%9D-tambo-posthumous">Oliver Tambo</a> and Thabo Mbeki. He had become a leader in the ANC’s National Executive Committee. </p>
<p>The enormous confidence which Netshitenzhe had earned was a huge asset for the policy unit; it allowed access to Ministers, directors-general, and political principals in the Presidency.</p>
<p>Secondly, Netshitenzhe and Frank Chikane, the Director-General in the Mbeki Presidency and secretary of the Cabinet, sought out capable and respected activist researchers who could themselves win respect among directors-general and even ministers. Two examples that stand out are <a href="https://www.vusigumede.com/about.html">Professor Vusi Gumede</a>, who went on to become a senior professor at the University of South Africa, and <a href="https://www.ictsd.org/about-us/brendan-vickers">Dr Brendan Vickers</a>, now head of International Trade Policy at the Commonwealth Office in London. </p>
<p>Netshitenzhe’s reputation allowed him to recruit top talent. Ngcaweni will have to do the same. </p>
<p>Another consideration is that the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation still exists as a large policy research centre within the Presidency. Will the new unit be able to assert its role in the department’s shadow? One test will be the drafting of the medium-term strategic framework. This will guide the incoming government’s programme, and is due in a few weeks.</p>
<h2>Important work</h2>
<p>There is no doubt that the unit has important work to do. There are super high expectations of the new Ramaphosa government. It has to root out corruption and provide a coherent growth and employment framework. It also has to improve the performance of national and provincial governments and their agencies by several orders of magnitude. Whether the unit will be one of the key instruments for achieving these objectives remains to be seen. Ramaphosa and Ngcaweni have a steep hill to climb.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117128/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Hirsch was a senior official in the South African Presidency from 2002 to 2012.</span></em></p>President Cyril Ramaphosa has revived a presidential advisory unit shut down by his predecessor. He needs it if he is to use his power effectively to improve his government’s policy coherence.Alan Hirsch, Professor and Director of The Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1165892019-05-06T00:35:51Z2019-05-06T00:35:51ZView from The Hill: Lots of ministry spots to fill if Morrison wins, while many Shorten ministers would return to a familiar cabinet room<p>Jumping beyond May 18, we know a good deal more about how a Shorten government ministry would look than the shape of a re-elected Morrison government.</p>
<p>A rash of ministers quitting politics at the election has left some significant holes to be filled if the Coalition managed to hang on.</p>
<p>This would provide opportunities for up-and-comers, but it raises a lot of questions about who’d be responsible for what. And that’s leaving aside the need to reshuffle some incompetents.</p>
<p>The loss of cabinet minister Kelly O'Dwyer means we don’t know who’d fill the key portfolio of jobs and industrial relations. Morrison would also be in search of a minister for women, a post held by O'Dwyer. Michaelia Cash second time round perhaps?</p>
<p>Indigenous affairs, which has been the responsibility of Nationals Senate leader, Nigel Scullion, would be vacant, as would human services and digital transformation, the outgoing Michael Keenan’s patch.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-shorten-presents-the-case-for-change-in-sleek-launch-116580">View from The Hill: Shorten presents the ‘case for change’ in sleek launch</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Morrison has already nominated Linda Reynolds as defence minister if he wins – she’d replace Christopher Pyne, another retiree.</p>
<p>It was a promise driven by politics – Morrison wanted to promote a woman. When Steve Ciobo, who held defence industry, announced he was quitting, he stepped down from the ministry immediately, unlike most departees, who stayed until the election.</p>
<p>This enabled Morrison to elevate Reynolds from a parliamentary secretary into the defence industry job and cabinet (with the defence portfolio promise for later, if there was a later).</p>
<p>Morrison could then boast a record number of women (seven) for a federal cabinet.</p>
<p>If he wanted to retain that number he’d have to find another woman to replace O'Dwyer. One possibility would be Sussan Ley, now a parliamentary secretary, who previously served in cabinet (but is now fighting for her seat of Farrer against an independent challenger).</p>
<p>In a new Morrison government there would once again be women in both foreign affairs and defence, as was the case when Julie Bishop was foreign minister and Marise Payne defence minister. Payne would stay in her present foreign affairs post.</p>
<p>Pyne’s job of leader of the house, very important in managing tactics, would have to be filled. Maybe Christian Porter? (We can assume, in the event of a government win, it would be likely attorney general Porter and home affairs Minister Peter Dutton would have kept their seats.)</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/up-close-and-personal-morrison-and-shorten-get-punchy-in-the-second-leaders-debate-our-experts-respond-116521">Up close and personal: Morrison and Shorten get punchy in the second leaders' debate. Our experts respond.</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If the Coalition hung on, presumably Michael McCormack would survive as Nationals leader, and consequently as deputy prime minister, despite the pressure he has been under.</p>
<p>The most obvious elevation to a Morrison cabinet would be Arthur Sinodinos, a one time cabinet minister who has only recently returned to parliament after a long illness.</p>
<p>Reshuffles are always unpredictable but it would be outrageous if environment minister Melissa Price were not moved. In the campaign she had been gagged and kept in the political equivalent of a dark room. One option would be to bring energy and environment together again under one minister.</p>
<p>A question mark is whether Morrison would give a cabinet spot to Tony Abbott (again assuming Abbott survived). Abbott would want defence – but that has been promised.</p>
<p>A notable feature of the campaign is that Morrison has had fewer frontbenchers at his appearances than has Bill Shorten. This is a function of gaps, poor performers, and the difficult fights some ministers are having in their seats, which are keeping them tied down.</p>
<p>A Liberal prime minister selects their frontbench team, with the exception of the Nationals, who are chosen by their own leader. The number of spots going to the Nationals depends on the proportion of seats they have. Portfolios are allocated by the PM, with some of those going to Nationals automatically, and others a matter of negotiation.</p>
<p>In Labor the factions get their allocations according to their proportions in the caucus, and choose their people. Shorten would have leeway to secure the odd “captain’s pick” in the factional line up.</p>
<p>If she wasn’t chosen on the right’s factional ticket, there’s no doubt Shorten would want Kristina Keneally in his ministry. She’s had a prominent role as “bus captain” in the campaign, and at press conferences.</p>
<p>The Labor leader chooses the portfolios. Shorten has already announced Pat Dodson would be his minister for Indigenous affairs (now he’s shadow assistant minister).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-candidate-troubles-and-pre-polling-116530">VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on candidate troubles - and pre-polling</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The reason we know more about a post-election Labor ministry is that most of its occupants are already “shadowing” the jobs they’d hold. Chris Bowen pointed out recently that half of the shadow cabinet had been in the same roles for the past six years.</p>
<p>But while most “shadows” would slot into similar roles in office, there’d be some shuffling at the edges.</p>
<p>For example, who would be put in charge of home affairs? Defence spokesman Richard Marles would be an obvious choice, though he mightn’t want the switch.</p>
<p>Bowen has produced some interesting statistics about how experienced a Labor cabinet would be. If Labor were elected, “we would come into government with the most experienced incoming cabinet in 50 years,” he told the National Press Club.</p>
<p>“When the Hawke government was elected, there were three cabinet ministers that had sat at the cabinet table previously. When the Howard government came to power in 1996 there were also three with prior cabinet experience.</p>
<p>"And with Labor’s victory in 2007, there were just two cabinet members who could draw on their experience sitting around the cabinet table.</p>
<p>"If Labor forms a government 16 out of 21 of us in the cabinet would have served at the cabinet level before.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116589/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The reason we know more about a post-election Labor ministry is that most of its occupants are already “shadowing” the jobs they’d hold.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1070752019-01-09T22:32:24Z2019-01-09T22:32:24ZThe more women in government, the healthier a population<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253119/original/file-20190109-32127-cbiu5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Canada's Minister of the Status of Women Maryam Monsef is pictured in the Library of Parliament on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa on Feb. 28, 2018. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In November 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau formed the first gender-balanced cabinet in Canadian history. In announcing his cabinet, he ensured that half of his closest advisers (15 out of a total of 30) were women. </p>
<p>Canada’s gender-equal cabinet vaulted the country from <a href="http://archive.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap15_en.pdf">20th</a> to <a href="http://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2017/femmesenpolitique_2017_english_web.pdf?la=en&vs=1123">fifth place in the world</a> in terms of percentage of women in ministerial positions. </p>
<p>When reporters asked Trudeau about why gender parity was important to him, he retorted: “<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeaus-because-its-2015-retort-draws-international-cheers/article27119856/">Because it’s 2015</a>.” His simple yet momentous response resonated with those committed to equity, diversity and inclusion. </p>
<p>As public health researchers, this got us thinking — if increasing the number of women in positions of power promotes gender equity, could it also promote population health and well-being? </p>
<p>Our findings, published recently in the journal <em>SSM - Population Health</em>, support the argument that yes, women in government do in fact advance population health.</p>
