tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/ministerial-standards-24579/articlesministerial standards – The Conversation2020-11-10T22:28:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1498212020-11-10T22:28:22Z2020-11-10T22:28:22ZWhat’s in the ‘public interest’? Why the ABC is right to cover allegations of inappropriate ministerial conduct<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368492/original/file-20201110-18-13fjn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=566%2C0%2C2857%2C2626&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Immediately after ABC’s Four Corners aired allegations about <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-09/four-corners-investigation-christian-porter-alan-tudge/12862632">the conduct of government ministers Alan Tudge and Christian Porter</a>, questions were raised about whether the report was in the “public interest”.</p>
<p>The Australian’s editor-at-large, Paul Kelly, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypD8otMqObo">said on Q&A</a> that Porter was “trashed” by the program, adding</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What the ABC has done tonight is that it’s crashed through some media barriers and created new media barriers. How far do we go in terms of our definition of the public interest? </p>
<p>We need to be very careful about the damage we do to people’s reputations here and ask ourselves is that an accurate portrait or was it a caricature?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Asked about the story in a Senate committee before the story aired, ABC managing director David Anderson <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-10/david-anderson-four-corners-abc-investigation/12865550?nw=0">defended</a> it as “absolutely” being in the public interest.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It goes to conduct of ministers, ministers of the Crown, to be held to the highest standard in society. That’s the nature of the story.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Porter has denied the claims made against against him. He had earlier <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/abc-grilled-over-four-corners-program-on-power-imbalance-between-liberal-ministers-and-staff/news-story/82e3cd9f14a2e81a5e40d0d14fe2d4df">discussed considering legal options</a> against the ABC, but <a href="https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/attorney-general-christian-porter-labels-abc-reporting-unfair-but-walks-back-legal-threats-20201110-p56d8m.html">played that down</a> in an interview yesterday.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-code-of-conduct-may-not-be-enough-to-change-the-boys-club-culture-in-the-liberal-party-121365">Why a code of conduct may not be enough to change the boys' club culture in the Liberal Party</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Even tawdry stories are in the public interest</h2>
<p>Despite Porter’s protestations, the ABC clearly had an obligation to air a story that contained allegations of ministerial misconduct (however tawdry).</p>
<p>News reports about politicians, sex and booze are as old as time and have brought shame to many a politician, from the former Deputy Prime Minister <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/bundle-of-joyce-birth-of-a-national/news-story/3b48d9a378307a728e007d857ce5ee42">Barnaby Joyce</a> to Deputy Labor Leader <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/cheryl-and-gareth-the-consuming-passion-20020704-gdff7j.html">Gareth Evans</a> and the UK Secretary of War <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/profumo-resigns-in-sex-scandal">John Profumo</a>. </p>
<p>The one clear duty of journalism is to hold those in power to account, and that appears to have been lost on those members of government as they <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/extreme-and-unrelenting-pressure-on-abc-over-mps-sex-investigation-20201109-p56cs7">reportedly attempted to pressure</a> the ABC, its managers and journalists, over the broadcast. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368717/original/file-20201110-13-1nu9w49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368717/original/file-20201110-13-1nu9w49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368717/original/file-20201110-13-1nu9w49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368717/original/file-20201110-13-1nu9w49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368717/original/file-20201110-13-1nu9w49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368717/original/file-20201110-13-1nu9w49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368717/original/file-20201110-13-1nu9w49.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">Barnaby Joyce became embroiled in a scandal over his affair with his former media adviser.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Standards for those in government</h2>
<p>Many ethical issues arise from the broadcast, the attempt to pressure the ABC and the legal threats that have followed.</p>
<p>Even before the program had made it to air, the ABC’s management found themselves under attack, with an <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-10/david-anderson-four-corners-abc-investigation/12865550?nw=0">excruciating Senate Estimates Committee hearing</a> a couple of hours before the broadcast.</p>
<p>But it certainly wasn’t a quick piece of “gotcha” journalism with a blurry photo at its centre. The Four Corners team have <a href="https://democracyswatchdogs.org/sally-neighbour">an exacting process to their work</a>. For this story, the ABC said they <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/extreme-and-unrelenting-abc-four-corners-team-claim-pressure-to-stop-federal-mps-investigation-20201109-p56cuk.html">interviewed 200 people over several months</a>. They also contextualised the story beyond the two central politicians to raise real concerns about the place and safety of women who work in Parliament House.</p>
<p>Anderson also <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/extreme-and-unrelenting-pressure-on-abc-over-mps-sex-investigation-20201109-p56cs7">said</a> the allegations had been thoroughly sourced and checked legally. Those named in the story were given “ample” opportunity to respond.</p>
<p>Moreover, while the so-called “bonk ban” on ministers having sexual relations with their staff was only introduced by Prime Minister Malcolom Turnbull in 2018, Cabinet ministers have had rules governing their behaviour since John Howard <a href="https://australianpolitics.com/1996/04/13/howard-ministerial-code-of-conduct.html">first established</a> a public ministerial code in 1996. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368719/original/file-20201110-15-2hqiir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368719/original/file-20201110-15-2hqiir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368719/original/file-20201110-15-2hqiir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368719/original/file-20201110-15-2hqiir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368719/original/file-20201110-15-2hqiir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368719/original/file-20201110-15-2hqiir.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368719/original/file-20201110-15-2hqiir.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">Turnbull says he warned Porter about ‘unacceptable’ behaviour with a young female staffer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Members of the Morrison Cabinet now sign up to a <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement-ministerial-standards-3.pdf">code of conduct</a> which says they will “act with integrity” and be “open to public scrutiny and explanation”. </p>
<p>Specifically, there is <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement-ministerial-standards-3.pdf">no grey area in these ministerial standards</a> on the point of sexual relationships with staff:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>2.24. Ministers must not engage in sexual relations with their staff. Doing so will constitute a breach of this code.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison pointedly said this week that neither Porter nor Tudge were in breach of <em>his</em> code of conduct.</p>
<p>But allegations of sexual misconduct and power imbalances, even historic ones, are still clearly a cause for community concern, and cannot not be ignored by journalists or political leaders. Such matters are no longer private affairs between consenting adults. </p>
<p>Just ask the <a href="https://theconversation.com/amp-doesnt-just-have-a-women-problem-it-has-an-everyone-problem-144937">complainants at AMP</a>, the <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/amber-v-seven-how-an-office-affair-became-a-costly-war-of-attrition/news-story/cc05619e23a78002af20e4168fef9f4d">former CEO of Seven in WA</a>, or even former <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached">US president Bill Clinton</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/amp-doesnt-just-have-a-women-problem-it-has-an-everyone-problem-144937">AMP doesn’t just have a women problem. It has an everyone problem</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Action should be taken</h2>
<p>Regardless of the salacious allegations made on the Four Corners program, there is also a point to be made about the hypocrisy of politicians who market themselves as having “family values” and demand others follow “<a href="https://twitter.com/alantudgemp/status/1321961729467637760">Australian values</a>”. </p>
<p>Certainly, it is not edifying to watch details of alleged impropriety by politicians broadcast on television, and it’s uncomfortable that such stories inevitably impact those who are innocently caught up in the furore (particularly partners and children). </p>
<p>Tudge did issue a <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/144625-tudge-porter-affair/">statement</a> saying he regretted his actions “and the hurt it has caused my family”.</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>But with this story, Four Corners has not only produced a program that has interest from the public, it is also in the public’s interest.</p>
<p>There are many questions to be answered from the ministers named in the story and also those who knew about the allegations and did nothing (or even worse, promoted them).</p>
<p>The real outcome of this program should not be a defamation case, but rather action from Morrison. Questions over ministerial conduct are important. This is certainly a matter of public interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149821/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake worked with the ABC in the 1990s, and worked briefly in a ministerial office in Queensland 20 years ago. She has never been a member of a political party. </span></em></p>The ABC not only had a right, but it also had an obligation, to air a story that speaks to ministerial misconduct when it breaches standards set by prime ministers.Alexandra Wake, Program Manager, Journalism, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1307932020-02-02T06:49:51Z2020-02-02T06:49:51ZRemembrance of rorts past: why the McKenzie scandal might not count for a hill of beans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313166/original/file-20200202-41476-1yy3zx6.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">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The sports rorts scandal has evoked in some commentators considerable nostalgia. There was a time, we are assured, when politics was governed by genuine integrity. Andrew Peacock offered John Gorton his resignation after his wife appeared in an ad spruiking bedsheets. Mick Young had to step aside from the Hawke ministry over a failure to declare a Paddington Bear on his return to Australia from an overseas visit. The inevitable comparisons have been with an earlier sports rorts affair, sometimes also recalled as the whiteboard affair. It resulted in the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/from-the-archives-1994-ros-kelly-quits-over-sports-rorts-affair-20200116-p53rxw.html">resignation of Keating government minister</a> Ros Kelly in 1994.</p>
<p>By way of contrast, an adverse Australian National Audit Office report disclosing <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-bridget-mckenzie-has-made-herself-a-sitting-duck-130474">political rorting on a grand scale</a> of a A$100 million government grants scheme was insufficient to blast National Party Deputy Leader Bridget McKenzie from her job. Rather, she has been forced from her position on the ludicrously narrow and contrived grounds of a conflict of interest – a grant to a gun club of whom she was an undeclared member. Let the jokes about Al Capone and tax evasion flow!</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-coronavirus-adds-to-scott-morrisons-many-woes-130889">Grattan on Friday: Coronavirus adds to Scott Morrison's many woes</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>I recall learning about “individual ministerial responsibility” in high school politics classes. The textbook told us that while the principle was among our borrowings from Westminster and Whitehall, it had been applied with some flexibility in the modern Australian context. This was true, but only barely so. I studied such matters in 1986 and, up to that point, Australia had experienced a decade in which the principle had been rather strictly applied.</p>
