Hansard now records that on 30 November 2022 the former prime minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison was formally censured in the House of Representatives 86 votes to 50 — with one of his fellow Liberals crossing the floor to support the censure, one abstaining & a number 'missing in action'

 

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.

Statement of retiring Liberal Party Senator for NSW since 2005 Concetta Anna Fierravanti-Wells in the Senate Chamber on the evening of 29 March 2022

Offered without comment. The Hansard record may be found at:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard

Cartoons of the Week

 

Cathy Wilcox

Peter Broelman

David Pope

Morrison Government did not finish the 2021 Australian Parliamentary year in a blaze of glory

 

The Australian Parliament House Of Representatives and Senate now stand adjourned until 12 noon on 8 February 2022.

This is how the parliamentary year ended for the Morrison Government – women both inside and outside the parliament were openly critical of the Prime Minister and the government he leads.

Political commentator and author Niki Savva writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 December 2021:

The last time Bridget Archer alerted the Prime Minister’s office in advance that she was considering voting against the government, she says she had two senior members of his staff literally standing over her in her office.

Archer told colleagues at the time, and has since confirmed it to this columnist, that for almost two weeks she felt bullied, threatened and intimidated by the staffers – one male, one female, both of whom have been around politics a long time who should know better – seeking to persuade her to vote with the government.

Archer spoke against the cashless welfare card legislation, then abstained from voting. Her decision triggered a campaign of online abuse …..

Lately, constituents in her notoriously fickle Tasmanian seat of Bass, which she holds with a margin of 0.4 per cent, have been stopping her on the street, saying: “we like you Bridget, but...” The “but” drips with portent for Scott Morrison and the government.

So last Thursday Archer crossed the floor to second a motion by independent Helen Haines for a national commission against corruption. Archer regards the right to stand up for a principle, even if it means going against the government and the Prime Minister, as the defining feature of the party. It’s what makes people like her become a Liberal.

To avoid a repeat of her experience last year, the only people she told in advance of her intention were her staff and Haines. She did not even tell the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, two nights before when she and other MPs ate takeaway pizza and pasta in his office.

When she burst into tears in Morrison’s office, after Frydenberg had escorted her there like an errant schoolgirl, it was an emotional release, not a sign of weakness.

Archer had no problem with Morrison expressing his displeasure. He said his piece. After composing herself, she said hers. She owned her actions. She did not apologise for supporting Haines, she did not take a single backward step. She told Morrison she was neither a “drone” nor a “warm body” – words he later appropriated to describe rebellious backbenchers and convey to the media his tolerance of them.

Archer told Morrison about his staff, pointedly asking that “they stay away from me”. She also made clear she would cross the floor again if necessary. Archer’s experience underlines the importance of Kate Jenkins’ finding that cultural change to tackle bullying and sexual harassment in Parliament House has to come from the top.

Archer reckons the government has got its priorities all wrong. Although she empathises with Gladys Berejiklian, she believes the ICAC was doing its job, arguing such a body – rather than a religious freedom bill – is essential to help restore people’s faith in politicians.

One is a problem which exists that needs to be fixed, the other looks like a fix for a problem which doesn’t exist, as the deeply religious NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet implied on Sky by asking “why now?”

Archer fears the religious discrimination bill could be a “slippery slope”. She says she will vote against it if it impinges on the rights of others, particularly the LGBTIQ community.

At least she will have company with Trent Zimmerman, Dave Sharma and Warren Entsch expressing similar views, which explains why Morrison is in no rush to put it to a vote.

The Prime Minister pretended to be as relaxed about Archer’s actions this time as he was last time, saying what close friends and colleagues they were and what a grand old party he led which allowed members to express themselves freely.

He does that often. Boasts about being good friends with people when really it’s just heavy duty Spakfilla patter, sealing up the cracks or covering his own poor behaviour.

He has done it with Berejiklian too, even though she confided several times to friends he tried to bully her, and while Premier she got her office to tell Morrison’s office to stop undermining and backgrounding against her……

ABC, “7.30” program, 2 December 2021:

LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: Laura Tingle is with us from Canberra. Laura, as much as governments like to clear the decks at the end of the year, especially going into an election year, there is always unfinished business. What are the leftovers this year that are likely to be significant going into 2022?

LAURA TINGLE, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the leftovers are things that probably never now see the light of day before the election, Leigh.

The big ones are the election promises for an anti-corruption commission - not going to see the light of day at the rate we are going. The government hasn't even tabled its proposed legislation on that and has baulked at letting a debate go on about Helen Haines' alternative model.

The other one is the religious discrimination bill, another election promise. It got about an hour's worth of debate this afternoon in the House of Representatives but will be really struggling now to get debated, if Parliament does indeed come back, and it's losing friends as we go. The Christian lobby today signalled that it was not all that keen on the way the debate was going.

And finally, there was this very last-minute proposal about voter ID legislation which offended a lot of people and outraged them. That's now been dumped very unceremoniously, and Labor insists there wasn't a deal on this, but one of the things that has come up as a bit of a surprise is a move that really puts incredible pressure on charities to declare themselves as political campaigners and that is going to have a huge impact, particularly, I think, in the area of environmental charities.