<h2>More women in power, fewer deaths</h2>
<p>We first dug into the research literature to see how male and female politicians might differ from each other. Compared to their male counterparts, female politicians are more likely to hold left-wing attitudes (with regard to issues such as civil rights, social equality and egalitarianism) <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.123839">and substantively advance women’s rights</a> in areas such as pay equity, violence against women, health care and family policy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252956/original/file-20190108-32136-bn3960.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252956/original/file-20190108-32136-bn3960.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252956/original/file-20190108-32136-bn3960.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252956/original/file-20190108-32136-bn3960.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252956/original/file-20190108-32136-bn3960.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252956/original/file-20190108-32136-bn3960.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252956/original/file-20190108-32136-bn3960.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Deb Haaland is one of two Native American women who marked historic congressional victories in November 2018 as a record number of women were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Juan Labreche)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Also, research has shown that <a href="https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=chip_docs">women in government tend to work in more collaborative and bipartisan ways</a> and employ a more democratic leadership style compared to men’s more autocratic style. Women are also more effective at building coalitions and reaching consensus.</p>
<p>Next, we examined whether there’s a historical association between women in government and population health among Canada’s 10 provinces. Between 1976 and 2009, the percentage of women in provincial government increased six-fold from 4.2 per cent to 25.9 per cent, while mortality from all causes declined by 37.5 per cent (from 8.85 to 5.53 deaths per 1000 people). </p>
<p>Using data from provincial election offices and Statistics Canada, we found that as the average percentage of women in government has historically risen, total mortality rates have declined.</p>
<h2>Women spend more on health and education</h2>
<p>This link does not of course mean that the increase of women in government has directly caused the decline in mortality. </p>
<p>To assess this, we regressed mortality rates on women in government while controlling for several potential confounders. Our findings support the hypothesis that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.08.003">women in government do in fact advance population health</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252952/original/file-20190108-32151-1u7coax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252952/original/file-20190108-32151-1u7coax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252952/original/file-20190108-32151-1u7coax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252952/original/file-20190108-32151-1u7coax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252952/original/file-20190108-32151-1u7coax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252952/original/file-20190108-32151-1u7coax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252952/original/file-20190108-32151-1u7coax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern addresses Parliament in Wellington, N.Z., in May 2018 while pregnant with her first child. Many hope the 37-year-old will become a role model for combining motherhood with political leadership.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Nick Perry, File)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Interestingly, women in government in Canada have had a bigger effect on male mortality rates than on female rates (1.00 vs 0.44 deaths per 1,000 people).</p>
<p>We also found a pathway that connects women in government, population health and the potential role of partisan politics. In an earlier study, we found that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-205385">four types of provincial government spending are predictive of lower mortality rates</a>: medical care, preventive care, other social services and post-secondary education. </p>
<p>When we tested government spending as a mediating factor, we found that women in government in Canada have reduced mortality rates by triggering these specific types of health-promoting expenditures.</p>
<h2>Women work in more collaborative ways</h2>
<p>We also found that there was no relationship between the political leanings of women in government — whether they belonged to left-wing, centrist or right-wing parties — and mortality rates. </p>
<p>Ideological differences among social democratic (e.g., NDP), centrist (e.g., Liberal), and fiscal conservative (e.g., Conservative) political parties seem to be less important to mortality rates than increasing the actual number of women elected to government. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252957/original/file-20190108-32121-5676ky.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252957/original/file-20190108-32121-5676ky.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252957/original/file-20190108-32121-5676ky.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252957/original/file-20190108-32121-5676ky.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252957/original/file-20190108-32121-5676ky.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252957/original/file-20190108-32121-5676ky.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252957/original/file-20190108-32121-5676ky.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scotland’s Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon, left, walks with European Union Chief negotiator for Brexit Michel Barnier, prior to a meeting at EU headquarters in Brussels on Monday, May 28, 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Emmanuel Dunand, Pool Photo via AP)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This finding supports the idea that women in government tend to work in more collaborative and bipartisan ways than their male counterparts.</p>
<p>It’s now 2019 and leading public health scholars still tend to downplay the potential effects of political determinants such as gender politics on population health. Instead, they opt to focus almost exclusively on individual and social determinants of health. </p>
<p>We believe gender politics matters in public health because it helps to determine “<a href="https://books.google.ca/books/about/Politics.html?id=fP6BAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y">who gets what, when and how</a>.” </p>
<p>We believe that electing more women in government not only promotes gender equality and strengthens democratic institutions but also makes real and substantive contributions to government spending and population health. </p>
<p>Given that women in government can bring about desirable changes in population health, let’s figure out how we can genuinely level the political playing field for women.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107075/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research shows that female politicians spend more on health and education, improving the well-being of a population.Edwin Ng, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, University of WaterlooCarles Muntaner, Professor, Faculty of Nursing, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/997832018-07-11T15:12:21Z2018-07-11T15:12:21ZHow much trouble is Theresa May in? Here’s the evidence<p>Two Cabinet ministers down, backbench unrest brewing, and continued deep divisions over Brexit. Has Theresa May’s government finally run out of road? Listen to the hype, and you’d probably assume so. Consider the rules, and Theresa May looks a whole lot safer.</p>
<p>Obviously, the starting point of this analysis is turds. Stools occupy a surprisingly prominent place in recent Tory party politics. <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/02/eu-referendum-polishing-poo-baker_n_9138552.html">“Polishing a poo”</a> was how the mild mannered back bencher Steve Baker described David Cameron’s attempt to sell his <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-deal-with-the-eu-explained-what-it-says-and-what-it-means-55052">“renegotiation”</a> of the terms of British EU membership to the House of Commons back in 2016. His intervention was crucial in shaping the parliamentary party’s response to Cameron’s efforts.</p>
<p>Fast forward 27 months and another stool appears. Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson apparently accused prime minister Theresa May of attempting to “polish a turd” in selling her shiny new Brexit policy to the cabinet. He subsequently resigned, saying he couldn’t support her plan.</p>
<p>It was in fact Baker’s decision to leave his position as a junior Brexit minister in the wake of the cabinet’s crunch meeting at <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-brexit-plan-that-could-bring-down-the-british-government-explained-99607">Chequers</a> that provided the first hint that the resignation of David Davis might become something akin to a more general Brexiter walkout.</p>
<p>But equally, the fact that he didn’t spark a more general departure – to date at least – speaks to the limits of this rebellion. Moreover, that the prime minister managed both to hang on to a key Brexiter in the form of <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/09/junior-brexit-minister-suella-braveman-not-quit-david-davis-despite-reports-7694229/">Suella Braverman</a> and recruit <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-not-to-be-brexit-secretary-five-pieces-of-advice-for-dominic-raab-99633">Dominic Raab</a> as Brexit secretary to boot represented something of a triumph for Downing Street.</p>
<p>So what happens now? Reading the runes of British politics has become something of a mug’s game. But to understand how realistic Johnson’s leadership ambitions are, it’s certainly worth consulting the rulebook. And the rules in this case are the 1922 Committee <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-mays-brexit-crisis-how-to-oust-a-tory-leader-99704">rules on the election of the Conservative party leader</a>.</p>
<p>The first thing to say is that the primary electorate is made up of Johnson’s peers in the House of Commons. Few doubt the former foreign secretary still nurtures ambitions for higher office, or that his resignation was intended to further those ambitions. Many also feel, however, that these ambitions have been damaged by the choreography of his resignation. On Friday, he promised to get behind the Chequer’s plan. On Sunday, he watched David Davis resign and did nothing. It was only on Monday that he took his decision. The key charge against Johnson – that his ambition outweighs his principle – fairly or otherwise, appears strengthened.</p>
