An instance of politically reaping what one has sown came to pass for Scott John Morrison yesterday when a motion of censure was put to Parliament......
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Business, Chamber documents, Live Minutes, 30 November 2022:
Question put— 12:02:04 PM
Division 81 — 12:02:17 PM
The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Dick, in the Chair) —
AYES, 86
Mr Albanese Mrs Elliot Ms McBride Dr Scamps
Dr Aly Ms Fernando Mr Marles Ms Scrymgour
Dr Ananda-Rajah Dr Freelander Ms Mascarenhas Ms Sharkie
Mrs Archer Dr Garland Ms Miller-Frost Mr Shorten
Mr Bandt Mr Georganas Mr B Mitchell Ms Sitou
Mr Bates Mr Giles Mr R Mitchell Mr Smith*
Mr Bowen Mr Gorman Dr Mulino Ms Spender
Mr Burke Mr Gosling Mr Neumann Ms Stanley*
Ms Burney Dr Haines Mr O’Connor Ms Steggall
Mr Burns Mr Hill Ms O’Neil Ms Swanson
Mr Butler Mr Husic Ms Payne Ms Templeman
Dr Chalmers Mr Jones Mr Perrett Mr Thistlethwaite
Mr Chandler-Mather Ms Kearney Mrs Phillips Ms Thwaites
Ms Chaney Mr Keogh Ms Plibersek Ms Tink
Dr Charlton Mr Khalil Dr Reid Ms Vamvakinou
Ms Chesters Ms C King Mr Repacholi Ms Watson-Brown
Mr Clare Ms M. M. H. King Ms Rishworth Mr Watts
Ms Coker Ms Lawrence Ms Roberts Ms Wells
Ms Collins Mr Laxale Ms Rowland Mr Wilkie
Mr Conroy Dr Leigh Ms J Ryan Mr J Wilson
Ms Daniel Mr Lim Dr M Ryan Mr Zappia
Mr Dreyfus Ms McBain
NOES, 50
Ms Bell Mr Hamilton Mrs Marino Mr Taylor
Mr Birrell Mr Hastie Mr Morrison Mr Tehan
Mr Boyce Mr Hawke Mr Ted O’Brien Mr Thompson
Mr Broadbent Mr Hogan Mr Pasin Mr Vasta
Mr Buchholz Mr Howarth Mr Pearce Mr Wallace
Mr Coleman Mr Joyce Mr Pike Ms Ware
Mr Conaghan Mr Katter Mr Pitt Dr Webster
Mr Coulton* Ms Landry Ms Price Mr Willcox
Mr Dutton Mr Leeser Mr Ramsey* Mr R Wilson
Mr Entsch Mr Littleproud Mr Robert Mr Wolahan
Mr Fletcher Mr McCormack Mr Stevens Mr Wood
Dr Gillespie Mrs McIntosh Mr Sukkar Mr Young
Mr Goodenough Ms McKenzie
* Tellers
And so it was resolved in the affirmative.
It is noted that all the Independent MPs — with the exception of Ms. Dai Li the Member for Fowler — voted in support of the censure motion. Ms. Dai Li appears to have abstained.
It is further noted that Mrs. Bridget Archer the Liberal Member for Bass voted in support of the censure motion, while Karen Andrews the Liberal Member for McPherson appears to have abstained. UPDATE: It appears that Sussan Ley the Liberal Member for Farrer & Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party may also have abstained.
A further 5 members of the Coalition Opposition were
— perhaps 'diplomatically' — absent from the House at the time the vote was taken. They were Alan Tudge (Lib Aston), Lew O’Brien (LNP Wide Bay), Andew Gee (Nats Calare), Bert van Manen (LNP Forde) on leave, Darren Chester (Nats Gippsland) on leave.
The Greens Members for Melbourne, Griffith and Ryan all voted in support of the censure motion, as did Ms. Sharkie the Centre Alliance Member for Mayo. Mr. Katter the KAP Member for Kennedy voted against the censure motion.
The text of the Censure Motion to which those 86 members of the House of Representatives agreed.......
House of Representatives, Hansard, 30 November 2022, excerpt:
MOTIONS
Member For Cook
Censure
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (09:06): Given the nature of the motion I am about to move, I think it would suit the convenience of the House for the normal speaking times which apply to all members to not apply to the member for Cook, should he rise to speak. I think, given the nature of the motion, it's appropriate that the member for Cook, should he wish to speak, be able to make whatever length of contribution he chooses.
