Rule of Law

The Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison endeavoured to use the Rule of Law as a shield in the Christian Porter affair. He said that: “law is King”.  Rule of Law is however as much a shackle as it is a shield for the Prime Minister.  It obligates the Prime Minister to rule by law.

Sir John Kerr’s dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 is an example of a Governor-General ruling by law.  Mr Whitlam was not accused of a criminal offence.  Nevertheless, the Governor-General dismissed Mr Whitlam’s government - after seeking independent expert legal advice - as he concluded that the government could no longer function, in the eyes of the law.  He rightly set aside any loyalty considerations for a government that had appointed him.  Sir John Kerr was an eminent barrister at the time that he was appointed Governor-General.

Peter Gleeson came out in support of the Rule of Law in his Courier Mail article titled “Rule of Law must prevail otherwise society as a whole will be worse off.”  He appears however to use the concept in a distorted way to give the Prime Minister a shelter in a storm, rather than to encourage him to do the right thing.

Mr Gleeson suggests that “Australia will be a poorer country” because of the “white-hot scrutiny” - as he puts it - of our political leaders. Nothing could be further from the truth.

He should be aware that governments are subjected to “white-hot scrutiny” when they don’t uphold the Rule of Law.  The people are just trying to get a government that will do the right thing. 

Mr Gleeson should also be aware that many, if not all Australian governments largely abandoned the Rule of Law decades ago.  This is the reason why Australian governments are generally so unprofessional.

The professional/conventional approach is to appoint experienced professional people to manage the business of government in their competency fields. They are responsible for making the government function; upholding the Rule of Law; and enforcing the law.  This included refusing demands from Ministers/the Premier that are contrary to law.  

This approach was abandoned by the Queensland government in the late 1980s - early 1990s in favour of political appointments. It has been my experience that the new chief executives typically saw law in terms of where they wanted to go/what they could get away with.  This undermined the Rule of Law and meant that politics was going on “under the table”. It is quite apparent that other Australian governments have gone down similar paths.

History stands testament to the fact that the professional approach to government builds nations, and gives the people the government and the outcomes they want; and that the political approach divides nations, and gives the people a government they don’t want and the outcomes that powerful vested interests are prepared to give them.