<p>The key figure here was Malcolm Fraser, prime minister from 1975 to 1983. Fraser had good reason to be firm in maintaining proprieties. In 1971 he had risen in the parliament and declared John Gorton “not fit to hold the great office of Prime Minister”. While Fraser was aggrieved at what he saw as Gorton’s disloyalty to him, the prime minister’s unorthodox personal and political behaviour had been causing considerable grief among Liberals used to the reassuring somnolence of the Menzies era. A party room ballot for the leadership resulted in a tie, and Gorton threw in the towel.</p>
<p>In November 1975, Fraser brought down another prime minister, this time from the Labor Party, in <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-politics-explainer-gough-whitlams-dismissal-as-prime-minister-74148">far more dramatic circumstances</a>. But it was ministerial scandal that had offered Fraser his chance. On becoming Liberal leader earlier in 1975, he had assured the public that he would use the government’s numbers to block supply in the Senate only if there were “most extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances”. Fraser believed these circumstances had been created by <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/how-the-loans-scandal-became-an-affair-to-remember-20050101-gdzadn.html">the Loans Affair</a>, which involved two government ministers in unorthodox loan-raising activities. The fall of the Minister for Minerals and Energy Rex Connor and Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns, undermined public confidence in an already ailing government. The married Cairns’s very public relationship with a female member of his staff, Junie Morosi, also contributed to the atmosphere of chaos.</p>
<p>A prime minister such as Fraser, whose own political legitimacy derived in large part from his claims to a superior integrity, could not afford to indulge his ministers. Even heavy-hitters sometimes went down for seemingly minor transgressions. </p>
<p>One of his most ruthless henchmen, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/18/reg-toecutter-withers-former-fraser-government-minister-dies-at-age-90">Senator Reg Withers</a> – he did not get his nickname “The Toecutter” at Sunday school – went for the capital crime of influencing the renaming of a federal electorate. Phillip Lynch, Deputy Liberal Leader and Treasurer, <a href="https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00005947.pdf">went for alleged improprieties</a> involving land speculation in Victoria. Future National Party Leader Ian Sinclair also lost his ministry over business dealings. Most amusingly, Senator Glen Sheil<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Sheil"> was sacked before his appointment</a> as a minister was even finalised. He was foolish enough to offer the media his (favourable) views on South Africa’s system of apartheid, which Fraser hated with intensity.</p>
<p>Bob Hawke was hardly less strict than Fraser, even if his ministers gave him less to worry over. He was deeply distressed to have to rid the cabinet of his mate, Mick Young, in the early months of the government in 1983 after Young divulged to an associate a cabinet decision to expel a Soviet diplomat. </p>
<p>As prime minister, Paul Keating had more scandals to worry over, including Kelly and sports rorts. Right-wing powerbroker <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-notsoquiet-achiever-20091023-hddk.html">Graham Richardson lost his place</a> after intervening with the government of the Marshall Islands on behalf of a relative who had landed himself in hot water over some dubious business affairs. But Richardson later returned to Cabinet. In late 1995, in the so-called <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/lawrence-leaves-stew-of-politics-20070330-ge4jxh.html">Penny Easton Affair</a>, Carmen Lawrence survived a finding by a Western Australian Royal Commission that she misled parliament while she was premier. After Lawrence was later charged with perjury, she stood aside as shadow minister until she had been acquitted.</p>
<p>The Easton Affair, although occurring late in the life of the Keating government, might have been the turning point. If not, the early Howard years surely were. The new government adopted a sparkling ministerial code of conduct, but lost seven ministers in its first 18 months. The code’s application became increasingly flexible, with Howard seemingly more inclined to calculate whether more damage would be done to his government by a sacking than by grim resistance. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sports-rorts-shows-the-government-misunderstands-the-public-service-130796">'Sports rorts' shows the government misunderstands the public service</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>By the time of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/12/awb-made-secret-payments-worth-us220m-to-saddams-iraq-court-hears">Australian Wheat Board affair</a>, the idea that the Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer might be held in any way responsible for the industrial-scale misbehaviour involved in the AWB’s United Nations sanction-busting Iraqi wheat sales had already become rather quaint. Nor did any minister pay the price when an Australian citizen was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Solon">illegally deported</a> and a permanent resident <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelia_Rau">illegally detained</a>. No minister was held responsible for the arrest, and vindictive and illegal visa cancellation, of an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/23/australia-sorry-doctor-terrorism-charges">Indian doctor falsely accused</a> of involvement in terrorism.</p>
<p>This is essentially the political world in which we live now. McKenzie was forced out because of a political calculation that the damage of her holding on had become too great, and that her removal would not cause intolerable turbulence in the Coalition. But it is unclear that the scandal has done the government much lasting damage in any case. </p>
<p>Even young journalists today have been reared on a rational understanding of politics that says if a government behaves badly enough, it incurs damage that might threaten its future. But what if the overall effect of this scandal is simply to confirm for the minority of voters paying attention that politicians are self-serving and untrustworthy, and politics an elaborate racket?</p>
<p>Scott Morrison’s prime ministership is a creature of the Trump era. He knows that it is right-wing populists who have yielded the benefits of the collapse of political trust. His celebration of quiet Australians carries the message: “Let us get on with things and we’ll see you in three years”. His Sunday afternoon political stitch-up wasn’t elegant, but it will serve its immediate purpose of taking a bit of heat out of the affair. There are still few signs that anything like a majority of voters are alive to his confidence tricks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130793/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>It’s much harder to remove a minister these days than it used to be – and there’s no sign Bridget McKenzie’s departure will prove a damaging blow for the Morrison government.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/1303722020-01-23T19:02:23Z2020-01-23T19:02:23ZWhy we need strong ethical standards for ministers – and better ways of enforcing them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311518/original/file-20200123-162221-jjwu9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Scott Morrison has asked his department to probe whether Bridget McKenzie was in breach of ministerial standards in her handling of the sports grants program.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison has asked the head of his department to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-22/scott-morrison-seeks-bridget-mckenzie-sports-grants-probe/11890922">investigate whether Bridget McKenzie violated</a> <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/statement-ministerial-standards">ministerial standards</a> when she dispensed sports grants to clubs in marginal seats and those being targeted by the Coalition in last year’s election.</p>
<p>It is generally accepted by Australians that “public office is a public trust”. The nature and extent of that trust, however, is continuously being debated. </p>
<p>This is especially true in an age of virtually unlimited potential for scrutiny of governments, and unlimited scope for the court of public opinion to take submissions (and make judgements) about ministerial conduct – well-founded or otherwise. </p>
<p>The late (and much lamented) <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/john-clarke-dies-aged-68/8430174">John Clarke</a> once told me his main role as satirist-in-residence to the nation was to remind the Australian people how fragile their democratic institutions are. </p>
<p>Almost a decade later, we are told on good authority that a significant proportion of young Australians <a href="https://lowyinstitutepoll.lowyinstitute.org/themes/democracy/">do not trust “government”</a>, to the point where many might well prefer military rule.</p>
<p>This is one reason why codified and enforceable standards of ministerial ethics and conduct will remain relevant - and expected - in our country. </p>
<h2>Early steps toward enacting standards</h2>
<p>Australia hasn’t always had a set of ethical standards for ministers and government officials. It is a relatively recent phenomenon which came about during Prime Minister John Howard’s time in office in the 1990s. </p>
<p>The idea was first broached in 1978 when Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser commissioned <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber/hansards/1994-10-10/0023;query=Id:%22chamber/hansards/1994-10-10/0035%22">Nigel Bowen</a> to conduct a review of conflict of interest matters involving officials. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-heads-roll-ministerial-standards-and-stuart-robert-54479">Will heads roll? Ministerial standards and Stuart Robert</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Instead of regulation, however, the committee sought to rely on the “court of public opinion” to deter unseemly conduct by MPs.</p>
<p>In the next few years, the culture of government in Australia began changing radically, and quickly.</p>
<p>When the Fraser government introduced both the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00238/Html/Text">Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act</a> and the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02562">Freedom of Information Act</a>, the opportunities for public scrutiny of ministerial decision-making – and conduct more generally – significantly affected public expectations about the way “the business of government” was done.</p>
<p>At a stroke, new standards of conduct by decision-makers at all levels were needed for the first time, for a new era of accountability and “speaking truth to power”.</p>
<h2>Standards put forth by Howard and Faulkner</h2>
<p>While the Hawke Labor government chose not to bring in new ministerial standards in 1983, Howard did so in 1996 - 20 years after Bowen. </p>
<p>After Howard introduced his <a href="https://australianpolitics.com/1996/04/13/howard-ministerial-code-of-conduct.html">ministerial code of conduct</a>, a significant number of ministers were forced to resign over various conflict of interest matters, and the code was amended to be less onerous.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-barnaby-joyce-affair-highlights-australias-weak-regulation-of-ministerial-staffers-91744">The Barnaby Joyce affair highlights Australia's weak regulation of ministerial staffers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Against this backdrop, Opposition Senator John Faulkner introduced draft ethics and integrity standards to the Labor shadow cabinet. It was adopted as party policy in 2001.</p>
