Humanities desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 16

political comedy

I'm trying to understand this latest ruckus about former Australian PM Scott Morrison apparently secretly appointing himself to five AU cabinet posts while he was serving PM. It's not even clear that he doesn't *still* hold those posts after losing re-election as PM to Anthony Albanese.

Here in the US of A, I can look at https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/officials which as of a few minutes ago claimed that the Secretary of the Treasury was Janet Yellen. Could that possibly be fake news? Like could Donald Trump have appointed himself Secretary of the Treasury and still be serving in that office, even though the Treasury web site says Yellen? https://www.finance.gov.au/about-us/ministers says Katy Gallagher is the AU Minister of Finance, the AU equivalent of SecTreas. I don't know whose name it gave during the Morrison administration, but if it said Morrison, wouldn't anyone have noticed? Did the nominal MinFi at the time have any idea what was going on, or did he or she show up to work every day in a real-life version of the Truman Show?

It shouldn't be a laughing matter but I can't help finding this hysterically funny. I'm reminded of the secret video shot in the Reagan White House during the Iran-Contra scandal, showing that Reagan was the real mastermind while only feigning ignorance. Or maybe Mycroft Holmes, who supposedly ran the British government all by himself during that time. I bow to Morrison's polymathic brilliance if he was really doing all that stuff.

Thanks for any explanations. I am not seeking legal advice. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:34C5 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you seeking? Is there a real question in there somewhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell could MOrrison put himself in charge of five cabinet ministries without anyone noticing? Is that like Trump making himself secretary of 5 different departments with Biden only figuring it out now? If Trump was TreasSec wouldn't his signature be on all of our dollar bills? Someone would surely notice. I'm wondering what is different about Australia. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:34C5 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Trump tried to appoint himself to a cabinet post, it would fail in the Senate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions are very valid. At this point there are no answers, and the whole bizarre episode is exercising the minds of various learned persons and experienced political commentators, not to mention the public. Among other questions to be answered are these:

Why did Morrison admit only this morning (16 Aug) to being appointed to only 3 extra ministries, when later in the day it was shown the correct number was 5?
How does one forget that they were the (co-)Treasurer of Australia, even if in name only?
Why was the whole exercise necessary to begin with? Morrison said it was so that if, say, the Minister for Health caught Covid or for some other reason was unable to do his job, there would be a minister already sworn in who could instantly take over. The truth is that, in such circumstances, a new minister could be appointed very quickly indeed, and having a stand-by minister was completely unnecessary.

I've been a keen observer of Australian politics for well over 50 years, and worked inside the bureaucracy in the 'machinery of government' area for quite a long time. These revelations have completely floored me, and I anxiously await the results of the investigation ordered by the current PM Anthony Albanese. Watch this space. More to the point, watch Scott Morrison#Investigation into appointment to joint ministerial positions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the possible analogy to U.S. politics, this is not possible, as cabinet posts (as well as federal judges, many lower-level executive department positions, etc.) are required to be confirmed by the Senate before they can begin to do their jobs. You can't "secretly" have a cabinet post in the U.S. because there are public hearings and votes and the like to confirm those posts. Also, in the U.S., the cabinet secretaries are determined by law, and not up to the whim of the President. He does get to appoint his own personal staff, so things like Chief of Staff and Press Secretary do not go through confirmation processes, but all executive department heads, and their departments, are all established by law and their roles well defined. --Jayron 32 10:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An analogy that springs to mind in another Westminster system government is the 1940 Churchill war ministry, when Winston appointed himself Leader of the House of Commons and Minister of Defence due to the extraordinary circumstances. However, no secret was made of it.

In the UK, the monarch approves ministerial appointments, but in Australia, its her representative, the Governor-General of Australia. One would have expected him to advise that this wasn't a terribly good idea, but apparently he nodded it through. Here is the BBC's take, yesterday:

For a leader of any country, let alone a democracy, to take over several portfolios without the public's knowledge or the knowledge of his own colleagues, raises serious questions. If confirmed, this also means that the then-prime minister was potentially aiming to centralise power so that the decision-making would ultimately come down to him. [1]

