Review into Morrison’s pandemic actions – a storm in a saucer, not even a teacup

In Bell's assessment there had been no need for these powers to be accumulated by the Prime Minister Morrison so as to manage the pandemic. Other arrangements could have been easily employed should a minister become incapacitated or was not performing. According to Bell, Morrison's arrangements were "not easy to understand" and seemed to be an "exorbitant means" for Morrison to be able to overrule his ministers' decisions if he thought necessary during the pandemic. Like the Solicitor General, Bell believed the these arrangements should have been made public.

Nevertheless, Bell found that except in relation to one minor issue Morrison "did not exercise any of the powers" he had taken over, and consequently there was not any impact on the operations of the ministry.

The Bell Review amounts to political commentary when it contends that Morrison's arrangements were "apt to undermine public confidence in government" and were "corrosive of trust in government". There is no evidence for this statement – it is an exercise in political judgement, not legal assessment. Nor are there any specific laws by which to measure such assessment. Remember, this is a public inquiry, not a court of law.

What's the wash-up?

So, what do we have after these two reports?

First, let's be clear – we only know about these secret arrangements because Morrison when PM in interviews with two journalists told them and that was highlighted in their book released in August. (Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus, condemned Morrison for breaking cabinet confidentiality in talking to the journalists about this while PM).

Second, Morrison acted constitutionally and therefore lawfully. So, what exactly is the Albanese Government pursuing him over?

Third, except in one, seemingly minor issue, Morrison never used any of the powers he had accumulated. So, no spending was authorised, no policy initiatives taken and thus no harm done (some might contend he should have, for instance taken on the States about border closures, excessive lockdowns, school closures and so on – but he didn't!).

Fourth, it was largely secret but the most important minister in the pandemic, the Health Minister, was informed, as were some of his senior officials, the PMO and the Prime Minister's Department. Secrecy or confidentiality is a feature of government so by itself is hardly a crime and it is sometimes necessary. Indeed, during the Second World War there were eleven inquiries with the power of royal commissions, that were conducted secretly under the National Security (Inquiries) Regulation 1941, whose reports were not released till after the War (eg the Lowe Commission of Inquiry into the Japanese bombing of Darwin in 1942).

What this whole episode highlights is Morrison's judgement – or rather his misjudgement. He did not trust many of his colleagues, though not unusual in politics, this mistrust seems to have been taken further by Morrison (look at what happened to his predecessors). He also may have had an exaggerated sense of his own capacities, importance and 'rightness' – a hubris that many leaders share. He certainly can be condemned for political ineptitude and even stupidity but that is not an offence deserving any more punitive action, like a censure motion in parliament, or that he should resign as some in the media, and even in his own party suggest.

Given what happened in Australia during the pandemic – the excessive lockdowns, the suspension of freedoms and parliaments, the unrestrained spending, and the confusing mandated health instructions, then Morrison's misdemeanours seem minor in comparison. It was a storm in the saucer not even deserving a cup. And hasn't Morrison suffered his just desserts – he lost government, the prime ministership, and leadership of the Liberal Party.

What is the Albanese Government's motives?