<p>The Faulkner standards, which I co-authored with George Thompson on Faulkner’s staff, drew on public ethics principles, legal definitions and community norms regarding the integrity expected of public officials. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311520/original/file-20200123-162232-145d9rh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311520/original/file-20200123-162232-145d9rh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311520/original/file-20200123-162232-145d9rh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311520/original/file-20200123-162232-145d9rh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311520/original/file-20200123-162232-145d9rh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311520/original/file-20200123-162232-145d9rh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311520/original/file-20200123-162232-145d9rh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The standards introduced by John Faulkner have been endorsed by every government since 2007.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan Porritt/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The standards recognised several challenges for parliament in policing its own members, chiefly that parliament had not enacted a code of conduct itself and had recently passed laws prohibiting it from expelling an MP for misconduct. </p>
<p>It therefore became the responsibility of the prime minister to enforce the standards. </p>
<p>The Rudd government endorsed these standards of ministerial ethics when it came into power in 2007. And each prime minister since then has endorsed a version of the standards, largely unchanged. </p>
<h2>Challenges of enforcing standards</h2>
<p>Every version of the standards has reminded ministers of their ethical and fiduciary duty to respect the trust placed in them by the public, and maintain public trust in parliament and our system of government.</p>
<p>Yet, challenges remain when it comes to interpreting and enforcing the standards. Notably, the standards impose a “waiting period” for former ministers and their staff to take up certain forms of employment after leaving office. </p>
<p>Yet, no government has sought to introduce statutory bans on specific jobs for former officials. There is also a lack of specific information about what forms of employment conduct are, and are not, permissible. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/many-professions-have-codes-of-ethics-so-why-not-politics-113731">Many professions have codes of ethics - so why not politics?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This lack of specifics emerged as a notable problem in the recent cases involving <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-christopher-pyne-and-julie-bishop-fail-the-pub-test-with-their-new-jobs-119875">Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/31/andrew-robb-did-not-tell-prime-minister-about-role-with-chinese-company">Andrew Robb</a> after they took up new roles that raised questions after leaving office. </p>
<p>There were similar problems in earlier cases involving former Labor ministers who left office. This requires immediate remedy.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1220087626100690944"}"></div></p>
<p>In the two decades since the Howard code, new ways of thinking about integrity in public office – and ministerial conduct, in particular – have also emerged. </p>
<p>The common law offence of “misconduct in public office” has become extensively used in North America in cases involving unethical and prohibited conduct by government officials, such as abuse of office, bribe-taking, vote-buying, unlawful lobbying and conflicts of interest. </p>
<p>There has also been a major revival in the prosecution of this offence in the UK, Hong Kong and Australia in recent years, generally for corruption cases. </p>
<p>The offence now ranks as the charge of choice for anti-corruption investigators and prosecutors in a host of jurisdictions, yet it has been the subject of relatively little academic research or recent commentary.</p>
<h2>Personal responsibility for conduct</h2>
<p>But ethics standards can only do so much – MPs and former ministers, in particular, must also take responsibility for their own conduct, irrespective of any formal sanctions which might apply.</p>
<p>It is always the minister’s personal responsibility to uphold the letter and the spirit of the oath of office, because of what that oath represents.</p>
<p>As former US Senator Alan Simpson once said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you have integrity, nothing else matters. And if you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130372/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Howard Whitton is a Director of The Ethicos Group, and was one of the two co-authors (with George Thompson, then of Senator Faulkner's staff) of the original version of the 'Standards of Ministerial Ethics'. </span></em></p>Our government has grappled for years to devise ethical standards for ministers and other officials. But codes are only part of the answer – MPs must also take responsibility for their own conduct.Howard Whitton, Visiting Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1304742020-01-23T10:25:54Z2020-01-23T10:25:54ZGrattan on Friday: Bridget McKenzie has made herself a sitting duck<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311555/original/file-20200123-162185-1exoi4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bridget McKenzie's political future could be determined by Scott Morrison's inquiry into whether she breached ministerial standards.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bridget McKenzie’s future is looking bleak, her position having worsened significantly this week.</p>
<p>At its heart, the McKenzie affair is simple. Before last year’s election, the then-sports minister allocated grants to sporting organisations on an overtly political basis, rather than following the objective ranking determined by an assessment process under the program’s guidelines.</p>
<p>It was a clear misuse of taxpayers’ money.</p>
<p>Defences the government offered after she was exposed in last week’s blunt Audit Office report were spurious.</p>
<p>It insisted, for instance, this was different from the notorious “sports rorts” affair that claimed Keating government minister Ros Kelly, who’d famously used a “great big whiteboard” in her pork-barrelling operation. The truth is, it’s little different.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-need-strong-ethical-standards-for-ministers-and-better-ways-of-enforcing-them-130372">Why we need strong ethical standards for ministers – and better ways of enforcing them</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This week Nine newspapers revealed McKenzie had been given membership of a gun club she funded, and she failed to comply with declaration-of-interest provisions.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison could find it easier to get rid of McKenzie on the grounds of this non-disclosure than for rorting the grants scheme, which would involve the government admitting the impropriety of a pretty endemic practice.</p>
<p>The statement of ministerial standards, which covers disclosure, says a minister </p>
<blockquote>
<p>may be required to resign if the prime minister is satisfied that they have breached or failed to comply with these standards in a substantive and material manner.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In political terms the situation is complicated.</p>
<p>Prime ministers these days hate giving scalps to the opposition. And McKenzie’s blonde head has certain layers of protection.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-morrisons-miracle-election-win-and-labors-leadership-search-117746">VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Morrison's 'miracle' election win - and Labor's leadership search</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>She’s in cabinet not because she’s Morrison’s pick but as deputy leader of the Nationals, elected by her party. Unless Nationals’ leader Michael McCormack consented, Morrison could be stirring trouble with the junior Coalition partner if he insisted she go.</p>
<p>The Nationals could say: what about Liberal Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/26/a-timeline-of-angus-taylors-mystery-document-controversy">mired in the mess of an allegedly forged document</a>, currently being considered by the federal police?</p>
<p>Also, in distributing grants on a political basis McKenzie was likely acting according to the expectations of others around the government. MPs were lobbying for sporting organisations in their electorates. Morrison has admitted his office would have passed on representations (flagged in the Audit report).</p>
<p>The fact McKenzie is a senior woman adds to the political difficulty.</p>
<p>The prime minister has launched a couple of investigations into the affair.</p>
<p>Attorney-General Christian Porter is obtaining advice on whether McKenzie actually had the legal power to make the decisions herself – a question raised but not answered in the Audit Office report.</p>
<p>Crucially, Phil Gaetjens, secretary of the Prime Minister’s department, is examining whether she has breached the ministerial code (which on any ordinary reading she certainly has). </p>
<p>Everything is suddenly hanging on the Gaetjens’ probe. Morrison, who seems to have now noticeably distanced himself from McKenzie, said on Thursday: “I will look at that [Gaetjens] advice and take whatever action is necessary”. </p>
<p>Offsetting the downsides of ditching a senior minister, there could be benefits for the government if McKenzie went, beyond lancing this nasty boil.</p>
<p>There’s been speculation it could open the question of McCormack’s leadership but that’s unlikely. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bushfires-wont-change-climate-policy-overnight-but-morrison-can-shift-the-coalition-without-losing-face-129354">Bushfires won't change climate policy overnight. But Morrison can shift the Coalition without losing face</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>McKenzie, who’s been a poor performer, has sharp critics within her own party. If the Nationals made Water Resources Minister David Littleproud deputy and McCormack promoted one of the women newly elected last year (for example Perin Davey or Susan McDonald, both senators like McKenzie) that could strengthen their frontbench.</p>
<p>The removal of McKenzie would also provide the opportunity for a ministerial reshuffle, and a chance to shift Taylor. But would Morrison feel constrained, unwilling to concede a point to Taylor’s critics? Some say so.</p>
<p>Parliament meets the week after next, with the government in bad shape, thanks to Morrison’s missteps during the fires, the government’s defensiveness on climate change and the ministerial scandals.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/morrisons-approval-ratings-crash-over-bushfires-in-first-2020-newspoll-sanders-has-narrow-iowa-lead-129774">Morrison has taken a predictable polling hit</a> in the wake of his Hawaiian holiday and subsequent problems.</p>
<p>The longer-term risk for him is that some, perhaps many, voters have re-thought the generally positive views they had of him before the election. This goes deeper than just immediate criticism.</p>
<p>We can’t know whether he can erase this negative perception. But it does call for a rethink about his prime ministerial durability.</p>
<p>Remember how after his unexpected May victory there was much talk about Morrison being in the box seat for the 2022 election? Recent events suggest bets at least should be more heavily hedged.</p>
<p>Memories of Kelly also bring to mind the experience of Prime Minister Paul Keating. Like Morrison, Keating performed the political “miracle” of triumphing at what had appeared an unwinnable election.</p>
<p>In the same way as Morrison a generation later, Keating won in 1993 through his sheer ability as a campaigner, bolstered by the personal and policy vulnerability of his opponent.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/against-the-odds-scott-morrison-wants-to-be-returned-as-prime-minister-but-who-the-bloody-hell-is-he-116732">Against the odds, Scott Morrison wants to be returned as prime minister. But who the bloody hell is he?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But then Keating lost (by a big margin) in 1996. He’d dodged a bullet in 1993, but the electorate kept the gun loaded and fired when it saw no good reasons against doing so.</p>
<p>Few recent prime ministers have proved durable, even when they appeared set up to be.</p>
<p>Bob Hawke was, and John Howard too. But Kevin Rudd, after a strong win in 2007, was brought down in a party coup before he could fight the following election. It was all too late by the time Labor reluctantly reinstalled him, to replace the undurable Julia Gillard.</p>
<p>Tony Abbott followed the path of Rudd, winning from opposition only to be removed before the next election.</p>
<p>One might have expected the popular Malcolm Turnbull to have lasted. But no; after doing badly in 2016 he was ousted in 2018.</p>