LEIGH SALES: As we know, trust has been an issue for the Prime Minister in recent times, how did that play into a matter that made headlines today regarding the awarding of a quarantine contract?

LAURA TINGLE: This is a story that's sort of come up a few times since September, Leigh, including when the ABC's Andrew Greene reported it. These are contracts to set up a private quarantine hotel arrangement and it was let by a limited tender to two of Scott Morrison's closest friends, including a former Liberal Party director or deputy director called Scott Briggs.

Now, the Prime Minister was really outraged at the suggestion that he had somehow intervened in this policy or was somehow involved in the letting of the contracts, but once again, because this issue of trust has become such a terrible one and I think separate questions, there's been this focus right through the whole year about transparency and accountability in the awarding of grants, that this is the last thing the Prime Minister needs, particularly on an issue like quarantine where things haven't really gone all that well for the Government this year anyway.

LEIGH SALES: Just to switch the focus to Labor, stakes are also high for Anthony Albanese going into an election year. What do you think are the issues Labor is going to need to get in order over the summer break?

LAURA TINGLE: I think they'll have to look at making sure that they have a sound story on the economy. I think the Government's now vulnerable on that.

They have obviously got their climate policy coming out over this next few days and those are the two really big things that they are going to have to sort out, other than that they have got to look, a bit like Kevin Rudd in 2007, they are sort of like the government, only trustworthy.

LEIGH SALES: Laura Tingle, thanks very much.

LAURA TINGLE: Thanks, Leigh.

Last week 2 MPs crossed the floor to vote against the government - George Christensen & Bridget Archer. Only one of these Members was hauled into the Prime Minister’s office & reduced to tears.

Australian women know why Ms Archer received this special treatment. #auspol pic.twitter.com/L4B14h3rzH

— Senator Jenny McAllister (@jennymcallister) November 29, 2021

 

ABC, “7.30” program, 2 December 2021:

RACHELLE MILLER, FORMER COALITION STAFFER: Today I want to stand in my former workplace and to say again that what happened to me was not okay.

LAURA TINGLE, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Today former political staffer Rachelle Miller said she wanted to tell her story. It involved someone much more powerful and famous - Alan Tudge - currently the Federal Minister for Education and Youth.

Miller first disclosed a relationship with Tudge, her former boss, on Four Corners ‘Inside the Canberra Bubble’ report late last year.

(Excerpt from Four Corners - Inside the Canberra Bubble)

LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: Rachelle Miller says her affair with Alan Tudge, now acting immigration minister, was completely consensual.

(End of excerpt)

LAURA TINGLE: But today she had a lot more to say and the world has changed considerably since she first spoke out. This week Australians were shocked by the anonymous stories of sexual assault, harassment and bullying in Parliament House.

Today Rachelle Miller put a face to those stories and those stories were not just about assault but about culture and power imbalances.

RACHELLE MILLER: I am fully aware that a year ago I said that my relationship with Minister Alan Tudge was a consensual relationship, but it's much more complicated than that.

When I spoke out, not a single person from this Government contacted me to see if I was okay. One female chief of staff sent me a text and that was it.

LAURA TINGLE: Miller said this was a story about Parliament House and she spoke at exactly the same spot where Scott Morrison commented about the case of another political staffer - Brittany Higgins.

SCOTT MORRISON, PRIME MINISTER (February): Jenny and I spoke last night, and she said to me you have to think about this as a father first. What would you want to happen if it were our girls? Jenny has a way of clarifying things.

LAURA TINGLE: Miller’s intervention today, challenging the voters of Aston to consider the behaviour she alleges of Tudge - a man she claims physically kicked her out of bed because her phone had disturbed his sleep - is a suitable coda to a political year dominated by the issue of the treatment of women in politics.

Mr Tudge quote “completely and utterly” rejected Miller’s version of events today and said he deeply regretted the consensual affair.

But despite the denials, Miller’s statement still posed big problems for the Prime Minister.

After all, earlier this week, he had described the Jenkins reports’ findings of what goes on in Parliament House as ‘appalling’ and ‘disturbing’.

SCOTT MORRISON: But given the seriousness of these claims that have been made by Ms Miller, it is important that these matters be resolved fairly and expeditiously.

To this end, the Minister has agreed to my request to stand aside while these issues are addressed by my department, but I wish to stress that this action, in no way seeks to draw a conclusion on these matters, Mr Speaker, but this is the appropriate action for me to take under the ministerial standards.

LAURA TINGLE: In a statement, Mr Tudge said he intended to submit written evidence to the inquiry that would contradict Ms Miller’s position.

The PM seemed to be very aware today that he needed to be seen to take these allegations very seriously. He announced that Vivienne Thom would be conducting the inquiry - the woman who ran the High Court inquiry into former Justice Dyson Heydon.

Standing Minister Tudge aside only added to the sense the Government is disintegrating around him with a growing list of departures ahead of next year’s election.

Late yesterday, former attorney-general Christian Porter announced, via Facebook, that he would not contest the next election.