Alansplodge (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recess appointments and those officers acting under the The Vacancies Act "can begin to do their jobs" without Senate confirmation. fiveby(zero) 14:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. However, as explained, the Senate basically never goes into recess, just to avoid those issues. Interim appoints also occur as well. --Jayron 32 14:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 5 U.S.C. § 3349 would appear to prevent a "secret" directive, but this Duke Law Journal article cited in Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 argues it is unconstitutional in preventing something along the lines of Executive Order 13000—Order of Succession of Officers To Act as Secretary of Defense. An analogy might be a potential PEAD with an automatic cabinet reshuffle, but that is just stretching to find something appropriate for the question and your "not possible" is really the best answer i think. fiveby(zero) 15:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. For those harping on Senate confirmation, yeah, the corresponding check and balance in AU is that the Governor General signs off on appointments, and in this case I guess it failed. (OTOH I don't remember any provision in the US Constitution that says Senate confirmations can't be done in closed session). So ok, I can see how the appointments themselves went through in AU, but I'm still baffled that they could remain secret after the fact. And I guess the important question in practice is whether Morrison did anything with the portfolios while he had them (that, too, might also have gone unnoticed). For example, here in the US, the IRS just got a bunch of extra money as part of the "Inflation Reduction" Act, and the teevee is blaring that this will mean a lot more tax audits on the middle class. But SecTreas Yellen has supposedly ordered the IRS commissioner to not let that happen.[2] (She can do that since the IRS is part of the Treasury Dept.) Could Morrison have also made interventions in the relevant AU agencies that were kept more behind the scenes? Yellen's IRS thing was done with a lot of PR, but usually I guess anything like that is bureaucratic paper shuffling that doesn't get much attention. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:34C5 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the secrecy issue. These appointments were not like the typical swearing-in ceremonies conducted by the Governor-General at Government House, with families, parliamentary colleagues and the media in attendance. Rather, they were done by some sort of administrative instrument, a document signed by the G-G on the advice of the PM. That bit of it is legally ok, I think, because someone who's already been sworn in as a minister can be given additional powers without having to be resworn. And then, as the G-G's office has said, the publicity of said instruments is a matter for the government. But here's the catch: all legislative and administrative instruments such as these must be recorded on the Federal Register of Legislation; further, anything touching on the official duties of each portfolio/minister must be recorded in the Administrative Arrangements Order. Professor Anne Twomey, a constitutional expert, says she has searched both things assiduously for anything to do with Morrison's additional portfolios and found - nothing! Some have questioned, because these appointments have never been revoked, whether Morrison is still holding them; I also question whether they were ever valid to begin with. This is a strange new world that nobody has any experience of. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

During the duumvirate of Gough Whitlam and Lance Barnard, Barnard held a world record number of 14 portfolios. Of course, it wasn't a secret and there were exceptional circumstances. --TrogWoolley (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the big thing here is that it was all kept secret. Given that Scott Morrison is a man from the advertising industry, and is not normally known to be shy about publicly promoting himself, the secrecy is extraordinary. I find it truly puzzling. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except: This all came to light solely because of a biography of Morrison published on the weekend. He had collaborated with the authors over quite a long time, in the course of which he told them about his additional ministries. Had this book not been written, we'd still know nothing about it. So, he didn't trust the ministers he himself had appointed, he didn't trust the Cabinet, he didn't trust the Australian people - but he trusted a couple of journalists in order to produce a self-serving book. That speaks for itself. But is he truly so naive as to think nobody would notice or particularly care about these details? Either he has a profound lack of understanding of how our democratic system actually works, or .... (you fill in the blanks). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His god told him to do it? If that comment puzzles non-Australians, Morrison is an overt evangelical Christian, who claimed after he became Prime Minister that it was God's doing. He religious position is an extreme one in a country where most of us are apatheists. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can construct an independently-approved survey in which more Australians voluntarily identify as specifically "apatheists" than Jedis (yeah that's right I added an "s", come at me nerds!), I will turn an article of your choice to FA. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I admit pure original research there, but well based on seven decades of observation. I am also happy to point out the flaws in any survey that disagrees with my observations. If you know any Australians, ask them how important religion is in their lives, and when they last went to church. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I knew a CoE vicar who was openly atheist (and was so pre-internet), so while her subjects seem to accept the Queen's divine right they have quite a bit of a loophole. And while I'm sure plenty of Australians given a poll of common, normal-sounding words for lack of religion would opt to identify with them, those who might consider an idiosyncratic internet sub-category seem more like the type who'd spend 10 minutes deciding between FSM, Pelor, and the Dude. I cast 2d6 votes for Garl Glittergold! SamuelRiv (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No religion - the first option on Q23 of the 2021 census - seems like "common, normal-sounding words for lack of religion" to me. Note, of course, that apatheism is an attitude, not a religion (or lack thereof). Mitch Ames (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posting by banned user removed, again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Is all of this somehow related to the question about the Australian government? (BTW, Adam wasn't appointed until March 2022, so obviously wouldn't appear in a report at 31 Dec 2021. [3] Sorry to spoil your conspiracy theory) Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [Text relating to deleted post] Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]