<p>Morrison is fortunate on several fronts. His current troubles are early in the parliamentary term. A rule change he executed in the run-up to the election protects him from being brought down in a coup. Anyway, he hasn’t a rival hunting him.</p>
<p>On the other hand, despite being a relatively new PM, he is leading a government in its third term.</p>
<p>Morrison has plenty of time and opportunity to recover. But if the next election goes to Labor, this summer of actual and political disaster might be looked back upon as a decisive turning point.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130474/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 damaging longer-term risk for Prime Minister Scott Morrison is that some people have re-thought their view of him over the sports grants saga and his missteps in handling the bushfires.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1198752019-07-04T19:48:25Z2019-07-04T19:48:25ZWhy Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop fail the ‘pub test’ with their new jobs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282615/original/file-20190704-126391-1r4c0us.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Questions have been raised about the new private-sector roles of former ministers Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Labor has <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-says-julie-bishop-s-new-job-doesn-t-pass-pub-test">criticised</a> former ministers Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop for taking up new roles related to their government portfolios, saying these actions breach ministerial standards. </p>
<p>Pyne, the former defence minister, was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/26/christopher-pyne-takes-job-with-consulting-firm-ey-to-help-grow-defence-business">appointed</a> as defence consultant to consulting firm EY a month after leaving parliament, while Bishop, the former foreign minister, was <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/julie-bishop-joins-palladium-board-20190701-p5230f">appointed</a> to the board of the private overseas aid consultancy firm Palladium, less than a year after quitting the ministry. </p>
<p>Following the threat by Senator Rex Patrick to call a Senate inquiry into Pyne’s new job, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has sought <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-04/scott-morrison-orders-christopher-pyne-julie-bishop-job-review/11277978">advice</a> from the head of his department on whether there has been a breach of ministerial standards. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1145151617425014784"}"></div></p>
<h2>What do the ministerial standards say?</h2>
<p>Ministerial standards set out the standards of conduct expected of ministers. The principle underlying the standards is that ministers should uphold the public’s trust since they wield a great deal of power deriving from their public office.</p>
<p>Morrison’s <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement-ministerial-standards_1.pdf">statement of ministerial standards</a> proclaims</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All ministers and assistant ministers are expected to conduct themselves in line with standards established in this statement in order to maintain the trust of the Australian people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the cases of Pyne and Bishop, the standards further state that ministers must not “lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force” for 18 months after leaving parliament on matters they dealt with in their final 18 months as ministers.</p>
<p>It also prohibits ministers from taking personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a minister, where that information is not generally available to the public.</p>
<p>Pyne and Bishop have both <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/04/scott-morrison-seeks-advice-on-whether-christopher-pyne-breached-rules-over-defence-job">claimed</a> their new jobs are consistent with the ministerial standards. </p>
<p>Pyne <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/04/scott-morrison-seeks-advice-on-whether-christopher-pyne-breached-rules-over-defence-job">argued</a> that providing occasional high-level strategic advice in his new role at EY does not equate to lobbying or involve the use of information he had acquired in his portfolio.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cabinet-ministers-pyne-and-ciobo-set-to-head-out-door-112770">Cabinet ministers Pyne and Ciobo set to head out door</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Bishop, meanwhile, has <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/julie-bishop-criticised-over-job-move-20190702-p523df">defended her new role</a> by saying</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am obviously aware of the obligations of the ministerial guidelines and I am entirely confident that I am and will remain compliant with them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Regardless of their statements of assurances, it can be argued that neither of these new positions pass the “pub test.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1146195676428001280"}"></div></p>
<h2>Why should we have cooling-off periods for ministers?</h2>
<p>The Grattan Institute has <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">found</a> that one in four former ministers go on to take lucrative roles with special interest groups after leaving politics. </p>
<p>Likewise, as my co-authored <a href="https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2019-media-releases/icac-seeks-comment-on-lobbying-conduct-and-regulation-in-nsw">discussion paper</a> for the <a href="https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/">NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption</a> shows, more than one-third of lobbyists are former government representatives (that is, former politicians, senior public servants or ministerial advisers). </p>
<p>There is, thus, a well-established revolving door between government and lobbying due to the extensive and beneficial networks developed by public officials in the course of their duties.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-heads-roll-ministerial-standards-and-stuart-robert-54479">Will heads roll? Ministerial standards and Stuart Robert</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The post-ministerial employment restrictions have been put into place to reduce the risk of corruption and undue influence by former public officials-turned-lobbyists hoping to sway their former colleagues and underlings and influence public policy for the benefit of their clients. </p>
<p>There are three main ethical and democratic issues underlying this phenomenon. </p>
<p>The first is the possession of confidential information by former officials. </p>
<p>Second, there is the issue of a minister-turned-lobbyist’s access to and influence over key decision-makers in government – connections that can be used to benefit cheque-writing interest groups. </p>
<p>And third, there is the risk that powerful industry groups may approach ministers while they are still in office with promises of lucrative positions after politics if their grants or applications are approved.</p>
<p>Despite these issues, the cooling-off periods for ex-ministers who go on to lobbying roles have been historically <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/whos-in-the-room/">poorly enforced</a>. As a result, former politicians are often able to take up roles in breach of these post-employment restrictions without any repercussions. </p>
<p>For example, former Australian trade minister Andrew Robb <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/liberal-andrew-robb-took-880k-china-job-as-soon-as-he-left-parliament-20170602-gwje3e.html">walked into a $880,000-a-year consultancy</a> with Chinese company Landbridge five months after leaving parliament in 2016. The then-special minister of state <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-07/andrew-robb-china-consultancy-role-billionaire-scott-ryan/8596854">ruled</a> that this did not breach ministerial rules, claiming that someone with a broad portfolio like Robb should not be prohibited completely from work after they leave parliament. </p>
<h2>How can we fix the system?</h2>
<p>The post-employment separation requirements serve a legitimate purpose in reducing the risk of corruption and undue influence in our democracy. </p>
<p>The first step for the government to address the problem is to properly enforce the cooling-off periods. Having these requirements in ministerial standards does no good if prime ministers turn a blind eye to these kinds of appointments. We need to pass a law to give an independent commissioner the power to punish those who are in breach.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-barnaby-joyce-affair-highlights-australias-weak-regulation-of-ministerial-staffers-91744">The Barnaby Joyce affair highlights Australia's weak regulation of ministerial staffers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For example, Canada has a law mandating a <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-44-4th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-44-4th-supp.html">five-year post-separation period</a> for ministers, MPs, ministerial advisers and senior public servants before taking up positions as third-party or in-house lobbyists. This law is strongly enforced by an independent commissioner of lobbying. Breaches are an offence punishable by a C$50,000 fine. </p>
<p>Second, the rules need to be tightened to avoid technical arguments about compliance. For example, laws are needed to explicitly ban former ministers, their advisers and senior public servants from carrying out lobbying activities for a certain period of time, whether as individuals, or on behalf of organisations or corporations, including consulting firms. </p>
<p>More broadly, there is also a need for greater transparency in the lobbying industry – specifically, what types of individuals and organisations are successfully gaining access to and influencing government. </p>
<p>Due to concerns over this, the NSW ICAC has launched a <a href="https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2019-media-releases/icac-seeks-comment-on-lobbying-conduct-and-regulation-in-nsw">public inquiry</a> into the regulation of political lobbying called “Operation Eclipse.” The outcome of this inquiry should provide many options for reform at both the federal and state levels.</p>
<p>The regulation of the revolving door between politicians and lobbying groups has been extraordinarily weak in Australia. The phenomenon of ministers taking up plum positions that create actual or perceived conflicts of interest has continued unabated for many years. </p>
<p>To restore public trust in government, it is time to tighten the rules and be serious about enforcement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119875/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng receives funding from the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption for Operation Eclipse (an inquiry into the regulation of political lobbying). </span></em></p>One in four former ministers go on to take lucrative roles with special interest groups after leaving politics. Our current standards regulating this practice aren’t being enforced adequately.Yee-Fui Ng, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/919792018-02-16T02:00:39Z2018-02-16T02:00:39ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on sex, scandals and strained relationships in the government<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-pDaTEK_38w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Michelle Grattan sits down with University of Canberra vice-chancellor Deep Saini to review the week in politics. They discuss Barnaby Joyce’s future amid increasing pressure from the media and his colleagues, and Malcolm Turnbull’s announcement of a ban of sexual relationships between ministers and their staff. </p>