I move:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Constitution provides for 'responsible government', described by the High Court of Australia as a 'system by which the executive is responsible to the legislature and, through it, to the electorate';
(b) in the Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments, the Honourable Virginia Bell AC found that while the Member for Cook was the Prime Minister of Australia he:
(i) had himself appointed to administer:
(A) the Department of Health on 14 March 2020;
(B) the Department of Finance on 30 March 2020;
(C) the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources on 15 April 2021;
(D) the Department of Treasury on 6 May 2021; and
(E) the Department of Home Affairs on 6 May 2021; and
(ii) did not inform:
(A) Cabinet;
(B) the relevant Departments;
(C) the House of Representatives; or
(D) the Australian public;
about these additional appointments; and
(c) as found by the Honourable Virginia Bell AC, the actions and failures of the Member for Cook:
(i) 'fundamentally undermined' the principles of responsible government because the Member for Cook was not 'responsible' to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer; and
(ii) were 'apt to undermine public confidence in government' and were 'corrosive of trust in government'; and
(2) therefore censures the Member for Cook for failing to disclose his appointments to the House of Representatives, the Australian people and the Cabinet, which undermined responsible government and eroded public trust in Australia's democracy.
Today's motion is not how any of us wanted to make history. In any other circumstance, for any other former Prime Minister and, certainly, even for the member for Cook, had the disclosure not been made available about the multiple ministries, we would not be here now. But a censure, while rare, has its place. The last time this parliament censured a member of parliament, it was a former minister, and it was done so unanimously. It was done so unanimously in relation to a former minister on the following basis: the decision was made that he—and I'll read this—'fell below the standards expected of a member of the House'. It wasn't that he had acted unlawfully; it was that he had fallen below the standards expected of a member of the House. That is the test. The test for censure, while rare, is not the test: would the courts overrule it? The courts are the place to determine whether or not something was lawful. In the parliament we determine whether or not something was appropriate.
I ask all members to think back to the first moment they heard about the multiple ministries and what their
reaction was. Some gave their reaction on the record and many more gave their reaction off the record. Nobody, except the member for Cook himself, had the reaction or said that this was acceptable or it met the standards expected of this House.
There are many democracies that have a system different to ours. There are many democracies around the world where the system of government is that the executive are quite separate to the legislature. Our system is responsible government. The executive are here in this room for the purpose of being held to account every day the legislature sits. That entire concept of responsible government only works if the parliament and, through the parliament, the
Australian people know which members of the executive are responsible for what.
This is not some small matter. It goes to the absolute core of the principle of responsible government. Responsible government was what Ms Bell referred to specifically. In her report she said:
… the principles of responsible government were "fundamentally undermined" …
She also said:
… the lack of disclosure of the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government.
She also said:
… the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government.
If we could unanimously determine that the conduct of Bruce Billson fell short of the standards, how on earth can the multiple ministries—and in question time after question time we, in fact, did not know where portfolios had been allocated—meet the standard? Question time is viewed as the most significant part of the parliamentary day.
It's when every member turns up. It's not a requirement that every member turns up; it is a convention. We have to defend our conventions too.
The core of responsible government was breached with the multiple appointments. In doing so, the member for
Cook did not tell the ministers themselves that he had been sworn into their portfolios. His cabinet was not told.
The department secretaries were not told. The parliament was not told. Through the parliament, the Australian people were not told. In doing this, the member for Cook did not just fall below the standards expected; he undermined them, he rejected them, he attacked them and he abused them.
How do we even know that all this happened? We know because at the same time that the member for Cook was not telling his colleagues, not telling this parliament and not telling the Australian people he was telling some
journalists writing a book. He thought it was interesting to contribute to the publication of a book, but not important to let anybody know where it was directly relevant to them.
The defences that have been offered, including the defences offered by the member for Cook through his lawyers to the Bell inquiry, are logically impossible. The member for Cook's lawyers said for him:
However, this in no way suggests that he did not expect that the usual practice would apply and that PM&C would publish the appointments in the Gazette.