FACEBOOK POST FROM CHRISTIAN PORTER: Even though I have experienced perhaps more of the harshness of modern politics than most, there are no regrets.

It’s now time to give more of what is left to those around me whose love has been unconditional.

LAURA TINGLE: Porter’s departure has been reported very much in terms of the allegations and controversy he has faced this year.

But the policy issues over which he presided are perhaps more important signposts to the history of this government, and the policy controversies - and approach to accountability - in which it has often been embroiled.

As minister for social services, he played a key role in establishing the controversial Robodebt scheme, which saw hundreds of thousands of people facing devastating claims of overclaiming welfare benefits.

Porter was occupying the office of attorney-general when the Government was later forced to concede that the scheme had ‘no legal basis’ and was ‘unlawful’. The government eventually repaid $720 million of the falsely raised debts

Also as attorney-general, Porter would not rule out prosecuting journalists, and sending them to jail, for publishing public interest stories.

He also made the decision to proceed with the prosecution of the man known as Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery. Witness K was the whistle-blower who revealed Australia had bugged a room in the offices of Timor Leste’s Prime Minister at the time the two countries were negotiating resource rights in the Timor Gap.

Last year, Porter used his national security powers to have the court hearing of this case held in the strictest secrecy.

KERRYN PHELPS: There is an urgent medical crisis in Australia's offshore detention centres.

LAURA TINGLE: In 2019, the government lost an historic vote when Labor and the crossbench forced through what was known as the so-called medevac laws - designed to more easily allow seriously ill asylum seekers to be evacuated from Australia’s offshore detention centres.

During that process, Christian Porter resisted attempts to have advice on the legislation from the Solicitor General tabled in the Parliament.

TONY SMITH, SPEAKER (2019): I'll advise the Attorney-General that, as Speaker, it's important I ensure, in this instance, all material available to me is also available to all members of the House.

LAURA TINGLE: After the 2019 election, Porter oversaw the repealing of those laws.

The former attorney-general also released the original proposal for religious freedom legislation - subsequently dumped.

And his proposed model for a national anti-corruption commission has been derided as a toothless tiger.

Late this afternoon, Health Minister Greg Hunt told Parliament he will be leaving Parliament at the election.

GREG HUNT, HEALTH MINISTER: On Sunday, they looked at me, and said, "Dad, this is your last chance to be a proper dad and it's time to come home, Dad.”

LAURA TINGLE: That’s a senior cabinet minister leaving, a former senior cabinet minister - once seen as a future PM - leaving, and another senior cabinet minister with his future under a cloud.

There are also seven other MPs leaving at a time when the Government has gone from eyeing seats it can win from Labor to having to defend seats across the country

In the PM’s home state of New South Wales, bitter divisions within the Liberal Party have seen pre-selections delayed for both House of Representatives and Senate seats.

Incumbency is supposed to give governments a political advantage. As this ugly political year ends and we approach a federal election campaign, that advantage is far from clear.

Kate Jenkins' Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces has been released. It is damning.
- 1 in 3 people in parliament experienced seuxal harrassment
- 1 per cent suffered attempted or actual sexual assault
- 77 per cent witnessed or experienced bullying

— Clare Armstrong (@ByClare) November 30, 2021

Liberal and Nationals MPs who have stated they are not standing in the 2022 federal election

Kevin Andrews (disendorsed by party) – Menzies Vic – Margin 7.0 LIB

George Christensen – Dawson Qld – Margin 14.6 NATS

Andrew Laming – Bowman Qld – Margin 10.2 LIB

Greg Hunt – Flinders Vic – Margin 5.6 LIB

Christian Porter – Pearce WA – Margin 5.2 LIB

Tony Smith – Casey Vic – Margin 4.6 LIB

Nicolle Flint – Boothby SA – Margin 1.4 LIB

John Alexander – Bennelong NSW – Margin 6.9 LIB

Steve Irons – Swan WA – Margin 3.2 LIB

Ken O'Dowd – Flynn Qld – Margin 8.7 NATS

Damian Drum – Nicholls Vic – Margin 20.0 NATS

Then there was this in the House of Representatives during Question Time on 2 December 2021…..

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, Sky News reported two of the Prime Minister's best mates received $80,000 of taxpayer money, without a tender, to set up their own private sector quarantine business known as Quarantine Services Australia. Sky News also reported that Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo told business leaders that this was a really important project for the Prime Minister. Is Mr Pezzullo right?

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, on a point of order?

Mr Dutton: There is an imputation that's implied quite clearly in the question that's been asked, and that is against the standing orders. That's the first point, Mr Speaker. If there are allegations to make, then those allegations should be put in another forum, not here in this House.

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business?

Mr Burke: Ministers are expected to be across media reports; that's in Practice. The question specifically goes to a media report and describes the source. It then refers to that particular payment being a priority for the Prime Minister as being attributed to the secretary of a department. It simply asks whether that is accurate. It goes no further than asking whether it was a really important project for the Prime Minister. So the extra layers that the Leader of the House is referring to are not in the question that was just asked.