The PM accepted benefits from Qantas when he was in an office that could confer benefits on Qantas.  He had therefore accepted benefits which might conflict with his duties as minister.  Since his office is one of public trust, he has a case to answer. 

The trouble with politicians accepting gifts from people in business is that it leaves the impression that those making the gift expect something in return.  The general term is ‘bribe’.  And if the directors of a public company say they just gave away company property, how do they justify that to shareholders?  .  (My old law firm used to give  an important officer of the Supreme Court a bottle of Scotch each Christmas until a Chief Justice, Sir John Young, branded the practice as a bribe.) 

The answer of the PM is that he declared all such benefits on the relevant public register.  Is that enough?

As it seems to me, the problem for the PM is that after thirty years in public life, the PM thinks he has discharged his relevant obligations if he has gone through the relevant procedures.  It is the kind of response you would get from a seasoned public servant, such as a copper, or from a flak-catcher for a bank or an insurance company (or from Bridget Mckenzie, for whom the word ‘rort’ could have been invented).

We see this in company directors.  They say they have complied with the letter of the law when the complaint against them is that they have failed to comply with public expectations, or even the law relating to good conscience.  (And you may recall that the Morrison government wanted to legislate to free directors from such overriding equitable obligations.)

Without wishing to offend the memory of Edith Cavell, conforming to procedural rules is not enough.  Issues of judgment are involved, and in the highest political office in the country.

We must distinguish two separate rolls of a PM.  One is the trust imposed by law on the PM as a minister of the Crown.  The other involves obligations owed as leader of a political party – in a nation where the whole system of parliamentary government depends on the responsible behaviour of the two major parties.  This second role calls for different kinds of judgment, based on loyalty to the party and care for its members, particularly MPs who are not safe.  It has little to do with the law – or ministerial guidelines.

It is clear that some MPs and other members of the party are most unhappy and unsettled because the PM has bought a house far beyond the reach of most Australians, and has enjoyed perks of office for himself and his family that are equally outside their grasp.  (And guidelines are just that.)

It does not look good, and it could do real harm to decent MPs.  Long before all this blew up, I was concerned about what the press calls the ‘optics’ of a Labor PM being duchessed in public by the most loathed, divisive, and overpaid businessman in living memory.

And formal disclosure has even less consequence here.  It is an issue not of law or morals , but judgmentof a very different order – political judgment.  It is very worrying that we have a PM who does not see this.  It is what the English philosopher, Sir Gilbert Ryle called a ‘category mistake’.

And the mind-bending hypocrisy of the opposition just makes us all feel so much worse.  And the popular suspicion that they all have their snouts in the trough just gets worse, as does our descent into mediocrity.