<p>But, in any case, the rules make it very difficult to get to a point where Johnson is a leadership candidate. Triggering a vote of no confidence in Theresa May is relatively easy. The process is kick-started when Graham Brady, the tight-lipped chairman of the 1922 Committee receives letters from 48 Conservative MPs – 15% of the parliamentary party – calling for the prime minister’s resignation. By some estimates, the pro-Brexit <a href="https://www.conservativehome.com/tag/european-research-group">European Research Group</a> of Tory MPs has some 60 members, so this should be easy enough.</p>
<p>Triggering a vote is one thing. Winning it quite another. For this, the rebels would need to garner the votes of 158 MPs. It’s hard to see how the ERG can muster this kind of support.</p>
<h2>Emerging victorious?</h2>
<p>Of course, the rules do not always reflect political reality. While Downing Street maintains that the prime minister will soldier on even if she wins any hypothetical contest by just one vote, it’s far from clear she would be able to do so. Margaret Thatcher defeated Michael Heseltine by 204 votes to 152 in 1990, with roughly 55% of Conservative MPs backing her leadership. But she emerged fatally weakened. A rebellion of a hundred or more would leave May in similar trouble.</p>
<p>But would she go? Form to date suggests not. May is many things, but she is certainly not a quitter, or she would have gone following the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/uk-election-2017-37907">disastrous election</a> of 2017. And facing down a Brexiter challenge may, in fact, reinforce her position. The rules state that only one leadership challenge can be launched within the space of a year, so she would be able to pursue her chosen Brexit course without fear of the ERG attempting to depose her again. </p>
<p>This would shift the goalposts. Instead of being principally concerned with backbench unrest, the prime minister could shift her focus to negotiations with the EU in the hope of coming up with a deal. </p>
<p>So what might that deal look like? Assume, as many do, that the Chequers meeting signals a far softer Brexit than still implied by May’s red lines. That would mean, ultimately, that the PM will have to concede further ground to the EU, essentially negotiating some form of customs union and membership of the single market. If she is still looking for a deal with the EU27 by March 2019, the clearest path is through an agreement that looks a lot like <a href="https://theconversation.com/britains-brexit-options-a-refresh-79364">“Norway Plus”</a>: if not continued membership of the European Economic Area, at least something that bears a great deal of resemblance to the status quo.</p>
<p>What, then, would the House of Commons do? Obviously, we cannot be certain, but it is conceivable that such a deal could find favour with enough MPs to pass the House. Not least if the alternative, with the Brexit clock running down, might be no deal.</p>
<p>And imagine. Under those circumstances, this prime minister, apparently fatally weakened time and time again, might emerge as a heroine. The leader who, against all the odds, not only took the UK out of the EU but did so in a way that minimised damage to the economy. At which point, she might silently offer up her thanks to David and Boris for bringing things to a head with their resignations.</p>
<p><em>This article has also been published by <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/">The UK in a Changing Europe</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99783/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anand Menon receives funding from the ESRC</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Wager receives funding from the ESRC.
</span></em></p>It’s been a rough ride lately, but maybe, just maybe, the PM could now navigate her way to Brexit success.Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs, King's College LondonAlan Wager, Research Associate, The UK in a Changing Europe, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/996082018-07-09T16:01:35Z2018-07-09T16:01:35ZTheresa May was right to reimpose collective ministerial responsibility – it’s the only way to govern<p>It lasted for 48 hours. Two days after Theresa May <a href="https://brexitcentral.com/theresa-may-selling-chequers-proposal-conservative-mps/">told Conservative ministers</a> that they must adhere to the convention of collective responsibility and support the agreed Brexit plan, the prime minister had to accept the resignation of her Brexit secretary, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44761056">David Davis</a>, and foreign secretary, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/09/boris-johnson-resigns-as-foreign-secretary-brexit">Boris Johnson</a>. </p>
<p>In his <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/davis-davis-resignation-letter-in-full-11430720">resignation letter</a>, Davis wrote that he did not support the new agreed strategy and was following the collective responsibility convention in resigning. </p>
<p>Collective responsibility only concerns ministers in government serving within the cabinet. Dating back to the 18th century, it is a constitutional convention which holds that members of the cabinet should support all governmental decisions. While it’s a convention rather than a legal requirement, ministers are nonetheless expected to show a “united front” for all government actions and policies.</p>
<p>In practice, this means that decisions taken by the cabinet are <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP04-82#fullreport">binding</a> on all its members. While a minister may disagree in private, they must still publicly support the agreed position. According to the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf">Cabinet Manual</a>, should a minister feel they cannot abide by the public “united front” requirement, then they must resign. </p>
<p>Perhaps one of the most <a href="https://www.indy100.com/article/everyone-should-listen-again-to-robin-cooks-resignation-speech-over-the-iraq-war--WJe4kxLv8BW">famous</a> examples of the convention in practice was the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/17/labour.uk">resignation of Robin Cook in 2003</a> as leader of the House of Commons for Tony Blair’s Labour government. Under the collective responsibility rules, Cook was unable to publicly speak out about his objections to the war in Iraq. Following the tenets of the convention, he resigned from his office, and spoke from the backbenches of his disagreement with the government’s position.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T9CqiiI2Irg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Such a principled approach to collective responsibility saw Cook receive a standing ovation. Nonetheless, such resignations over not toeing government lines are rare, as more often than not individual ministers want to hold on to government office. </p>
<p>While it is largely up to the prime minister to enforce the convention, it is seen as more politically honourable – and better for the party – for a minister to resign when they want to speak out against the government’s collective position. </p>
<h2>Agreeing to differ</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf">Cabinet Manual</a> makes it clear that collective responsibility applies in all instances, “save where it is explicitly set aside”. As the Labour prime minister James Callaghan <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-DSXshoO85gC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=I+certainly+think+that+the+doctrine+should+apply,+except+in+cases+where+I+announce+it+does+not.+callaghan&source=bl&ots=7FI3-TEbAF&sig=deLy4R5s-4f21t_9pmXT-OPKN-E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivusS89pHcAhWLSsAKHS2TBjwQ6AEIRzAC#v=onepage&q=I%20certainly%20think%20that%20the%20doctrine%20should%20apply%2C%20except%20in%20cases%20where%20I%20announce%20it%20does%20not.%20callaghan&f=false">remarked</a> in 1977: “I certainly think that the doctrine should apply, except in cases where I announce it does not.” </p>
<p>The suspension of collective responsibility – otherwise known as an “agreement to differ” – is rare. Within the UK, it has only been implemented on <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7755">six previous occasions</a> – ranging from the first on the issue of <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/tradeindustry/importexport/overview/freetrade/">tariff policy in 1932</a>, to proposals for <a href="https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/">alternative voting systems during general elections</a> under the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation">2010 coalition agreement</a>. </p>
<p>Both referendums pertaining to the European Union – the first in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/25/britains-1975-europe-referendum-what-was-it-like-last-time">1975 on UK membership of the European Economic Community</a>, and the second on the <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/collective-cabinet-responsibility-and-eu-referendum">2016 Brexit referendum</a> – carried a temporary suspension of collective responsibility on the specific issues. </p>
<p>Since David Cameron gave his cabinet freedom to differ over Brexit, there has been a progressive (and very public) weakening of cabinet collective responsibility. </p>
<p>Even before his resignation as foreign secretary, Johnson had <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-recording-trump-brexit-dinner-party-tory-theresa-may-a8388686.html">repeatedly criticised</a> the government’s approach to Brexit. The treasury minister, Liz Truss, has openly criticised <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-cabinet-brexit-tory-michael-gove-defence-spending-nhs-conservative-a8418761.html">“male macho” cabinet colleagues</a>. In particular, the perceived “hot air” coming out of the Department for the Environment – with the suggestion that <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44618162/wood-burning-gove-liz-truss-fumes-at-cabinet-colleague">“wood burning Goves”</a> are trying to tell us how to live our lives. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9JlQ0WBQdQ8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Cameron only gave his ministers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/05/eu-referendum-david-cameron-confirms-ministers-campaign-brexit">freedom to differ over Brexit</a>. However, reinstating collective responsibility has been a significant challenge for May’s administration. And she has now lost two ministers who could not adhere to it. </p>
<h2>Why it must now endure</h2>
<p>For May’s administration to survive, collective unity – alongside confidence and trust – is now needed. Remaining within the cabinet, and publicly speaking out against an agreed direction, weakens unity, causes confusion, and undermines the leadership of the prime minister.</p>
<p>The convention is crucial as it is the government that leads the policy and direction of the country. Its requirements are based on the foundations that unity is needed to deliver the government’s agenda, and projects stability, strength and leadership both domestically and overseas. </p>
