If Mike Pezzullo doesn’t like parliamentary democracy, he shouldn’t work for one

For a man with a job as a senior bureaucrat in a parliamentary democracy, secretary of the Home Affairs Department Mike Pezzullo sure hates it.

The picture that emerges of Pezzullo from the massive trove of messages unearthed by Nine newspapers’ Nick McKenzie, Michael Bachelard and Amelia Ballinger is not merely that of a pathetic figure trying to play political power games, but of a bureaucrat who can’t stand the foundational processes of Australian democracy.

Labelling Parliament as “contaminated”, Pezzullo is shown telling his interlocutor, senior Liberal Party insider and lobbyist/consultant Scott Briggs: “We need to build a meritocracy by stealth and run government through the bureaucracy, working to 4-5 powerful and capable ministers.”

Such a model is completely antithetical to democracy. We don’t have a meritocracy — we elect the people who govern us, who work through a Parliament, not through a bureaucracy. And we have a cabinet system of government, not a cabal that sidelines the possibility of debate and discussion.

And parliamentary accountability is an important part of our democracy, including the accountability of bureaucrats to parliamentary committees. But Pezzullo disagrees. “Estimates is actually a concern for our democracy,” he told Briggs in 2020, despite claiming to be “batting 0-400” at that day’s session.

Pezzullo demonstrably hates scrutiny and accountability. He has railed at the auditor-general when the Australian National Audit Office revealed bungling in his department. He attempted to silence then-senator Rex Patrick after the latter criticised Home Affairs. He has described the media as “bottom feeders”. And he lobbied to impose a censorship regime on journalists after then-News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst deeply embarrassed him by exposing his plan to allow the Australian Signals Directorate to spy on Australians. The Coalition government responded by sending AFP goons to raid and search Smethurst’s apartment.

He told Briggs at the time he thought he could have “turned” Smethurst and got her to produce “a great story for the government”. Pezzullo later saw no irony in claiming Smethurst had already been subjected to similar treatment by someone else: “Why do you think her handler picked her, rather than say an experienced national security journalist.”

Pezzullo has previously called for journalists to be jailed — something that even hardened Coalition right-wingers blanched at — and claimed that he “steered, assisted and worked with” certain journalists. As part of his plan to reimpose national security censorship on the media, Pezzullo told Briggs a D-notice scheme could be negotiated with “the hard headed and realistic media business leaders”.

That is, for Pezzullo, journalists are either handmaidens to power or “bottom feeders”, tame pets who can be “steered”, “turned” and “assisted” or (at best) victims of “handlers” with agendas, who should be jailed and censored.

That all of this was in relation not to a genuine national security matter but simply to the revelation of something embarrassing to Pezzullo only further proves that national security establishment bureaucrats primarily want more power so as to prevent themselves and their political masters from being embarrassed.

And the embarrassment has kept on coming for Pezzullo, with the scandals and debacles that have plagued Immigration and Home Affairs on his watch continually being revealed. Is that, in the end, what made Pezzullo so anxious to silence the media and get rid of that “concern for democracy” estimates hearings?

Pezzullo’s political antics, posturing and big-noting of himself might have been more tolerable if he was the successful head of a competent, high-performing agency. But Home Affairs is a mess, and has always been a mess. No agency or department is more in need of a sceptical parliamentary committee system and a media determined to do its job.

If Pezzullo doesn’t like those basic features of democracy, he should resign forthwith and spare the government further trouble.

Time to sack him? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.