“Morrison still does not seem to see the inconsistency with the Westminster system. Instead, he prefers to justify his position by arguing he was dealing with extraordinary times that required such action,” writes political columnist MICHAEL MOORE. 

THE root cause of Scott Morrison’s narcissistic decision making comes back to more than just his personality. A fundamental problem for prime ministers since the time of John Howard is the conduct of elections in a presidential style.

Australian democracy is not based on an American presidential structure but rather on the Westminster system of government. The federal “Kevin 07” campaign took personality politics to a new level in Australia. 

The media was generally complicit in running these campaigns based on who would be head of government. In 2007 it created an impression that votes were cast directly for Kevin Rudd or John Howard.

Morrison’s explanation to the media about his actions in secretly appointing himself as minister for a run of key portfolios provides an insight into his thinking. Firstly, it was clear that he believed that he was responsible across each of those portfolios. Secondly, it was also clear that he did not trust the competency of the ministers who had been sworn in by the governor-general to conduct those portfolios.

The recent Morrison press conference illustrated the extent to which he saw himself as a president. He stated: “As prime minister, only I could really understand the weight of responsibility that was on my shoulders and on no one else and, as a result, I took the decisions that I thought I needed to take.”

The irony is that Section 64 of the Australian Constitution deals specifically with ministers of state. It does not even mention the words “prime minister”. Our constitution has always perceived that day-to-day government would be conducted by the cabinet (or executive council in constitutional language).

Rudd was acting in a presidential style when the Labor Party removed him and replaced him with Julia Gillard. He fought to regain his position, constantly arguing that he had been (directly) “elected by the people”. Similarly, the complaints about Tony Abbott as prime minister and his dictatorial style, supported by his chief-of-staff Peta Credlin, revealed the way he perceived the role. This also drew considerable criticism.

It was not only Rudd who believed he was directly elected by the people. Other than Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull, it seems that each of the prime ministers that followed believed it more and more firmly. It should not be too surprising, then, that Morrison is determined to assign to himself a form of presidential power.

He still does not seem to see the inconsistency with the Westminster system. Instead, he prefers to justify his position by arguing he was dealing with extraordinary times that required such action.

While the major political parties have been hand-in-glove with mainstream media in developing this presidential fiction, many ordinary voters have seen through the façade. The election of so many independents to the House of Representatives and to the Senate indicate that voters are not caught up in this smokescreen.

Many voters understand cabinet government and the principle of a prime minister being the “first amongst equals”. In contrast, the actions of Morrison and his justifications clearly illustrate that he did not see the ministers within his government as equals.

The calls for Morrison to resign from parliament from his former cabinet colleagues illustrate the level of resentment about the issue. When Karen Andrews discovered that he had been her “double” at the ministry for Home Affairs she was clearly shocked. Her call for his resignation from the parliament reflected an element of that anger.

Canberrans did not vote for Anthony Albanese or Morrison. They understood, at least with regard to the Senate, that independent David Pocock could influence government in many ways. And this was so not just in Canberra. At elections there is a growing number of independents, Greens and small-party members of parliament federally and in the other jurisdictions.

It seems that more and more of the people are ahead of the major party politicians in understanding that we vote for our local members. It is those local members of the House of Representatives who then choose the prime minister as first amongst equals. Enough voters understand that a stronger cabinet-style government with shared responsibility will deliver a better democracy for all Australians.

Michael Moore is a former member of the ACT Legislative Assembly and an independent minister for health. He has been a political columnist with “CityNews” since 2006.