<p>A united front among ministers is necessary for political stability. Without such, the lack of unity has consequences for the UK’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/strong-and-stable-leadership-could-theresa-mays-rhetorical-carpet-bombing-backfire">ability to negotiate with the EU</a>, while also carrying <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/summary-trade-after-brexit">economic and trade implications</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99608/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Clear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UK has a constitutional convention of collective ministerial responsibility. Here’s why it matters – and must endure.Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Law, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/908402018-02-01T03:18:59Z2018-02-01T03:18:59ZNew bill would make Australia worst in the free world for criminalising journalism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204342/original/file-20180131-157481-116ctzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Would the ABC’s publication of confidential cabinet documents would be in breach of a proposed government bill?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia is a world leader in passing the most amendments to existing and new anti-terror and security laws in the liberal democratic world. Since September 11, 2001, it <a href="http://www.mulr.com.au/issues/35_3/35_3_13.pdf">has passed 54 laws</a>.</p>
<p>The latest suggested addition is the Turnbull government’s crackdown on foreign interference. <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6022">The bill</a> has been heavily criticised by <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=71d3ba2a-dc24-42b8-baa9-fb31ddab7c28&subId=562618">Australian Lawyers for Human Rights</a>, <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/28/submission-parliamentary-joint-committee-intelligence-and-security-espionage-and">Human Rights Watch</a>, and <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b2c1242a-6f21-40e7-85e5-5160cbabe5bd&subId=562624">major media organisations</a> for being too heavy-handed and far-reaching in the limits it would place on freedom of expression and several other civil liberties. </p>
<p>The government’s own intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b7d2ee0c-62d0-4aaa-8e5a-3fca1fc37dff&subId=562628">argues</a> the bill is so widely worded that its own staff could break the law for handling documents they need to access to do their job.</p>
<p>A case in point is whether the ABC’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442">publication</a> of confidential and secret cabinet documents would be in breach of the proposed bill. Two filing cabinets full of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442">thousands of confidential cabinet documents</a> were given to the ABC by a source who, astonishingly, had bought them for small change at an op-shop in Canberra. </p>
<p>The ABC made an assessment and chose to publish a very limited number of the documents it deemed in the public interest. The ABC has so far clearly acted responsibly, and no documents that could harm Australia’s national security were in the first publication. </p>
<p>Some of the published documents are embarrassing for both the current and former Coalition and Labor governments, but that should not stop publication – rather, the opposite.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-foreign-interference-laws-will-compound-risks-to-whistleblowers-and-journalists-88631">New foreign interference laws will compound risks to whistleblowers and journalists</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What the bill would mean</h2>
<p>The foreign interference bill, in its current form, suggests it should be criminal for anyone to “receive” and “handle” certain national security information. It would seem that by just receiving the filing cabinets and assessing what to publish, the ABC staff would be in breach of the provisions suggested in the bill. </p>
<p>Furthermore, this makes an already heavy-handed whistleblower regime from <a href="https://theconversation.com/journalists-mckenzie-and-baker-go-unshielded-before-demands-to-reveal-sources-11914">an international perspective</a> even more draconian. It is sure to lose Australia several places on the <a href="https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table">Press Freedom Index</a> if implemented as suggested.</p>
<p>The bill is an overreach in many respects. But one of the worst aspects, from a transparency and accountability point of view, is that it seeks to extend the draconian <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s70.html">Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act</a>.</p>
<p>Section 70 makes it a crime, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside government without permission. The ABC’s publication of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442">cabinet files</a> clearly illustrates that media organisations with ethical and thorough editorial polices are perfectly capable of assessing what to publish.</p>
<p>The bigger picture is that the current bill is part of a pattern that started after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001. </p>
<p>In our forthcoming book, <a href="http://www.anthempress.com/in-the-name-of-security-secrecy-surveillance-and-journalism">In The Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism</a>, my colleagues and I assess how the anti-terror laws and mass surveillance technologies in the <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/25/world/uk-us-five-eyes-intelligence-explainer/index.html">Five Eyes</a> countries has impacted on in-depth public interest journalism. We also compare the Five Eyes with several <a href="http://time.com/4923837/brics-summit-xiamen-mixed-fortunes/">BRICS</a> countries and the situation in the European Union.</p>
<p>Our main conclusions are that the current fear-driven security environment has made it much harder for investigative journalists to hold governments and security agencies to account. This is partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.</p>
<p>Add to this the truly awesome powers of mass surveillance making it increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to grant anonymity to sources that require it for their own safety, and you end up with a very complex journalist-source situation.</p>
<p>Another important factor in Australia and the UK is that all national security agencies are exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This makes it virtually impossible to independently acquire information from the security branch of government.</p>
<p>The balance between national security and transparency is complex. As citizens, we want to feel safe and know what is being done to keep us safe. In our book, we have labelled this the “trust us” dilemma, meaning governments argue they can’t disclose what they are doing security-wise, lest the “bad guys” find out. </p>
<p>That leaves us needing to trust the government’s security actions and policies. But the problem is, how can we as citizens decide if we trust the government if we don’t have the information on which to base this decision?</p>
<p>There is no easy answer to this question. Political philosopher <a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3534874.html">Giorgio Agamben</a> takes our reasoning one step further when he argues that the liberal democratic world has been in a “state of exception” since September 11. This has granted powers to security agencies that are creeping increasingly closer to those of the totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s.</p>
<p>Agamben traces various states of exception all the way back to Roman times. The pattern is similar through history: governments point to an “other” – often a hard-to-define enemy – as a reason for increased powers to the security apparatus. They are convinced they are doing the right thing.</p>
<p>The problem is that if we don’t roll back the strengthened security laws in times of lower threat, we start from a high level next time we enter a “state of exception”. This in turn can lead to a never-ending war on real or perceived threats where our cherished democratic civil liberties become part of the collateral damage. </p>
<p>If we allow the “state of exception” to become permanent, we risk allowing the terrorists to win.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90840/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Johan Lidberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to hold governments to account – partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/908032018-01-29T11:30:21Z2018-01-29T11:30:21ZWhy it’s too soon for Davos billionaires to toast Trump’s ‘pro-business’ policies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203670/original/file-20180128-100929-1dvdiu9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">SAP CEO Bill McDermott and Siemens chief Joe Kaeser flank Trump as they praise him for his tax cut.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The moguls of global business, who met recently in Davos for the World Economic Forum, may not like Donald Trump’s style. But, if a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/business/trump-davos-speech-response.html">series</a> of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/business/davos-world-economic-forum-populism.html">reports</a> by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/us/politics/trump-davos-elites.html">The New York Times</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-wins-over-global-elites-at-davos-all-it-took-was-a-15-trillion-tax-cut/2018/01/25/3c688624-0201-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html7">other</a> <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/23/news/economy/ceos-love-us-trump-tax-cut-davos/index.html">outlets</a> are to be believed, Trump’s pro-business policies are making it easier for them to forgive his foibles. </p>
<p>Klaus Schwab, the head of the forum, put it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/business/trump-davos-speech-response.html?ribbon-ad-idx=7&rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article">this way</a> as he introduced President Trump before his Jan. 26 speech: “On behalf of the business leaders here in this room, let me particularly congratulate you for the historic tax reform [that is] fostering job creation while providing a tremendous boost to the world economy.”</p>
<p>Many attendees <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/business/trump-davos-speech-response.html">praised</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-every-country-for-itself-rhetoric-gets-wrong-about-davos-90792">Trump’s speech itself</a> – bolstered by the impression members of his administration gave at the forum – for pragmatism and a “very constructive mind-set.”</p>