<p>They also talk about a big issue that was swamped this week – the release of the Closing the Gap report on the tenth anniversary of Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91979/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>Michelle Grattan sits down with Deep Saini to review the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraPaddy Nixon, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/917442018-02-13T04:31:22Z2018-02-13T04:31:22ZThe Barnaby Joyce affair highlights Australia’s weak regulation of ministerial staffers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206089/original/file-20180213-58315-1i9gpqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barnaby Joyce has denied he breached ministerial standards with the employment of his partner, Vikki Campion.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-13/barnaby-joyce-upcoming-role-acting-pm-unsustainable-labor-says/9425426">continues to face questions</a> about the employment of his former media adviser – now current partner – Vicki Campion. Campion left Joyce’s office last year to take another ministerial adviser position with Resources Minister Matthew Canavan, and then with Nationals whip Damian Drum.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/no-breach-for-joyce-over-campion-jobs-as-she-wasn-t-his-partner-pm-s-office">has claimed</a> Joyce did not breach the <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/statement-ministerial-standards">Statement of Ministerial Standards</a> regarding employment of spouses and family members as Campion was not his partner at the time of her appointment. Joyce has <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/defiant-barnaby-joyce-denies-breaching-ministerial-rules-threatens-legal-action">also denied</a> he breached the ministerial rules.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-moves-in-on-the-barnaby-joyce-affair-91632">Labor moves in on the Barnaby Joyce affair</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is the role of ministerial staffers?</h2>
<p>Ministerial advisers are politically partisan staff who are personally appointed by ministers to work out of their private offices.</p>
<p>These advisers have become an integral part of the political landscape in the last 40 years. The number of Commonwealth ministerial staff <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/fapactte/estimates/sup1516/finance/index">increased</a> from 155 in 1972 to 423 in 2015.</p>
<p>The advisers undertake a wide range of functions. Tony Nutt, a former senior ministerial staffer, <a href="http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781760020637">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a ministerial adviser deals with the press. A ministerial adviser handles the politics. A ministerial adviser talks to the union. All of that happens every day of the week, everywhere in Australia all the time. Including, frankly, the odd bit of, you know, ancient Spanish practices and a bit of bastardry on the way through. That’s all the nature of politics. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>How do they fit in our system of government?</h2>
<p>The modern Westminster ministerial advisory system is built on the 1853 <a href="http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/1854_Northcote_Trevelyan_Report.pdf">Northcote-Trevelyan report</a> in Britain. </p>
<p>In the 18th and early 19th century, it was difficult to be appointed to a UK government office unless you were an aristocrat with the right connections to a very small elite. The Northcote-Trevelyan report rejected appointment based on patronage. It argued this led to difficulties in getting a good supply of employees in the public service compared to other professions.</p>
<p>This report forms the basis of the Westminster public service today. Public servants are expected to be neutral and apolitical, and recruited and promoted on the basis of merit. The intention was very much to purge the system of patronage.</p>
<p>Ministerial advisers pose a challenge to the Westminster system as they are largely recruited on a partisan basis and are expected to be politically committed to the government of the day. This undermines the intentions of having ministerial advisers who are recruited on the basis of merit, rather than patronage. </p>
<h2>How are ministerial staff appointed?</h2>
<p>Australian ministerial advisers are employed under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00540">Members of Parliament (Staff) Act</a> as ministers’ personal staff.</p>
<p>The employing minister determines the employment terms and conditions of ministerial advisers; the prime minister can vary these. The law is sparse and does not stipulate any precise requirements in terms of staff appointments.</p>
<p>In practice, the appointment of ministerial advisers is based on a party-political network of patronage. The primary consideration is loyalty to the political party – not merit. </p>
<p>There have been notorious instances of the appointment of unsuitable staff. These include then deputy prime minister Jim Cairns’ appointment of his mistress, Junie Morosi, as his principal private secretary (although she was considered spectacularly unqualified for her position).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-is-barnabys-baby-a-matter-of-public-interest-or-just-of-interest-to-the-public-91507">Grattan on Friday: Is Barnaby's baby a matter of 'public interest' or just of interest to the public?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some prime ministers have instituted a <a href="http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781760020637">centralised process</a> to reduce the appointment of unsuitable candidates. However, <a href="http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781760020637">my research</a> has shown that some senior ministers are able to circumvent such a process due to their position within the party. </p>
<p>Also, these processes primarily seek to filter candidates based on political danger – rather than on merit considerations. </p>
<h2>Is there a breach of the rules in Joyce’s case?</h2>
<p>Turnbull’s <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement_ministerial_standards.pdf">Statement of Ministerial Standards</a> provides that ministers’ close relatives and partners are banned from being appointed to positions in their ministerial or electorate offices. They also must not be employed in the offices of other members of the executive government without the prime minister’s express approval.</p>
<p>Joyce and Campion claim their relationship started after her appointment – so the government has argued this clause does not apply. </p>
<p>However, the ministerial standards also specify that ministers must declare any private interests held by them or members of their immediate family. And under the <a href="http://www.smos.gov.au/resources/statement-of-standards.html">Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff</a>, ministerial advisers have to disclose – and take reasonable steps to avoid – any real or apparent conflicts of interest connected with their employment. Staff are required to provide their employing minister and the special minister of state with a statement of private interests.</p>
<p>Therefore, the relationship between Joyce and Campion should have been disclosed when it arose, as there might have been an apparent conflict of interest connected with Joyce’s ministerial position. It is then up to the prime minister to decide what is to happen following this.</p>
<p>But both the standards for ministers and for their advisers are not legislated. They are not enforceable in the courts or in parliament. Enforcement is handled completely within the executive, which has an incentive to bury embarrassing material wherever possible.</p>
<p>This means any breaches of the standards by ministers and their advisers would be handled behind closed doors, without any formal scrutiny by parliament or any external bodies.</p>
<p>The enforcement of ministerial and adviser standards has been patchy. Whether a minister resigns depends on the prime minister of the day and if there is media furore and public outrage over an issue.</p>
<h2>Are the rules too lax?</h2>
<p>The legislation governing the employment of advisers is sparse and limited to affirming ministers’ powers to employ their advisers. Beyond this, there is no legislative requirement for ministerial advisers to adhere to certain behavioural rules.</p>
<p>The weak appointment rules have allowed Campion to be shuffled around different offices without a formal appointment process. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Rise-of-Political-Advisors-in-the-Westminster-System/Ng/p/book/9780415787482">Other Westminster countries</a> have stricter restrictions on the employment of advisers, either through a cap on the number of advisers (as in the UK) or a cap on the total budget for advisers (as in Canada). </p>
<p>The UK has a cap of two advisers per minister. Australia has no such limits. </p>
<p>Australia has the weakest regulation of ministerial staff when compared to other similar Westminster democracies. Other countries have stricter regulations that both restrict the actions of advisers and increase transparency.</p>
<p>Australian ministerial staff are now very important players in our democracy, but ministers and advisers are weakly regulated within our system. The law has lagged behind, but now is the time for reform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng 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 appointment of ministerial advisers is based on a party-political network of patronage, where the primary consideration is loyalty to the political party – not merit.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/898772018-01-09T13:43:13Z2018-01-09T13:43:13ZIs that it? How Theresa May fumbled her cabinet reshuffle<p>After much anticipation, Prime Minister Theresa May has finally reshuffled her cabinet. The New Year changes were a delayed response to the resignation of <a href="https://theconversation.com/damian-green-resigns-and-theresa-may-cant-afford-to-lose-any-more-ministers-89505">Damian Green</a>, the former first secretary of state, who was sacked in December for breaching the Ministerial Code. </p>
<p>May had already lost two senior ministers in November. First, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/michael-fallon-quits-as-defence-secretary">Michael Fallon</a> quit as defence secretary amid allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards women, and then <a href="https://theconversation.com/priti-patel-exit-highlights-weakness-of-theresa-mays-government-87056">Priti Patel</a> was sacked as international development secretary after holding a series of undisclosed meetings with Israeli politicians. Perhaps confident that no more ministers would be caught up in allegations of sexual harassment, the prime minister took Green’s departure as an opportunity to refresh her front team.</p>
<p>Like most major reshuffles, this one was preceded by much speculation – but in the event it was a damp squib. </p>
<p>May has increased the number of cabinet attendees to 29, but 24 of them are old faces. They include Julian Smith, who replaced Gavin Williamson as chief whip following the latter’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41844320">promotion to defence secretary</a> in November, and Penny Mordaunt, who replaced Patel as international development secretary. In addition to Green’s earlier departure, three ministers left the cabinet: Patrick McLoughlin, the party chairman; James Brokenshire, the Northern Ireland secretary, who stepped down for health reasons; and Justine Greening, the education secretary.</p>
<p>A few ministers have changed jobs, but 20 of May’s 29 cabinet attendees hold
essentially the same portfolio as before, and, crucially, there has been no change at the top: Philip Hammond remains chancellor, Amber Rudd home secretary, Boris Johnson foreign secretary and David Davis Brexit secretary. As <a href="https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/950472504388345857">Tory grandee Nicholas Soames</a> tweeted: “Is that it?”</p>
<p>The reshuffle looks especially limited when compared with May’s first reshuffle. Back in July 2016, after succeeding David Cameron, she launched her premiership with one of the most <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx001">wide-ranging reshuffles</a> of any incoming prime minister, dismissing or demoting no fewer than 13 of her erstwhile cabinet colleagues – most notably George Osborne and Michael Gove. Only 15 of the 27 ministers who attended her cabinet, including May herself, had attended Cameron’s last cabinet. Only five of them retained their job or portfolio.</p>
<p>The present reshuffle is closer in scale to May’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/11/hung-parliament-dup-boris-johnson-leadership-theresa-may-dismisses-as-tripe-claims-he-is-launching-leadership-bid">second</a>, which came in the wake of the 2017 general election. She was obliged to replace Ben Gummer, who had lost his Ipswich seat; she brought back Gove as environment secretary and brought in Brandon Lewis as the immigration minister. Overall, however, no fewer than 26 of her 28 post-election cabinet attendees had attended before polling day, and 21 of them retained their previous portfolios.</p>
<h2>Failure to deliver</h2>