It beggars belief that the member for Cook is now arguing that it was somehow just presumed it would have been made public in the Gazette and yet he was making sure he didn't tell the ministers themselves. When asked about the ministers, he said on 17 August the reason he didn't want to tell them was, 'I did not wish ministers to be second guessing themselves.' Both cannot be true. It cannot be the case that it was presumed it was going to come out in the Gazette and that it was important for people to not be told. To this day, the different versions being offered by the member for Cook cannot reconcile themselves with each other.
In the same way, when this started to emerge, when only Health, Finance and Industry, Science and Resources appointments had been known, on radio the member for Cook said this. He was asked, 'Just to be clear: are there other portfolios you assumed any control over?' The answer was: 'Not to my recollection. I don't recall any others being actioned.' It beggars belief that anyone in Australia's history could forget that they had been appointed Treasurer. It beggars belief.
At the start of question time each day, when a minister is not present, every prime minister has an obligation to
allow the House to know who is answering questions on their behalf. And, yet, at those exact moments the former Prime Minister never once said that he in fact was sworn into different portfolios and could answer those questions as well. The pathway of question time, the pathway of what this House did last term, was different because we were deceived. It was different. Questions were asked in different forms to different people because we weren't told.
It is true that what happened here was the end of a long process of enabling. When conventions were attacked, one after another, it led in a direct line to where we ended up, when we had the situation of there being constant silencing of opposition voices, when we had a cabinet committee with only one member, when we had a circumstance where, for the first time in living memory, a Speaker, a member of their own party, made a recommendation for a privileges reference which could have led to censure of one of their own. But they used their numbers to prevent the independence of the Speaker being recognised to defend—
An opposition member: It's just politics.
Mr BURKE: I hear the comment there—'It's just politics.' If that's the attitude then you never would have censured Bruce Billson. Every single threshold that has previously resulted in a censure being given of a member is met today and is met more strongly today than it ever has been before.
This place runs on rules and conventions. The mere existence of the office of Prime Minister and the existence of a cabinet is a convention. It's not in the Constitution. It's not required. It is a convention on which our system of government hangs. The concept that the parliament knows who has which job is essential to responsible government.
You cannot have responsible government if you don't know what people are responsible for, and for two years we didn't know. For two years, the ministers themselves did not know. For two years, departmental secretaries were unaware of who the ministers were to whom they had responsibility.
The gravity of what we are dealing with today is a censure motion beyond what the parliament has previously dealt with. Previously what we have dealt with is the conduct of one member being sufficiently bad that we needed to defend the House as a whole to say, 'That is not allowed to happen.' On this occasion, the conduct of one member prevented the House from doing its job. The conduct of one member prevented the House from knowing who was responsible for what. The fact that that one member was also the Prime Minister of Australia means that what we are dealing with now isn't just unprecedented, could not have been predicted, but is so completely unacceptable.
For members today I say to those opposite: there will be some thinking, yes; they oppose it but their party's made a decision. They've got to lock in; they've got to follow what their leader wants, and that's just where they're at. I'd just remind those members opposite of this: that is exactly what happened for the whole of the last term. It is exactly how every precedent was trashed. It is exactly how the principles of responsible government ended up being attacked in ways that hadn't happened before.
There is no previous Liberal Prime Minister where this sort of motion would ever have been moved. But the conduct that happened in the last term, that we now know about, was unacceptable, fell below the required standards and we have no choice but to support a censure.
It is noted that 21 MPs rose to their feet to debate the censure motion:
Mr Morrison, 9:21:46 AM. Mr Dreyfus, 9:45:46 AM. Mr Fletcher, 9:56:40 AM. Ms C King, 10:06:44 AM. Mr Katter, 10:16:30 AM. Ms M. M. H. King, 10:27:59 AM. Mr Leeser, 10:38:05 AM. Ms O’Neil, 10:47:30 AM. Mrs Archer, 10:52:47 AM. Mr Albanese, 10:56:44 AM. Mr McCormack, 11:16:08 AM. Mr Bandt, 11:29:29 AM. Dr Haines, 11:38:37 AM. Dr M Ryan, 11:41:49 AM. Ms Chaney, 11:47:27 AM. Dr Scamps, 11:49:02 AM. Ms Spender, 11:53:13 AM. Ms Daniel, 11:55:30 AM. Ms Steggall, 11:57:43 AM. Ms Tink, 11:59:57 AM.
No comments:
Post a Comment