<p>Such wonky gushing is shortsighted, however, and ignores the long-term risks of Trumpism for the economic prosperity of the U.S. and the world. Research into the politics of economic growth – one of my areas of expertise – explains why. </p>
<h2>Don’t pop the champagne corks yet</h2>
<p>Since becoming president, Trump has overseen significant <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2018/0105/Trump-s-deregulation-drive-is-epic-in-scale-and-scope.-And-yet">deregulation</a> in several industries, and his signature economic initiative is a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-tax-cuts-delivering-hardworking-americans-manufacturers/">major tax cut</a> focused on businesses. The <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/trump-dow-jones-interactive/index.html">strong performance</a> of the U.S. stock market suggests investors, at least, are quite smitten with his policies.</p>
<p>It is true that tax cuts and deregulation can provide a fiscal stimulus and, when done correctly, can even <a href="http://www.france24.com/en/20180123-imf-global-growth-boost-trump-tax-cuts">spur growth</a> by encouraging investment. It is also true that many in the business community are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/business/trump-davos-follow-the-money.html">relieved</a> that Trump seems <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-brand-of-economic-populism-gets-a-makeover-in-first-100-days-76077">uninterested</a> in following through on his populist rhetoric.</p>
<p>But it is important to remember that the long-term business costs of Trump’s destabilizing influence are likely to be much greater than any short-term policy benefits. This is because businesses must operate within a social and political context, one that influences their success at every step.</p>
<p>Trump’s behavior since taking office – his <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">willingness to ignore</a> the norms of civil discourse, his <a href="http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/">possible links</a> to the authoritarian regime in Russia, his <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069298">problematic business interests</a> and, especially, his contempt for the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts">judiciary</a> and the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-to-work-for-a-president-who-hates-the-civil-service/2018/01/26/34dbe95c-0204-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html">professional civil service</a> – has eroded global <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/578422668/heres-just-how-little-confidence-americans-have-in-political-institutions">confidence</a> in American institutions. </p>
<p>This is a serious problem for business. Research has confirmed <a href="http://whynationsfail.com/summary/">over</a> and <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-economy/institutions-institutional-change-and-economic-performance">over</a> the link between open and stable political institutions and economic growth. We now know that <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2340943615000195">entrepreneurship</a>, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2342668">natural resource wealth</a> and even <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8494.html">the right economic policies</a> are not enough to bring prosperity, when people are unable to trust the integrity of a country’s political and legal system. Instability <a href="https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_instabilitygrowth.pdf?s">deters investment</a>, both foreign and domestic, and raises fears that the benefits of hard work will not be rewarded.</p>
<h2>The China exception?</h2>
<p>At first glance, the phenomenal growth experienced by autocracies such as China and Singapore may seem to be exceptions to this rule. But a comparative view shows that stability is critical for growth even among authoritarian regimes. </p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2012.00753.x/abstract">My own research</a> (co-authored with political scientist Daniel Kuthy) suggests that more institutionalized and stable dictatorships are more inclined to choose economic policies that promote growth. And <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Political-Institutions-Dictatorship-Jennifer-Gandhi/dp/0521155711/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=">research by Emory University’s Jennifer Gandhi</a> has made the link between authoritarian stability and growth even more directly.</p>
<p>Even so, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Globalizing-Innovation-Institutions-Investment-Economies-ebook/dp/B078X54VRC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517192617&sr=1-1&keywords=politics+fdi">stable</a> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Nation-States-Multinational-Corporation-Political-Investment-ebook/dp/B003NUSAP6/ref=sr_1_4?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1517192929&sr=1-4">democracy</a>, with its transparency and its rule of law, is the best sort of government for business. Such countries as <a href="http://natoassociation.ca/exploring-the-effects-of-economic-instability-in-venezuela/">Venezuela</a> and <a href="https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/turkish-economy-struggling-political-volatility">Turkey</a> have experienced negative economic consequences after backsliding from democracy.</p>
<h2>Business and society</h2>
<p>Economic growth is also <a href="http://www.seh.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/DP15.pdf">tightly linked</a> to <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/5105.html">social</a> cooperation and peace. </p>
<p>When there is a high level of antagonism in society, whether by class, race, ethnicity, gender, geography or something else, businesses must operate in a much more complicated environment. There is a greater threat of strikes, reduced public support for liberal markets, and more challenges in the workplace and in product marketing.</p>
<p>It is here that Trump’s statements and behavior, from his <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/146683/trump-fox-news-mainstreaming-white-nationalism">failure to condemn</a> white nationalists to his well established <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/">sexism</a>, can be so harmful. The highly <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/polarized-america">polarized</a> climate of today, quite apart from the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/opinion/sunday/democracy-polarization.html">inherent problems</a> it creates, is <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12070/abstract">bad</a> for business.</p>
<p>Moreover, social peace is <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/industrial-economics/inequality-and-industrial-change-global-view?format=PB&isbn=9780521009935#S3Y3gDuBLrcfG1hz.97">connected</a> to levels of economic inequality. This is where even the policies that many businesses support can have seriously <a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains">negative repercussions</a> in the long term. Analysts agree that Trump’s tax cuts will have the effect of <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/11/03/trump-gop-tax-plan-cuts-2017/">concentrating wealth</a> even more fully in the hands of the few. For businesses, the short-term benefits of a tax concession should not outweigh the risks posed by increased inequality and polarization.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203709/original/file-20180129-100908-ntfxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203709/original/file-20180129-100908-ntfxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203709/original/file-20180129-100908-ntfxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203709/original/file-20180129-100908-ntfxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203709/original/file-20180129-100908-ntfxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203709/original/file-20180129-100908-ntfxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/203709/original/file-20180129-100908-ntfxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most of those who attend the meeting in Davos, including CEOs, have a more internationalist bent than Trump. From left to right, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Erna Solberg, prime minister of Norway, Virginia Rometty, CEO of IBM, Chetna Sinha, president of the Mann Deshi Foundation, Fabiola Gianotti, director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, and Isabelle Kocher, CEO of ENGIE.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Markus Schreiber</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Trumpism abroad</h2>
<p>Most of the corporate CEOs who gathered in Davos <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-at-davos-can-america-first-lead-to-shared-prosperity-across-the-world-90792">have a distinctly international orientation</a>. President Trump’s “<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/america-first-34020">America First</a>” policies are likely to harm their interests much more than those of domestic business leaders. </p>
<p>For international businesses to function, a network of global agreements and understandings is necessary. The countries of the world have built this network over decades, largely under the leadership of the United States. </p>
<p>If the primary architect of this system no longer supports it, there is a risk that new impediments to trade and capital flows will make economic interdependence <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-america-first-trade-policy-ignores-key-lesson-from-great-depression-87477">harder to sustain</a>. While supporters of globalization are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/politics/trump-trade-america-first-davos.html">moving forward</a> without the Trump administration, the world should not be sanguine about the future of the liberal economic order without active American support.</p>
<p>Just as seriously, an international conflict could have a severely <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2478.00042/full">detrimental</a> impact on <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shank/economic-consequences-of-_b_1294430.html">economic activity</a>. Loose talk from the Trump administration, to the extent that it <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/347783-poll-68-percent-think-trump-could-accidentally-get-us-in">increases the risk of war</a>, is a serious threat to business success.</p>