<p>Reshuffles are a very public exercise in prime ministerial power. One-time cabinet minister Richard Crossman once <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7IK7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22Each+minister+fighting+in+the+Cabinet+for+his+department%22&source=bl&ots=zZxAnt3VfH&sig=9U826tqyMPT7wWoxZ3ahS1kbXmY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihocDP0MrYAhWGmLQKHZcCCGcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Each%20minister%20fighting%20in%20the%20Cabinet%20for%20his%20department%22&f=false">told an audience at Harvard</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Each minister fighting in the Cabinet for his department can be sacked by the prime minister any day … I am aware that I am there at the prime minister’s discretion. The prime minister can withdraw that discretion on any day he likes without stating a reason. And there’s nothing much I can do about it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But reshuffles can also be a very public reminder of the limits of prime ministerial power. A prime minister’s ability to wield the knife <a href="https://measuringleadership.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/what-is-leadership-capital/">waxes and wanes</a> with their personal authority. Whereas most prime ministers overhaul their governments after <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/camerons-post-election-reshuffle-a-historical-perspective">winning re-election</a>, May’s loss of her parliamentary majority at the recent general election meant she was simply unable to. Her immediate future was in doubt, and any sacked or reluctantly moved ministers could have taken the opportunity to challenge her leadership.</p>
<p>The same factors that constrained the prime minister in June 2017 tied her hands this January. She was unable to persuade Jeremy Hunt to move from the Department of Health, and she was unable to persuade Greening to move from Education to the Department for Work and Pensions. Hunt stayed in post, Greening quit the government outright. May could just about afford to lose one cabinet minister in this way, but with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/20/damian-green-resigns-as-first-secretary-of-state-after-porn-allegations">Damien Green’s ignominious departure</a> only weeks before, other planned sackings were almost certainly shelved.</p>
<p>On the positive side, May has gone some way to broadening the look of her cabinet. She’s increased the number of women attending from eight to ten. She might also have helped to assuage the concerns of her party’s troublesome eurosceptic wing by slightly increasing the proportion of Leavers around the cabinet table.</p>
<p>On the other hand, May has done little to enhance her reputation and prestige. Having raised expectations of wholesale change, she has now failed to deliver; by failing to move Hunt and others, she has exposed the limits of her authority. Perhaps more importantly, the departure of Greening adds another unhappy former minister and potential Remainer rebel to the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-rebellion-could-open-the-floodgates-on-a-weak-prime-minister-89188">restive backbenches</a>. The parliamentary arithmetic was already tight for May’s government – and now it’s just a little bit tighter.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89877/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Allen 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 Theresa May proved a bit of a push over instead of wielding the axe in her cabinet reshuffle.Nicholas Allen, Reader in Politics, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/863992017-10-26T23:33:47Z2017-10-26T23:33:47ZThe case of Michaelia Cash and her leaking adviser illustrates a failure of ministerial responsibility<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191960/original/file-20171026-28036-pjf32w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Michaelia Cash has refused to resign over misleading parliament, claiming she was unaware of one of her staffer’s actions.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal opposition is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/michaelia-cash-clings-to-job-as-malcolm-turnbull-backs-her-in-20171026-gz8te3.html">continuing to call</a> for Employment Minister Michaelia Cash’s resignation, claiming she misled parliament this week after repeatedly telling a Senate estimates committee that neither she nor her office had any involvement in tipping off the media about a police raid.</p>
<p>Cash’s senior media adviser, David De Garis, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/25/michaelia-cash-and-the-rogue-staffer-when-political-theatre-goes-off-script">later confessed</a> he had leaked information about the raid on the Australian Workers Union’s offices to the press. Cash retracted her statements and <a href="https://theconversation.com/cash-staff-member-quits-over-media-tip-offs-as-awu-affair-backfires-86357">De Garis resigned</a>. </p>
<p>Labor frontbencher Tony Burke <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-25/cash-staffer-resigns-over-awu-raids/9086214">argued</a> that “the wrong person has resigned”. But Cash has refused to resign, claiming she was unaware of her staffer’s actions. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/michaelia-cash-clings-to-job-as-malcolm-turnbull-backs-her-in-20171026-gz8te3.html">has defended</a> Cash, saying she acted properly.</p>
<h2>Who are these advisers?</h2>
<p>Ministerial advisers are partisan staff who are personally appointed by ministers and work out of the ministers’ private offices. </p>
<p>The number of Commonwealth ministerial staff <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/fapactte/estimates/sup1516/finance/index">has increased</a> over the years from 155 in 1972 to 423 in 2015. </p>
<p>Ministerial advisers undertake a wide range of functions. Tony Nutt, a long-time former adviser, <a href="http://www.monash.edu/news/opinions/what-lessons-can-we-draw-from-the-leaked-tapes-crisis">has said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a ministerial adviser deals with the press. A ministerial adviser handles the politics. A ministerial adviser talks to the union. All of that happens every day of the week, everywhere in Australia all the time. Including frankly, the odd bit of, you know, ancient Spanish practices and a bit of bastardry on the way through. That’s all the nature of politics.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The question is what happens if advisers overstep their roles? </p>
<h2>Ministerial responsibility and political advisers</h2>
<p>According to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, ministers are responsible to parliament for the acts of their departments. </p>
<p>British academic Sir Ivor Jennings <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/711704">wrote</a> that the “act of every civil servant is by convention regarded as the act of the minister”. And British MP Lord Morrison <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Canadian_Constitutional_Conventions.html?id=RpfTngEACAAJ&redir_esc=y">proclaimed</a> that the “minister is responsible for every stamp stuck on an envelope”. </p>
<p>But it is doubtful that this principle has ever reflected reality. It is rare for ministers to resign or even accept responsibility for the actions of their department, where they were not personally involved.</p>
<p>Ministers should also technically take responsibility for the actions of advisers in their own offices, who are at an even higher level of direct ministerial control than departments.</p>
<p>Even more than public servants, advisers are seen to be acting as alter egos of their ministers. This means ministers should be accountable to parliament for the actions of their advisers – even those they did not authorise. </p>
<p>But what happens in reality is that ministers tend to use their advisers as scapegoats and blame them for controversial events. This is consistent with <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/PublicChoiceTheory.html">“public choice” theory</a>, which predicts that politicians have the incentive to deflect all the blame that comes in their direction while accepting the credit for anything that goes right.</p>
<h2>How are advisers regulated?</h2>
<p>Australia has <a href="https://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781760020637">inadequate legal and political regulation</a> of ministerial advisers. They are subject to a <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement_ministerial_standards.pdf">Statement of Standards</a>, which sets out the standards they are supposed to meet in preforming their duties. </p>
<p>Sanctions under the standards are handled internally within the executive through the Prime Minister’s Office. This means any breaches of the standards by ministerial advisers would be handled behind closed doors, without the scrutiny of parliament or any external bodies. </p>
<p>Ministerial advisers have <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/BWhmTMdqgKaAj7cNcvDX/full">also refused</a> to appear before parliamentary committees on their minister’s instruction. This has impeded the investigations of significant parliamentary committees, including the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/report.pdf">Children Overboard affair</a>.</p>
<p>Australia thus has minimal legal and political regulation of ministerial advisers. This has led to an accountability deficit, where ministers have been able to utilise their advisers to escape responsibility for public controversies and scandals.</p>
<h2>How can we fix the system?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.bookdepository.com/Rise-Political-Advisors-Westminster-System-Yee-Fui-Ng/9780415787482">Other Westminster jurisdictions</a> have more stringent regulation of political advisers. </p>
<p>There are a few forms of regulation of advisers. The first is restrictions on the employment of advisers, either through a cap on the numbers of advisers, as in the UK, or a cap on the total budget for advisers, as in Canada. </p>
<p>Second, regulations can restrict the actions of advisers themselves. For example, in the UK, there is a prohibition on advisers leaking confidential or sensitive information, which would have been applicable in this scandal.</p>
<p>Canada has post-employment restrictions banning advisers from becoming lobbyists for five years after ceasing their employment. </p>
<p>Third, transparency measures also exist, such as requirements that departments disclose all meetings that advisers have with the media (as in the UK) and what hospitality these advisers receive (in the UK and Canada). </p>
<p>Ideally, the Australian regulatory framework should be reformed so it is policed externally from the core executive. In Canada, the conflict of interest and lobbying provisions are policed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who has been independent and ready to criticise the government. </p>
<p>And, in the UK, <a href="http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/2014_Osmotherly_Rules.pdf">the rules</a> provide for political advisers to appear before parliamentary committees. Similar guidelines could be drafted to facilitate the appearance of advisers before Australian parliamentary committees. </p>
<p>In the last 40 years, ministerial advisers have become an integral part of Australia’s system of government. But the law and rules have lagged behind, and our system should be reformed to ensure greater accountability.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng 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>Australia’s minimal legal and political regulation of ministerial advisers has led to an accountability deficit.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/709932017-01-09T03:22:18Z2017-01-09T03:22:18ZSussan Ley and the Gold Coast apartment: murky rules mean age of entitlement isn’t over for MPs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152056/original/image-20170108-18656-1hwwdr1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sussan Ley was under pressure to resign following claims she misused her travel entitlements and breached the ministerial standards.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sussan Ley has <a href="http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/travel-claims-by-the-minister-for-health">stood aside</a> as health minister while the prime minister’s department investigates her travel expenses. This move followed <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/01/08/sorry-health-minister-to-front-the-taxpayer-again-over-alleged/">increased pressure</a> on her to resign following claims she misused her travel entitlements and breached the ministerial standards.</p>
<p>In 2015, Ley travelled to Queensland to make an announcement at a breast cancer clinic as part of her ministerial role. During her trip, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/this-is-not-the-time-of-year-to-submit-to-the-pub-test-minister-20170106-gtn57v.html">she bought</a> a A$795,000 Gold Coast apartment at an auction from a Liberal donor, which was said to be “neither planned nor anticipated”. Ley claimed $3,125 of taxpayer money for that trip. </p>
