First, Parliament was unsafe for women. Now it is unsafe for democracy itself

The noise around the Morrison government’s move to prevent Christian Porter’s blind trust being referred to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee is very loud, mostly because the politics of Porter’s actions and position have become a lightning rod for the government, opposition and media. All roads, it seems, tend to lead to Porter.

That obscures the real significance of what has happened. Geoffrey Watson SC, one of the nation’s most respected voices on public integrity with a fiercely apolitical reputation and record, said this:

“The last two years I’ve sat on the sidelines and I’ve watched this same government, they’ve trashed transparency, they’ve trashed integrity, and now they’re in the process of trashing parliamentary procedure. Enough is enough. Something’s gone wrong with this government; I’d say that it’s time for this government to go. This is a very black day.”

It is a black day because another convention has just been thrown under the bus, and it’s a big one. Never, since Federation, has a recommendation by the speaker to refer a member to the Privileges Committee been overruled by the house. Convention has always dictated that that not happen. Now it has.

It is important for all of us to understand that Parliament regulates itself. It is a special place, literally immune from the rules — including the rule of law — that govern the rest of society. Parliamentary privilege — the exclusive right MPs have to say anything they like with impunity — is an example. The courts have no jurisdiction over parliamentarians in their conduct as MPs. If they misbehave, the only institution which can regulate and discipline them is the house itself.

Because of that unique privilege, which derives from the original notion that Parliament is sovereign and not subject to the Crown or judiciary, a set of conventions has been developed and honoured over time to hold members of parliament to their oaths to serve the public interest.

These conventions are all we have, in the end, to protect and preserve democracy. If the politicians trash the conventions, then Parliament becomes a rabble; a lawless place where literally anything goes. These people, remember, govern themselves; or not, as they choose.

The choice which the government has made, with respect to Porter’s blind trust, is to neither ask nor care. The speaker had determined that there is a prima facie case for referral, presumably on the basis that Porter’s actions may be non-compliant with the requirements binding on all members of Parliament with respect to disclosure of financial interests. Those requirements are made by the House of Representatives itself.

The government of the day, generally speaking, has the numbers to make, change, enforce or ignore the rules. By convention it does not simply flout them. It now has done just that.

Which leaves us with the question: what next? For the issue of Porter’s blind trust, nothing, though the broad issue — the use of trusts, crowd funding — has been referred to the committee for examination. Expect a report after the next federal election.

But in relation to investigating Porter, there is no procedure or body which can do what the government has prevented.

More importantly, there are no conventions of the conduct of Parliament which anyone can now assume is safe. The reason that Watson has come out with such open alarm that he is calling for the government to fall, is that he understands in how much danger our parliamentary democracy now is, by virtue of the actions of this government.

The vandals are in the building, and they’re burning it down.