<p>For all of these reasons, the optimism that many seemed to be feeling at Davos is misplaced. Businesses operate within a social and political context, and when that context is destabilized, they cannot escape the consequences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90803/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Hankla does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The billionaires, business leaders and other elites who gathered in Davos praised the president’s policies, yet research on the politics of economic growth suggests it’s too soon to celebrate.Charles Hankla, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/883942017-12-31T14:18:21Z2017-12-31T14:18:21ZCabinet papers 1994-95: How the republic was doomed without a directly elected president<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199805/original/file-20171218-27568-dk3t9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth signs the visitors' book at Parliament House, while Prime Minister Paul Keating and Parliament House officials look on in February 1992.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives of Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Not long after defeat in the 1999 referendum, Malcolm Turnbull, a leading republican who had chaired the Republic Advisory Committee (RAC) appointed by Paul Keating, was licking his wounds.</p>
<p>“We must not let the desperate desire not to be ‘elitist’ lead us into imagining that the voters always get it right,” he reflected. “They don’t. Sometimes nations vote for the wrong people or the wrong propositions … There is nothing disrespectful in questioning the judgement of 55% of the Australian population.”</p>
<p>Like many republicans, Turnbull laid much blame at John Howard’s feet. But cabinet papers released today by the National Archives of Australia suggest a very different story: the republic was doomed from the moment the Keating government rejected the idea of a directly elected president.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-1994-95-the-keating-government-begins-to-craft-its-legacy-88395">Cabinet papers 1994-95: The Keating government begins to craft its legacy</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>The submission, considered by cabinet’s Republic Committee on March 22, 1995 (and by cabinet on June 6, 1995) warned:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Public opinion polls … suggest that any mechanism for appointing a head of state short of direct election will be controversial.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The document, unusually couched in the first person with Keating as narrator, is haunted by the ghosts of 1975. The risk of direct election, it explained, was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… that the head of state might be tempted to assume, or presume to take moral authority from, a popular national mandate … and exercise the powers of that office in a manner which could bring the office into competition with the government of the day.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, in a nutshell, was the problem republicans faced. They wanted to present Australia’s constitutional arrangements as deficient enough to justify reform, yet they refused to countenance change that might lead to any but cosmetic changes. A bunch of politicians wanted to prevent an outbreak of politics.</p>
<p>Direct election of a president, we are told:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… would in time fundamentally change the character of Australian Government and could well move our parliamentary democracy towards an executive presidency, where power is no longer diffuse and representative and where substantial national power is vested unalterably in one person for a set period. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“This matter,” the submission went on to explain, “needs to be handled sensitively so that public understanding increases as the debate continues”.</p>
<p>In other words, it was the public’s ignorance that led it to support direct election. If only citizens better understood their political system, they would realise that selection by a joint sitting of parliament, with a two-thirds majority required to endorse a prime ministerial nomination, would make it impossible for a partisan figure to become president. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KSqaa_-2bM8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Paul Keating makes a parliamentary statement on the republic in 1995.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The paradox was that election by politicians was supposedly needed to avoid a politicians’ republic. Years passed, but no-one ever found a way to work through this conundrum of the republicans’ making. In the meantime, Keating faced another problem: even if parliamentary selection was accepted, what should the powers of that president be?</p>
<p>The governor-general had many roles and powers, some of which the Constitution defined. Some were exercised by convention on ministerial advice, and some were in a third, murky and controversial category known as reserve powers. The submission dismissed complete codification of the reserve powers as politically impossible:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An acrimonious debate on this issue would have the potential to derail the whole republic initiative. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It then went on to consider other ways of dealing with the problem. Eventually, the full cabinet would opt in June 1995 for a formula to be included in the constitution asserting that the president would “exercise his or her functions in accordance with the constitutional conventions which related to the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions of the governor-general”. </p>
<p>However, the conventions would not be regarded as “rules of law”, nor would the provision prevent “further development of these conventions”. </p>
<p>The attention that the reserve powers received underlines how powerfully 1975 preyed on the mind of Keating, who had been a young, recently appointed minister in the Whitlam government at the time of the dismissal. He pointed to the risk that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… without codification, every half century or century the nation could suffer a wilful or misguided head of state who exercises political judgement against the interests of one of the parties or without due regard to historical conventions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The priority was to avoid another Kerr. Indeed, he is even mentioned by name, as one whom few thought “benign to begin with – and he did not have to run the gauntlet of parliamentary approval, but he did suffer subsequent admonition by a large section of the country”.</p>
<p>Future presidents, unlike Kerr, would be constrained through their manner of selection by a super-majority of the House of Representatives and Senate sitting as one. The president would need to have the confidence of both parties, and so was likely to be non-partisan and of high calibre. However, if they proved “misguided or aberrant”, they could be removed via a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting convened by a simple majority vote of either chamber.</p>
<p>The psychology of this minimalist position is epitomised in how the submission dealt with the issue of what to call the republic. </p>
<p>It opted for keeping “Commonwealth of Australia” – not, it seems, because there was anything valuable or resonant in this title, but because it “would reflect the (minor) extent of the changes sought to the Australian system of government and would avoid the need for numerous consequential changes to the Constitution and other areas of official life”. An example of this would be the national anthem’s reference to “this Commonwealth”.</p>
<p>Leaving aside the absurdity of the last point, to argue for a change while also telling people that little would change was a balancing act beyond the republicans’ powers. At a time of populist revolt – the Hanson outbreak occurred in 1996 – it became even easier to cultivate hostility to “elites” out of touch with ordinary Australians.</p>
<p>I voted “yes” in 1999. I would vote “no” today if offered a reheated minimalist republic. </p>
<p>The arguments in the cabinet submission suggest a failure of imagination and, more seriously, of trust. They grossly exaggerate the fragility of Australian parliamentary government, which is sufficiently entrenched to avoid the spectre of a well-designed scheme for direct election leading to a US-style executive presidency.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V2IKzPmRG3o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Australian Republican Movement chairman Malcolm Turnbull speaks after the referendum was lost in 1999.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The late historian John Hirst, the Australian Republican Movement’s Victorian convener in the 1990s and an RAC member appointed by Keating, <a href="https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/consulting-not-leading-an-enemy-of-the-australian-republic,3811">warned</a> a Canberra ARM audience in 2011 that parliamentary selection would never win public support. The ARM therefore should support direct election.</p>
<p>Hirst also warned against a consultative two-step process that invited voters to consider the principle of a republic, followed by a further vote for a specific model. </p>
<p>The first of these votes would permit a potent “no” campaign around such tried and true themes as change is dangerous, republics are bad, we already have an Australian head of state, politicians cannot be trusted, and voters should not issue a blank cheque. </p>
<p>The recent same-sex marriage survey provides Hirst’s warning with ample vindication. Opponents of a republic would be no more likely to campaign directly for the monarchy and against a republic than opponents of same-sex marriage campaigned explicitly against homosexuality. Red herrings would be the order of the day.</p>
<p>But in contrast to same-sex marriage, if the principle of a republic were to be defeated in a popular vote, like Sleeping Beauty it would have a restful century or so while it waited for a reviving kiss from a handsome prince.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88394/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Bongiorno does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The arguments about a potential Australian republic in cabinet submissions suggest a failure of imagination and, more seriously, of trust.Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/799902017-06-29T00:43:18Z2017-06-29T00:43:18ZMacron and Trudeau shouldn’t be so proud of appointing women to their Cabinets<p>Appointing a gender-parity Cabinet seems to be the thing to do if you are a rising, progressive and male political star. </p>
<p>Canadian Prime Minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/canada-cabinet-gender-diversity-justin-trudeau">Justin Trudeau</a> did it in 2015. French President <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/europe/france-macron-cabinet-women/index.html">Emmanuel Macron</a> followed this May. </p>
