Performative hypocrisy

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s overreach by behaving as though Scott Morrison’s conduct constitutes illegality is so far-fetched as to expose his motive: distracting Australians for as long as possible from pressing matters like inflation, labour shortages and energy security.

Pandemic policy overreach from the state Labor governments was much worse than Scott Morrison’s ministries mistake and should be called out. By Amanda Stoker.

At the beginning of the pandemic, then Prime Minister Scott Morrison warned candidly that “mistakes will be made”. He was right.

It was a mistake to swear himself into several ministerial portfolios some time after the initial panic about containing a virus of unknown severity, and in policy fields beyond those necessary for the core pandemic response. It was a mistake to do so without being transparent with the relevant minister about the reasons for doing so, particularly given the potential to undermine their effectiveness as a member of cabinet. It was a mistake not to bring the Australian people on the journey.

In that first year of the pandemic, Australians withstood, and in some quarters warmly welcomed, the exercise of intrusive government powers into unprecedented aspects of personal life. For example, Queenslanders and Western Australians thanked their premiers with thumping majorities at well-timed elections for measures that were at various times unscientific, illogical or fearmongering – and sometimes all three.

With the mood of those elections as a guide, had the Prime Minister been up-front with Australians about why he needed to be sworn in to the portfolios of other cabinet ministers, a majority probably would have accepted it.

It would be a shame for this misjudgment to overshadow what was overwhelmingly a successful effort by the Morrison government to shepherd the nation through a difficult time. That is the case no matter the prism through which it is viewed. Morrison deserves more respect for his diligence and effectiveness during that time than he is presently receiving.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s overreach by behaving as though Mr Morrison’s conduct constitutes illegality is so far-fetched as to expose his motive: distracting Australians for as long as possible from pressing matters like inflation, labour shortages and energy security.

There are two key opportunities for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton ahead. The first is to ensure that he is publicly understood as one who takes accountability seriously. That will be important for when Australians realise that Mr Albanese’s sanctimony is performance rather than substance. The second is to deliver the policy work needed to ensure the overreaches of the COVID-19 era are learned from for the future.

Mr Dutton has wisely committed to ensuring there are checks and balances put in place to ensure this situation is not repeated. Mr Morrison’s error is simply addressed by making public all future swearing-in of ministers.

Mr Dutton has made a clear commitment to traditional cabinet government and sole ministerial accountability. Cabinet government is superior to a presidential style because, just as two minds are better than one, it is also better to draw on the ideas, talents and industry of a capable team than think one man or woman knows best.

Clear lines of decision-making authority ensure ministers are not cowed from robustly arguing their positions by the threat that their authority will be overridden should they and cabinet take a contrary view to the PM.

Mr Dutton ought to confront Mr Albanese for the hypocrisy of exaggerating Mr Morrison’s wrong whilst simultaneously dismantling the integrity and accountability measures put in place in the construction and superannuation industries.

He should also call out the absurdity of Labor’s Minister for the Republic attempting to suggest that this would not have occurred if Australia had been a republic. We are not in a constitutional crisis, and to suggest that this legal but disappointing action justifies the replacement of our constitutional monarchy – with its Australian head of state and over a hundred years of guiding jurisprudence and accumulated conventions – is a nonsense. That is particularly so given it would be replaced with something completely unknown and without any guidance whatsoever.

But the biggest opportunity lies in forcing a substantial examination of the lessons of the COVID-19 era, in all levels of government, as the foundation for future policy restraint.

Mr Morrison’s error pales in comparison with the actions of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews in the centralising of power, exercise of emergency authority and heavy-handed treatment of citizens who dared to peacefully express their disagreement.

It is dwarfed by the absurdity of Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s state border closures denying healthcare to those living just over the border, or separating ill children from parents as they were reluctantly allowed past the checkpoint.

There is much to learn about the dangers of abdicating the responsibilities of government to experts. When doctors were calling the shots, the suppression of the virus might have been relatively effective, but it was pursued without balancing other relevant considerations in their proper measure, like the importance of work and school to mental health and public safety, the intergenerational cost of ensuring the economy was sustained and the cultural impact of tribalising the states.

There are important lessons about the dangers of inflexible vaccination mandates, especially when imposed without common-sense exemptions. No matter how sensible vaccination is, it is a very serious thing indeed to take away the right of a person to play their role in society unless they are prepared to subject themselves to the injection of a substance. It is worse still when an exemption cannot be obtained for religious or conscientious reasons or for serious medical conditions falling short of anaphylaxis.

There are opportunities to consider the appropriateness of the wide powers that currently exist in biosecurity and terrorism legislation, and to consider whether, if a similar circumstance were to arise in the future, we would want governments to have the power to prevent citizens from leaving the country.

To take stock of the lessons isn’t just a way of drawing a line under this period. It would future-proof this nation for whatever crises lay ahead. It is a chance to give Australians hope they can once again – despite those inevitable crises coming – expect the personal liberties that have characterised our modern history until the pandemic. Further, it would help to repair our international reputation by sending a signal that Australia has done what is necessary to prevent a re-read of this difficult chapter.

Amanda Stoker is a former Senator for Queensland and a distinguished fellow of the Menzies Research Centre.