<p>She has also made <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-09/sussan-leys-taxpayer-funded-new-years-eve-trips-unanswered/8169000">multiple other taxpayer-funded trips</a> to the Gold Coast in the last three years. Eighteen of these cost the taxpayer $53,877.</p>
<p>Prior to standing aside, Ley <a href="http://sussanley.com/media-statement-2/">apologised</a> and agreed to repay the travel expenses for the 2015 Gold Coast trip, plus three other trips with irregularities. She said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have spoken to the prime minister and he agrees that this claim does not meet the high standards he expects of ministers. I apologise for the error of judgement.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Has Ley breached the ministerial standards?</h2>
<p>Ministerial standards set out the rules by which ministers are expected to conduct themselves. The principle underlying them is that ministers should uphold the public’s trust as they wield a great deal of power deriving from their office.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s <a href="https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement_ministerial_standards.pdf">statement of ministerial standards</a> proclaims:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ministers and assistant ministers are entrusted with the conduct of public business and must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The standards provide that ministers are expected to be able to demonstrate that their actions in conducting public business were taken “with the sole objective of advancing the public interest”. </p>
<p>The standards also say ministers must scrupulously ensure the legitimacy and accuracy for any entitlement claims. This is because they are given resources at public expense that should not be used wastefully.</p>
<p>It is unclear whether Ley has breached the ministerial standards. She will have breached the standards if she was found not to be acting in the public interest, or if her entitlement claims are judged to be illegitimate. But the rules on claiming ministerial entitlements are unclear and very complex.</p>
<p>Ministers have to travel to perform official duties relating to their portfolio. Public funds should be provided to allow them to carry out their duties effectively and without impediment. Ley’s trip to announce the availability of new medicines and to meet with patients would seem to be within her purview as health minister. </p>
<p>The key issue here is that Ley has travelled for dual purposes, one public and one private. As <a href="http://sussanley.com/media-statement-2/">she has acknowledged</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While attending an auction was not the reason for my visit to Queensland or the Gold Coast, I completely understand this changed the context of the travel undertaken. The distinction between public and private business should be as clear as possible when dealing with taxpayers’ money.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But the parliamentary entitlements system is unclear about trips for dual purposes. There is no definition of “parliamentary business”. The definition of “official business” gives no guidance on trips with mixed public and private purposes. </p>
<p>So, it is not clear whether Ley has misused the entitlements system and therefore breached ministerial standards.</p>
<h2>Do we need to reform the system?</h2>
<p>It is unsatisfactory that the parliamentary entitlements system is so amorphous that we cannot easily work out whether ministers have breached the rules or not. </p>
<p>Then-speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s 2015 <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/bronwyn-bishop-stands-down-as-speaker/6666172">“Choppergate scandal”</a> prompted an <a href="http://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/independent-parliamentary-entitlements-system-review-feb-2016.pdf">independent review</a> of parliamentary entitlements. It proposed a new “dominant purpose” test: that is, whether the dominant purpose of the travel is for ministerial or parliamentary duties and not in another capacity. </p>
<p>The rationale behind the test is that ministers should not seek to disguise as official business an activity whose dominant purpose is personal or commercial. This reform is a much-needed step toward improving accountability over MPs’ entitlements.</p>
<p>The Turnbull government <a href="https://theconversation.com/choppergate-no-more-what-the-review-of-politicians-entitlements-will-mean-56196">has agreed</a> to adopt the recommendations of the review. But as Ley’s actions happened before the review, she will be judged under the previous rules. </p>
<p>Another issue with the system is that the prime minister enforces ministerial standards, rather than an independent authority. Such enforcement of ministerial standards has been patchy and inconsistent.</p>
<p>Whether a minister resigns depends on the prime minister of the day and if there is media furore and public outrage over an issue. It is ultimately politics rather than principle that determines which ministers stand and which fall. </p>
<p>This could be improved by giving responsibility for enforcement of ministerial standards to an external agency. This has been done in Ireland, where the <a href="http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/">Standards in Public Office Commission</a> supervises politicians’ compliance with Ireland’s Ethics Acts.</p>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>If the prime minister finds that a minister has breached the standards in a substantive and material way, he or she can require the minister’s resignation.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull has asked his departmental secretary, Martin Parkinson, to thoroughly investigate Ley’s travel claims. Her fate rests on the outcome of that investigation and any subsequent media attention.</p>
<p>As holders of high elected office, ministers are the custodians of public trust. But Australia’s current entitlements system for MPs is out of step with public expectations. We need a robust system of parliamentary entitlements and active enforcement of ministerial standards to help restore trust.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng 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 is unclear whether stood-aside minister Sussan Ley has breached the ministerial standards over her travel expenses. And the rules on claiming entitlements are unclear and very complex.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/545492016-02-11T19:02:12Z2016-02-11T19:02:12ZGrattan on Friday: The Nationals install a ‘Barnaby whisperer’ as they pass on the family farm<p>In some circles they call Fiona Nash the “Barnaby whisperer”. It’s said she’s able to calm him down.</p>
<p>In electing Nash their new deputy, out of a field of seven candidates, the Nationals have acted wisely.</p>
<p>They have installed their first female deputy – a good move when there has been lots of talk about the need to get more women into higher political places. They’ve put in someone who should carry good electoral appeal.</p>
<p>And, perhaps especially important, they have given Joyce an offsider who is likely to make him more effective.</p>
<p>When Joyce has a poor relationship with people it can end in tears, as happened with a former head of his department. If the ballot had installed someone who wasn’t a natural ally, things could have gone awry.</p>
<p>Joyce and Nash worked closely when he was a senator, and he has been a supporter of hers.</p>
<p>The role will be a challenge for Nash, however. She has not been regarded as a particularly strong performer as a portfolio minister. She’s currently rural health minister but as a cabinet minister she will likely be in a new and more demanding portfolio. She will need to sharpen her policy skills.</p>
<p>After a long, agonising period of speculation about Warren Truss’ future, the Nationals – who change leaders rarely – contained the obvious tensions around the transition. In the end, Joyce didn’t face a contest – his putative opponent, Michael McCormack, backed off. </p>
<p>The Queensland Nationals, having had the leadership, are angry they couldn’t get the deputyship, but they must know they did not have a credible candidate. On the whole, the Nationals “family” managed to hand the farm to the next generation with some aplomb.</p>
<p>Things were messier on other fronts within the government.</p>
<p>In just the past week, Malcolm Turnbull has walked away from a major tax mix switch and been forced to have his departmental head inquire into whether one of his ministers, Stuart Robert, breached the code of conduct.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s government has attracted some “barnacles” surprisingly quickly, and he’s been busy scraping them off before they corrode the ship.</p>
<p>His ditching of the GST rise, which had been trailed so conspicuously by Treasurer Scott Morrison, disappointed the reforming purists, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/treasury-modelling-shows-no-growth-lift-from-gst-tax-mix-switch-54574">Treasury modelling</a> put out by the government on Friday morning shows there was little choice. A switch would produce no growth dividend, according to the modelling, which is broadly backed by similar work commissioned by the government from two private firms.</p>
<p>On these figures, the tax mix switch would be just not saleable - or indeed worthwhile. Turnbull rather danced around issuing the formal death certificate, but Industry Minister Christopher Pyne was blunt on Thursday. “There won’t be a [higher] goods and services tax,” he told parliament.</p>
<p>Despatching the GST increase clears the decks, but it doesn’t give the government a solid and marketable tax package. There are multiple problems ahead, as the government battles to slice and tighten concessions and find other ways to produce funds for modest income tax relief. A higher GST would have brought an enormous public backlash but even without it there will be plenty of screams from those who lose something in the final package.</p>
<p>When you are trying to deal with this and other difficult and politically sensitive policy conundrums, it is not the ideal time to have to reshuffle your ministry – which has been necessitated by ministerial scandals as well as the Nationals’ changeover.</p>
<p>Scandals are always unfortunate for a leader but crucial is how they are handled. Turnbull brought the Mal Brough affair on himself by appointing him when Brough was under a cloud. In contrast, Turnbull quickly got rid of Jamie Briggs over his inappropriate behaviour towards a female public servant. Now he needs to act decisively against Robert, and is expected to do so.</p>
<p>The Robert affair cast a sleazy pall over the parliamentary week. It’s obvious that Robert, a big fundraiser for the Liberals, has been all too anxious to please Paul Marks, a generous donor to the party. On private leave, Robert in 2014 was at a signing ceremony in China involving Marks’ company. </p>
<p>The year before he organised, at Marks’ behest, a dinner at Parliament House for a wealthy Chinese businessman to meet Tony Abbott, then-opposition leader, and other Liberal luminaries (at which the businessman gave out designer watches that the politicians, showing a streak of naivety, wrongly assumed were fake).</p>
<p>The ever-optimistic Turnbull will see the reshuffle as an opportunity, and indeed it is. It’s a chance to get some new talent onto the frontbench, and to fine-tune the existing team. The elevation of Nash means there is automatically another woman in cabinet.</p>
<p>Turnbull wants the reshuffle done as quickly as possible. The government has recently been looking ragged, and he needs to settle it down.</p>
<p>So far, despite the untidiness and worse, the Turnbull ship has taken relatively little water. The reaction to the shift on the GST, and to the scandals, would have been far worse if they had happened under the former prime minister – or for that matter the one before him.</p>
<p>Politics is about comparisons and Turnbull is lucky – he’s judged against his predecessor, Abbott, and his opponent, Bill Shorten. The verdict comes out in his favour.</p>
<p>But there are questions starting to be asked about him – such as what he really stands for and what is he delivering.</p>