<p>The internet loves it. Trudeau has been the <a href="https://www.bustle.com/articles/180958-justin-trudeaus-7-most-wonderfully-feminist-moments-will-make-you-love-the-canadian-leader-even-more">darling</a> of feminists everywhere, and Macron clearly wants to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/EmmanuelMacron/videos/1926844660881444/">follow</a> in his footsteps. Being a male feminist politician is hip.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LLk2aSBrR6U?wmode=transparent&start=12" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Trudeau does a little humble bragging.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet <a href="http://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1146/">my research</a> shows that numerical representation of women is not the silver bullet <a href="http://www.mlkrook.org/pdf/childs_krook_2009.pdf">it has long been considered</a>. What’s more important for achieving meaningful equity is that women control key political resources. In the highest echelon of politics, that means occupying senior Cabinet positions with financial and staff resources.</p>
<h2>When being present is not enough</h2>
<p>But what about that famous rallying cry for bringing more women into politics? “<a href="https://medium.com/@PattyMurray/if-youre-not-at-the-table-you-re-on-the-menu-932c0f76550a">If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu</a>” makes sense intuitively. And, in France and Canada, it is in cabinets where the major <a href="http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783531196114">policy decisions</a> are being made. Having 50 percent women in a Cabinet seems to signal that women’s concerns will be taken seriously: for example, by passing a <a href="http://eige.europa.eu/rdc/thesaurus/terms/1158">gender sensitive budget</a> or addressing implicit sex bias in <a href="https://www.idrc.ca/en/article/taxes-and-gender-equity-codes-behaviours-and-unintended-consequences">tax codes</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00158.x/full">research</a> consistently has shown that women are relegated to lower-level or female-friendly Cabinet positions such as families, development or sports. Essentially, this means women might have a voice in Cabinet meetings <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1554477X.2015.1082882?journalCode=wwap20">but they cannot move the policy needle</a> in important areas such as foreign affairs, finance or employment.</p>
<p>So how do the Cabinets of Trudeau and Macron measure up? Are they truly feminist – in other words, committed to sharing power equally between men and women? Or are these ostensibly equitable Cabinets mere window dressing? Unfortunately, under both Trudeau and Macron, men still occupy the majority of powerful positions.</p>
<p>In Canada, <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justice-minister-jody-wilson-raybould-1.3303609">Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould</a> was the only woman holding what I would consider a key post in Trudeau’s initial cabinet. Other important portfolios, such as foreign affairs and finance, were headed by men. Many of the other women were appointed to so-called “pink” departments like families, development and sports. </p>
<p>In subsequent cabinet reshuffles, Canadian women made some inroads. In August 2016, Bardish Chagger became <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cabinet-shuffle-house-learder-1.3728243">leader of the government</a> in the House of Commons. In <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trudeau-cabinet-shuffle-why-an-overhaul-was-needed/article33569117/">January,</a>, <a href="http://pm.gc.ca/eng/cabinet">Chrystia Freeland</a> took over Foreign Affairs. </p>
<p>Still, a <a href="http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/depite-gender-balanced-cabinet-male-ministers-dominate-the-conversation-in-question-period">study</a> showed that female Canadian ministers answered fewer questions than their male colleagues when the parliamentary opposition questioned the government. And <a href="https://heatst.com/culture-wars/oxfam-canada-pm-justin-trudeaus-feminism-is-all-talk-and-no-action/">Oxfam</a> recently came out with a damning report claiming Trudeau’s government was more talk than action. This begs the question whether the women appointed do not prioritize women’s issues or whether they do not have a sufficient voice in the cabinet to push their legislative agenda.</p>
<p>In France, the picture is similar. For the initial cabinet appointments, men headed all <a href="https://www.independent.co.ug/analysis-macron-blurs-party-lines-mixed-french-cabinet-gender-parity/">senior Cabinet positions</a>: interior, environment, justice, economy, foreign minister and defense. Macron had originally appointed Sylvie Goulard for defense minister, but she had to <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40342578">resign</a> due to a political scandal. As in Canada, women are relegated to the “female ministries” of culture, labor or sports. And while Trudeau’s Cabinet is highly diverse in terms of ethnicity and age, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/17/emmanuel-macron-finally-names-left-right-cabinet-gender-parity/">Macron’s Cabinet</a> is mostly old and white – if not male. With few women in key Cabinet positions, it is likely that Macron will follow Trudeau’s lead in a less admirable way – by not doing much in terms of policies that help women like equal pay rules or <a href="http://www.catalyst.org/">corporate board quotas</a>. </p>
<p>If Macron and Trudeau truly want to address women’s political needs, they need to share power by appointing women to powerful Cabinet posts such as Budget, Finance, or Labor and include women in the inner circles of power within cabinets. Only when women control political resources and are part of these inner networks, there will be a real chance of women’s concerns being included in the top echelons of politics.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify that the analysis is focused on initial cabinet appointments.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malliga Och does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Having the same number of Cabinet positions doesn’t mean women have the same amount of power.Malliga Och, Assistant Professor of Global Studies and Languages, Idaho State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/695872016-11-29T17:33:39Z2016-11-29T17:33:39ZZuma lives to fight another day. But fallout from latest revolt will live on<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147966/original/image-20161129-10984-95iwh0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa's President Jacob Zuma. His supporters within the African National Congress continue to hold sway, for now.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Aaron Ufumeli</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa’s African National Congress’s <a href="http://www.anc.org.za/officials/national-executive-committee-0">National Executive Committee (NEC)</a> – the body that runs the party between its five-yearly party conferences – has considered a motion to force President Jacob Zuma <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2016/11/28/anc-top-brass-asked-to-pick-sides-in-zuma-no-confidence-motion">to step down</a>. Despite increasing tensions within the party over Zuma’s presidency, this is the first time the NEC has considered acting against him. The motion <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2016-11-29-mantashe-nec-affirmed-zuma-is-president-of-south-africa">failed</a> but the repercussions for the president, the ANC and the country will reverberate for months and years to come. </p>
<p>An unprecedented number of senior NEC members, including six cabinet ministers, risked their jobs to urge Zuma to resign. The cabinet ministers included tourism minister <a href="http://whoswho.co.za/derek-hanekom-4283">Derek Hanekom</a>, health minister <a href="http://www.gov.za/about-government/leaders/profile/1475">Aaron Motsoaledi</a>, public works minister <a href="http://www.pa.org.za/person/thembelani-waltermade-nxesi/">Thulas Nxesi</a> and finance minister Pravin Gordhan.</p>
<p>On the other side of the divide were Zuma’s backers which included leaders of three of South Africa’s nine provinces, known as the <a href="http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Premier-league-coined-by-those-with-political-agenda-Mahumapelo-20151011">Premier League</a> and a host of cabinet ministers
including the minister of home affairs <a href="http://www.dha.gov.za/index.php/about-us/minister-of-home-affairs">Malusi Gigaba</a> and sports minister <a href="http://whoswho.co.za/fikile-mbalula-3200">Fikile Mbalula</a>.</p>
<p>Zuma’s supporters fought desperately to avoid the motion being put to the vote at the NEC meeting. This suggests they realised that, for the first time, they weren’t guaranteed a majority. The slimness of the pro-Zuma faction was highlighted by the fact that the NEC meeting was <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/anc-meeting-extended-zumas-fate-uncertain-2093875">extended from two to three days</a> to enable more Zuma supporters – absent when it started – <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/zuma-survives-coup-2094224">to fly in to support him</a>. </p>
<p>The debate at the NEC was the latest revolt against Zuma’s leadership. In the governing <a href="http://www.anc.org.za/kids/tripartite-alliance">tripartite alliance</a> the <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2015-06-25-sacp-our-zuma-mistake">South African Communist Party</a> and some Congress of South African Trade Unions <a href="http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/nehawu-calls-on-zuma-to-resign-20161101">affiliates</a> have both openly criticised him. All backed Zuma for president in 2008. Within the ANC’s wider circle of influence only its Youth League and Women’s League remain <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2016/09/05/ANCYL-ANCWL-and-MKMVA-rally-behind-Zuma">Zuma allies</a>. </p>
<h2>Parallels with Mbeki’s recall</h2>
<p>The attempts to oust Zuma are reminiscent of <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2008-09-20-anc-recalls-mbeki">the sacking of then President President Thabo Mbeki in 2008</a>. The difference is that Mbeki was by then not the president of the ANC. He had been outvoted – and Zuma voted in – at the ANC’s national conference in 2007. A year later the NEC took a decision to recall him as president of the country. </p>
<p>By a strange twist, the NEC has the power to remove the president of the country. But it does not have the power to remove the president of the party.</p>
<p>The only way in which the ANC could remove Zuma would be at an elective conference. These are held every five years. The next one is due at the end of 2017 when Zuma’s term as president of the ANC ends anyway. For Zuma to be removed before that time the elective conference would need to be rescheduled to an earlier date. Though some ANC members are calling for this, it’s highly unlikely to happen.</p>
<p>There are a number of other possible routes the ANC could take to remove Zuma. One is that the party’s disciplinary committee finds him guilty of bringing the ANC into disrepute, or similar charges. This would give it grounds to act against him. </p>
