Questions swirling around former prime minister Scott Morrison's ministries scandal will be answered, as his successor flags a future inquiry into the secret power grab.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
And Governor-General David Hurley is facing renewed questions after revelations the covert appointments were not published in his official listings, but the office of his secretary is calling for greater transparency in ministerial appointments.
A high-ranking former public servant also says bureaucrats "dodged a bullet" with the May change of government, warning they could have been in breach of the law had Mr Morrison contradicted a minister.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was briefed on the Solicitor-General's advice by Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Glyn Davis in Sydney late Monday. The advice is due to be released after cabinet meets in Canberra on Tuesday.
Mr Morrison secretly assumed control over five portfolios between March 2020 and May 2021, without the knowledge of the public or the vast majority of his colleagues.
The revelation outraged Labor and some Coalition MPs, but constitutional lawyers have stressed the move was likely legal, despite violating long-standing convention.
'More transparent'
It has been revealed Mr Morrison's secret appointments, signed-off by the Governor-General, were omitted from Mr Hurley's official program despite listing other activities, including meetings and swearing-ins, in detail.
Mr Hurley has consistently argued whether to publish the appointments was a matter for the government, claiming he had "no reason" to believe they would be kept secret.
But a spokesperson for the office of his official secretary Paul Singer, who did not speak for the Governor-General, on Monday joined calls for the process to be overhauled.
"The Office supports a more transparent process to ensure that any appointments made under section 64 are made public," they said.
However, the Greens accused Mr Hurley of failing to produce indexed lists of documents which had been released every six months before his appointment.
Greens justice spokesman David Shoebridge demanded answers on whether that occurred at Mr Hurley's direction, and whether Mr Morrison had any role in it.
"There's a pattern developing here, with the public and parliament being kept in the dark about what on earth the country's head of state is up to," he said on Monday.
Just days after Mr Morrison took over as prime minister in 2018, a disclaimer was added to the ministry list noting ministers "may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed". The disclaimer remained under the new Labor government.
And parliamentary officials caught off-guard by his secret ministries will soon update his official parliament biography to reflect his five additional portfolios.
READ MORE:
A spokesperson for the Department of Parliamentary Services confirmed the ministerial positions database and website were regularly updated to reflect ministerial lists issued by the prime minister's department.
"PM&C have now issued the instruments by which Mr Morrison was appointed to portfolios. These will be reflected on the Parliament of Australia website in due course," they said in a statement.
Speaking before being briefed on Monday, Mr Albanese warned there were "real questions" over the legality of the appointments, saying Australian democracy had been undermined.
"I don't know that there are any decisions to be made," he told reporters.
"[But] Australians are concerned that this could ever occur. There's a basic fundamental weakness in checks and balances."
Mr Albanese revealed he would take the advice to cabinet on Tuesday morning, before releasing it publicly.
"I think politeness and proper process means that [the cabinet] should have access to it," he said.
'Unprecedented action'
Former Finance Department deputy secretary Stephen Bartos told The Canberra Times the scheme could have been hatched in two ways: via Mr Morrison's office, or PM&C.
Mr Bartos said significantly fewer people in the department would have been aware of the appointments if they were devised in Mr Morrison's office. That scenario would require knowledge from a handful of officials within the governor-general's office, the prime minister's office, and some PM&C officials tasked with "preparing the paperwork", he said.
He said PM&C devising the plan before bringing it to Mr Morrison was unlikely, and would have required significantly more departmental officials looped in.
"If that were the case ... the department should be rightly questioned as to why it would come up with such an unprecedented action," he said.
Mr Bartos predicted the solicitor-general would find nothing illegal in Mr Morrison's actions.
But with bureaucrats required to carry out the minister's instructions, contradictory edicts would have placed them in a bind, he said.
"This is something which could have resulted in those those public servants being potentially in contravention of the Public Service Act," he said.
The former prime minister was known to have used the secret powers once, but did not relinquish control over the portfolios before his election loss in May.
'Dodged a bullet'
Mr Bartos said a Coalition win would "presumably" have led to Mr Morrison exercising his powers more extensively.
"The public servants concerned dodged the bullet because of the election result, because they didn't have to face what would have been an extraordinarily difficult public administration dilemma," he said.
Mr Bartos said Mr Morrison co-opting the Home Affairs Department, tasked with responding to terror attacks and border control, was "conceivably very dangerous".
"There's a fast moving incident that needs to be dealt with quickly, and all of a sudden, public servants ... have to sort out who's who, and who has authority," he said.
"That could lead to delays and confusion."
Labor MP David Smith, a former public servant representing the ACT electorate of Bean, said "at the very least" the bureaucrats supporting then-PM&C secretary Phil Gaetjens must have known of the scheme.
"There's a deeper concern here, about public servants that would have known that [while] keeping other departments in the dark," he said.
"There's an issue, firstly, about the legality of the arrangements, but [also] the lack of transparency around those arrangements.
"Potentially for our public servants to be working at cross purposes to their colleagues is deeply concerning."