<p>He is still being given the benefit of the doubt. But he can’t afford more distractions. The policy work is getting harder and time is running out.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/ex7gw-5c8852?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/ex7gw-5c8852?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/z5fkc-5c7fd7?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/z5fkc-5c7fd7?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54549/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>In some circles they call Fiona Nash the “Barnaby whisperer”. It’s said she’s able to calm him down. In electing Nash their new deputy the Nationals have acted wisely.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/544792016-02-11T00:10:47Z2016-02-11T00:10:47ZWill heads roll? Ministerial standards and Stuart Robert<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110956/original/image-20160210-12143-ew4g58.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Labor has accused Stuart Robert of breaching ministerial guidelines by misusing public office.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Human Services Minister Stuart Robert continues to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-services-minister-stuart-robert-refuses-to-answer-key-questions-about-china-trip-20160209-gmpiqk.html">face questions</a> about a 2014 trip to China, where he met senior Chinese government officials and attended the signing of a mining deal involving his close friend and major Liberal Party donor, Paul Marks, and Chinese company Minmetals. </p>
<p>Minmetals issued a <a href="http://www.minmetals.com/english/News/201505/t20150528_68729.html">press release</a> trumpeting the involvement of Robert – then assistant minister for defence. Although Robert <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/stuart-roberts-900-taxpayer-bill-on-way-to-china/news-story/a5aa1c030c0d617eaa0a346056850a29">has claimed</a> this was a private trip, the press release said he was at the signing ceremony “on behalf of the Australian Department of Defence”. Robert <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/secret-china-deal-puts-federal-mp-stuart-robert-under-pressure/news-story/93814fd0d2349fc64be07565cfac7992">owns shares</a> in companies linked to Marks.</p>
<p>The opposition has accused Robert of breaching ministerial guidelines by misusing public office. </p>
<p>While Robert asserted that he <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-09/stuart-robert-confident-he-'acted-appropriately'-on-china-trip/7153540">“acted appropriately”</a>, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has asked the secretary of his department, Martin Parkinson, to report on whether Robert breached the ministerial standards.</p>
<h2>So, what are the ministerial standards?</h2>
<p>Ministerial standards set out the standards of conduct expected of ministers. The principle underlying the standards is that ministers should uphold the public’s trust as they wield a great deal of power deriving from their public office.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s <a href="https://www.dpmc.gov.au/pmc/publication/statement-ministerial-standards">Statement of Ministerial Standards</a> proclaims:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ministers and assistant ministers are entrusted with the conduct of public business and must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The standards prevent ministers from giving advice or assistance to private enterprises in their official capacity as ministers – other than in a disinterested manner. Ministers must also avoid conflicts of interest arising from their shareholdings.</p>
<p>Under the standards, ministers must resign if they are convicted of a criminal offence or if the prime minister finds that they have breached the standards in a substantive and material way. </p>
<p>In 1998, John Howard became the first prime minister to establish a ministerial guide. Breaches of Howard’s <a href="http://www.accountabilityrt.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/The-original-Howard-Guide.pdf">A Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility</a> led to six ministerial resignations. </p>
<p>When Kevin Rudd came into office, he released new <a href="http://transparency.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Dec-2007-Aust-Federal-Govt-Standards-of-Ministerial-Ethics.pdf">Standards of Ministerial Ethics</a>. Rudd’s standards imposed stronger obligations on ministers, including new rules on dealing with lobbyists. Under Rudd, one minister – <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/joel-fitzgibbon-resigns-as-defence-minister-20090604-bwjs.html">Joel Fitzgibbon</a> – resigned for breaching the standards. </p>
<p>Julia Gillard adopted similar ministerial standards, but there were no resignations. </p>
<p>In 2013, Tony Abbott issued a <a href="https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/Statement_of_Ministerial_Standards.pdf">Statement of Ministerial Standards</a>. These had more stringent requirements, forbidding ministers from employing family members in their ministerial or electorate offices. In Abbott’s time in office, an assistant minister – Arthur Sinodinos – <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-19/arthur-sinodinos-stands-aside-as-assistant-treasurer/5331388">stood aside</a> pending investigations by a state anti-corruption body.</p>
<p>There has already been one ministerial resignation and one minister standing aside on Turnbull’s watch. Turnbull <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/jamie-briggs-inappropriate-bar-incident-was-serious-malcolm-turnbull-20151230-glx0bv.html">found</a> that Cities Minister Jamie Briggs’ behaviour on an overseas trip breached the ministerial standards and “did not live up to the standard required of ministers”, prompting Briggs’ resignation.</p>
<p>Special Minister of State Mal Brough <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/minister-mal-brough-resigns-over-peter-slipper-police-inquiry-20151229-glw90i.html">stepped aside</a> pending the outcome of a police investigation into his alleged role in copying the diaries of former Speaker Peter Slipper.</p>
<p>Ministerial standards are one element of an interlocking ministerial integrity system involving the operation of criminal laws and a lobbying code of conduct, alongside parliamentary and ombudsman scrutiny.</p>
<h2>Are they effective?</h2>
<p>The prime minister promotes and enforces ministerial standards. Turnbull’s standards give him the power to decide whether a minister should stand aside if the minister is officially investigated for illegal or improper conduct. </p>
<p>The prime minister can change the standards at any time. Ministerial standards do not have any legal effect and cannot be enforced in a court. </p>
<p>Prime ministerial enforcement of ministerial standards has been patchy. Whether a minister resigns depends on the prime minister of the day and if there is media furore and public outrage over an issue. This will likely determine if Robert becomes the next Turnbull minister to fall on his sword.</p>
<p>The standards are an important guide that codifies what we expect of ministers as holders of public office. But, in the end, politics decides which ministers stand and which fall.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54479/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng 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 principle underlying the ministerial standards is that ministers should uphold the public’s trust as they wield a great deal of power deriving from their public office.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/544112016-02-09T09:25:48Z2016-02-09T09:25:48ZIf Stuart Robert falls, Turnbull has more room for innovation in his reshuffle<p>The ministerial future of Stuart Robert looks very precarious, raising the prospect that Malcolm Turnbull’s reshuffle may be wider than has been expected.</p>
<p>In a painful Question Time performance, Robert – who holds the human services and veterans affairs portfolios – refused to be drawn about his 2014 “private” visit to China, when he attended a ceremony with his friend Paul Marks, whose Nimrod Resources was signing an agreement with the Chinese company Minmetals Exploration & Development related to a joint venture for mineral exploration in outback NSW. Marks has been a big donor to the Liberals.</p>
<p>Robert, assistant defence minister at the time, had obtained leave from the Prime Minister’s Office for the China trip, which he made on his way to an official visit to Singapore.</p>
<p>While he says the trip was a private one, the Chinese certainly treated him as if he was representing the government, making that clear in a company press release on the ceremony, where his remarks were described as being made “on behalf of the Department of Defence”.</p>
<p>Then there was the statement on a Chinese government website. “On the morning of the 19/8/2014, the Vice Minister of Land and Resources Wang Min met with Australia’s Assistant Secretary for Defence Stuart Robert. The two sides agreed to foster a more favourable investment environment and more cooperation between mining companies …</p>
<p>"Stuart Robert said the Australian government welcomes Chinese company investment in mining exploration and development in Australia. He said that China Minmetals Corporation and Nimrod Resources have set up a joint technical committee, the sign of a new beginning. He is glad that the Ministry and Geological Survey Bureau officials, people from the China Minmetals Corporation and Australia Nimrod Resources attended the meeting today.” </p>
<p>Turnbull has asked his departmental secretary Martin Parkinson to advise on whether Robert has breached the ministerial code of conduct. That says: “A minister shall not act as a consultant or adviser to any company, business, or other interests, whether paid or unpaid, or provide assistance to any such body, except as may be appropriate in their official capacity as minister.”</p>
<p>One would expect Parkinson to have that advice back to Turnbull ASAP. The government needs to deal with the issue quickly and there is no reason to delay. The facts are pretty clear.</p>
<p>The opposition – in particular Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus – has done well in pursuing the matter in parliament. It is a repeat of Labor’s performance when it went after Mal Brough over his role in the Ashby affair. At Christmas, Brough stood aside pending completion of the police investigation into his conduct.</p>
<p>In each case the parliamentary quest was complicated, because the issues did not go to responsibilities within the minister’s portfolio. The opposition was helped on Tuesday when Speaker Tony Smith took a liberal view of what could be asked of Robert. While Robert revealed nothing, his stonewalling was in itself damaging.</p>
<p>Turnbull presumably will go with whatever Parkinson advises. If he loses Robert it will be embarrassing, but not a disaster.</p>
<p>It would be seen publicly as Turnbull upholding standards, although internally there are always some costs in dumping ministers in trouble.</p>
<p>Robert, a conservative in the party, is hardly a household name. He is close to Treasurer Scott Morrison, who on Monday dismissed the proposition that Robert had been lending his prestige to a business mate as “an offensive suggestion”. In September’s leadership contest Robert, like other key Morrison supporters, was a vote for Turnbull, while Morrison himself made much of voting for Tony Abbott.</p>
<p>Robert’s fall would give Turnbull more opportunity to get fresh talent into the ministry, and provide greater flexibility in the reshuffle.</p>
<p>That reshuffle is waiting for Nationals leader Warren Truss to announce his future. On his present timetable Truss is expected to do so next month, and to say he will step down as his party’s leader and quit parliament at the election.</p>
<p>Turnbull has to replace former cities minister Jamie Briggs, who resigned from the ministry over inappropriate behaviour while overseas. The situation of Brough is more difficult because he has stood aside rather than resigned from the ministry.</p>
<p>But Turnbull should not leave Brough’s ministerial spot open. No-one knows how long it will take for the police to finish their inquiry. Given the election is now getting relatively close, it would surely be sensible for Turnbull to make a permanent appointment to fill the frontbench slot with the undertaking that if Brough is cleared, he would be restored when a vacancy occurred.</p>
<p>Barring the unexpected, the reshuffle will be the last chance for changes before the election. Turnbull should make the most of it.</p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/z5fkc-5c7fd7?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/z5fkc-5c7fd7?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/zay48-5c5dcc?from=yiiadmin" data-link="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/zay48-5c5dcc?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54411/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The ministerial future of Stuart Robert looks very precarious, raising the prospect that Malcolm Turnbull’s reshuffle may be wider than has been expected. In a painful Question Time performance, Robert…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.