<p>A further possibility is that a motion of no confidence is tabled against Zuma in parliament. This has already happened several times, and has been defeated on each occasion because of the ANC’s overwhelming majority in the house. A no confidence vote would only succeed if the ANC parliamentary caucus took the unprecedented step of walking out when the vote came to the floor.</p>
<p>The possibility that Zuma is removed through the courts is extremely remote. He has, for example, given every indication <a href="http://city-press.news24.com/News/zuma-to-take-state-capture-report-on-review-20161125">that he will appeal</a> against remedial action of a judicial commission of inquiry recommended by the former Public Protector in a report on state capture. </p>
<p>Clearly, he will appeal against an unfavourable decision in the High Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal, and then to the Constitutional Court. Judging by past litigation, this will probably take six months. The judicial commission itself will take six months or a year to complete its findings, which Zuma will clearly again take on judicial review. All this will extend beyond the ANC December 2017 conference where Zuma’s successor will be elected.</p>
<p>The reality of power is that removing the national leader of any political party inevitably leads to a long drawn-out fight, and is exceptionally difficult. In the case of Britain’s Conservative Party, it was their parliamentary caucus which removed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8094268/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-Ousted-from-Downing-Street-and-the-leadership.html">Margaret Thatcher from office</a>. </p>
<h2>Bad for the party, a boon for the opposition</h2>
<p>The more drawn-out the struggle to get rid of the scandal-prone Zuma, the worse affected the ANC will be. And the better it will be for opposition parties.</p>
<p>Election campaigners of the main opposition Democratic Alliance openly regard Zuma’s continued presidency as the gift that keeps on giving. The longer he clings to power as state president and ANC president, the more ANC voters will abstain in 2019. And the more DA voters can be mobilised by outrage to go to their polling station.</p>
<p>The DA already stands a good chance of wresting control of Gauteng Province, South Africa economic powerhouse, from the ANC in 2019. The DA is currently <a href="https://theconversation.com/tide-begins-to-turn-against-south-africas-president-and-his-supporters-68096">redeploying a team</a> of its Cape Town headquarter staff to Johannesburg to wage a two-year election campaign against the ANC.</p>
<h2>Beyond the now</h2>
<p>Personally, Zuma has less to fear from retirement than most seem to realise. A retired South African president automatically <a href="http://www.news24.com/World/News/All-the-presidents-expenses-20090204">receives a pension equal to 100% of their salary</a>. And there’s a strong likelihood that any ANC-led government would <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-south-africans-should-resist-an-amnesty-deal-for-zuma-68101">grant him amnesty</a> against possible prosecution for corruption or other possible charges.</p>
<p>The biggest consequence of Zuma’s removal would be that his cronies and agents in state departments and parastatals would be purged. This would mean the end of Zuma’s reign, heralding a new era of honest government and better use of taxpayers’ money.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69587/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keith Gottschalk is a member of the ANC, but writes this in his professional capacity as a political scientist.</span></em></p>A revolt within the African National Congress against South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma has reached new heights. He has survived, but the repercussions will be felt for some time to come.Keith Gottschalk, Political Scientist, University of the Western CapeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/669912016-10-13T07:45:38Z2016-10-13T07:45:38ZWhatsApp: a great idea for mates but a terrible one for ministers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141571/original/image-20161013-16203-1hvyovi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's all fun until someone gets hacked.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">mirtmirt/Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Cyber security experts have <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-and-senior-cabinet-ministers-using-whatsapp-could-pose-security-risk-experts-20161012-gs0cuj.html">raised concerns</a> about Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull and senior government ministers sending private and confidential information via the messaging service <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/whatsapp-8373">WhatsApp</a>. </p>
<p>WhatsApp and similar messaging apps are great for normal day-to-day communication between friends, but using it to discuss matters of national security is certainly a choice that will raise eyebrows. </p>
<p>As with any technology, particularly those that allow for speedy communication, the benefits have to be weighed carefully against the associated security risks.</p>
<h2>Not on the list</h2>
<p>One of the main points of criticism over the decision to use WhatsApp is that it doesn’t feature on the <a href="http://www.asd.gov.au/infosec/epl/index.php">Evaluated Products List</a> – the list of accepted tools for ministerial communications compiled by the <a href="http://www.asd.gov.au/">Australian Signals Directorate</a>.</p>
<p>This list features products that are tested and certified for specific purposes against <a href="https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/">internationally recognised standards</a>. Vendors can apply for this certification for their products and once evaluated it can be used for the specific purpose. </p>
<p>Many different types of products are on this list, including biometrics, data protection, smart cards, mobile products, network devices, operating systems, and so on. Within the mobile products space, the list features Apple’s iOS and Blackberry’s operating system, both of which are platforms from which text messages can be sent – but messaging apps such as WhatsApp are not featured.</p>
<h2>What’s wrong with WhatsApp?</h2>
<p>Besides text-based messages, WhatsApp also allows files to be shared and transferred between users. This has implications for government, especially if used by ministers or staff with access to classified information. If such information were disseminated via WhatsApp, this would constitute a serious security breach. </p>
<p>Although WhatsApp now offers <a href="https://theconversation.com/worried-your-emails-might-be-spied-on-heres-what-you-can-do-66574">end-to-end encryption</a>, meaning in theory that no one can intercept the communication, the sharing of sensitive documents through this service would still be grounds for serious concern. What would happen in a situation in which a device was lost or stolen? Anyone with access to that device can access the shared files, including any media (images, documents, videos) shared via WhatsApp, which are automatically transferred to and stored in a WhatsApp folder on both devices. </p>
<p>Furthermore, it is possible to hack into the WhatsApp folder using tools that copy files from a mobile to a desktop computer, such as <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/air-transfer-easy-file-document/id521595136?mt=8">Air Transfer</a> (for iOS devices) and <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.smarterdroid.wififiletransfer&hl=en">WiFi File Transfer</a> (Android). Sharing web links via WhatsApp also potentially leaves users vulnerable to <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/phishing-13263">phishing</a> or other attacks via malware or ransomware.</p>
<p>As WhatsApp now also works via the web, it is prone to all of the web’s security threats. </p>
<p>Besides malware posing as genuine WhatsApp links, it is also <a href="http://thehackernews.com/2014/12/crash-your-friends-whatsapp-remotely_1.html">reportedly</a> possible to crash the app by sending large (over 7 megabytes) messages, or messages containing special characters – a particular fear given that these messages can be typed and sent very quickly by someone who gains access to a device for a short period.</p>
<p>Privacy concerns are also raised by the existence of products such as <a href="https://whatspy.co/en/inicio">WhatSpy</a>, a web application that allows others to monitor a user’s status messages or even alter their security and privacy settings. Another app called <a href="https://www.mspy.com/">mSpy</a> monitors and reports on a mobile user’s activities, such as text messages, WhatsApp messages and phone calls. This app can be installed very quickly and once installed it can report to a designated number or email. </p>
<p>Perhaps worst of all is WhatsApp’s vulnerability to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_spoofing">MAC spoofing</a> attacks, which involve changing the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address">media access control (MAC) address</a> that acts as a unique identifier for every phone. By changing it, the messages can be routed to an unauthorised device. </p>
<h2>Freedom vs responsibility</h2>
<p>The truth is that as soon as any sensitive information is placed on the WhatsApp network, it can potentially be shared or forwarded to anyone, meaning that both the sender and the receiver of the information is at greater security risk. </p>
<p>Once confidential information is out in the open network, it is effectively beyond the government’s control. </p>
<p>Another concern relates to Freedom of Information. As an encrypted third-party network, it is not clear whether it will be possible to retrieve this information if requested. Recently, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has faced severe criticism, media scrutiny and <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation">investigation by the FBI</a> for using private email services rather than official communication channels. </p>
<p>WhatsApp or Instant Messaging via mobile devices represents a new wave of communication adopted by the community at large. But the question of whether high-ranking members of the government should be using secured messaging apps is one that requires further investigation. </p>
<p>WhatsApp and other messaging services are promising, useful, and great fun. But they should not be used in a government setting without prior certification.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was amended on October 14, 2016, to clarify the operating systems used by Air Transfer and WiFi File Transfer, and the functions performed by WhatSpy.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66991/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vidyasagar Potdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and senior ministers have been criticised over their use of WhatsApp, which can leave users vulnerable if their phones are hacked, attacked by malware, or simply stolen.Vidyasagar Potdar, Senior Research Fellow, School of Information Systems, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.