Common sense goes AWOL for critics of Turnbull sex ban

It is good, if slightly overdue, that Labor came on board to back Malcolm Turnbull’s new and explicit ministerial code that ministers should not have sex with their staff.

What is bizarre remains the ridicule heaped on this self-evident standard by some politicians and former politicians, and, most ­bizarre of all, some high-profile ­social conservatives.

I wonder if anyone has done a poll of MPs’ spouses on this question? There is nothing weird or strange or prudish or nanny state about Turnbull’s proposed new standard.

As a foreign editor for many years, the two great institutions I have known best, and associated with most, are the military and the diplomatic service, or to give it its bureaucratic title, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Both the military and DFAT have rules very similar to those proposed by Turnbull and for very similar reasons. The principle in both institutions is the same — if there is a sexual or romantic relationship within the chain of command, either the relationship has to end, or the chain of command has to end.

The military rule — no fraternisation within the chain of command — is reasonably well known and blindingly obvious in its rationale. The military, more than most institutions, has some regard for moral probity. But the crux of its consideration is that it is grossly unfair to have such a relationship, it is very often a result of power imbalance or outright abuse of power. Most important of all, it is impossible to maintain small-unit cohesion if the commander is having an affair with one of the members of the unit.

In some ways, the diplomatic service is even more revealing. No one would normally accuse DFAT of being conservative, patriarchal, overly traditional in its view of ­morality, or remotely hidebound.

Yet here is a rule diplomats ­observe and which politicians should consider. No Australian ambassador can have their ­romantic partner serve in the embassy of which they are the head.

An ambassador is a pretty good analogue for a cabinet minister, though a cabinet minister has even more power over the life and prospects of their staff than an ­ambassador does. Nonetheless, an ambassador rules their embassy much as the captain of a ship ruled on a long voyage in days gone by.

Young diplomats often fall in love and partner up. However, a serving ambassador cannot have their spouse working at the ­embassy they head and thereby ­reporting to them. Such a situation inevitably creates perceptions of bias and countless tensions in the team. So it is just banned outright.

This also means that an ambassador, married or single, cannot form a domestic partnership with anyone on the embassy’s staff.

This rule actually costs DFAT personnel a lot. It means in any domestic partnership of two diplomats, when one becomes an ­ambassador they either have to live apart or the non-ambassador has to give up their paid employment for the time they are at their posting, reducing two-income families to a one-income family.

This is much more inconvenience than politicians ever have to endure.

Surely the critics of the new ministerial standard are not arguing that cabinet ministers should have much, much less expected of them than we expect of diplomats or uniformed personnel?