On Wednesday 14 December 2022 the Liberal MP for Cook and former Prime Minister, former minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Social Services, Treasury, Public Service, Health, Finance, Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Home Affairs & Treasury. Scott Morrison, finally has to give evidence under oath at the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme

 

Former prime minister Scott Morrison with fellow Opposition MPs after a censure motion was moved against him in parliament, Wednesday, November 30, 2022. © Lukas Coch / AAP Images, in The Monthly, 30.11.22 

On Wednesday 14 December 2022 the Liberal MP for Cook, Scott John Morrison, as former prime minister (Aug 2018-May 2022), former treasurer (Sept 2015-Aug 2018, May 2021-May 2022) and former minister for social services (Dec 2014-Sept 2015) will give sworn evidence before the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.

He is the only witness called before the Royal Commission on that day, in a week which will see a total of fourteen witnesses called to give evidence.

Although, Morrison avoided giving evidence in person during the Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments, preferring instead to put his case and parry the Inquiry’s questions through his legal team, that opportunity was not open to him in this instance.

To avoid disappointment, anyone watching a live broadcast of the Member for Cook giving evidence next Wednesday — or reading whatever statements he makes afterward — should not anticipate any expressions of genuine regret for his policies, words, or actions taken over the course of creating and implementing the Centrelink automated debt creation and recovery process which was in operation between 2015 and 2019.

BACKGROUND

Report of the Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments, Executive Summary, 25 November 2022, excerpts:

17. Mr Morrison does not appear to have attached any significance to the fact that, from the time of its making, each appointment operated in law to charge him with responsibility for the administration of the whole department. There was no delineation of responsibilities between Mr Morrison and the other minister or ministers appointed to administer the department. In the absence of such delineation, there was a risk of conflict had Mr Morrison decided to exercise a statutory power inconsistently with the exercise of the power by another minister administering the department. The 2021 appointments were not taken with a view to Mr Morrison having any active part in the administration of the department but rather to give Mr Morrison the capacity to exercise particular statutory power should the minister charged with responsibility for the exercise of that power propose to do so in a manner with which Mr Morrison disagreed, or fail to make a decision that Mr Morrison wanted to be made. In terms of the functioning of the departments this was as Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM, Secretary for Public Sector Reform, observes “extremely irregular”……

19. Given that the Parliament was not informed of any of the appointments, it was unable to hold Mr Morrison to account in his capacity as minister administering any of these five departments. As the Solicitor-General concluded, the principles of responsible government were “fundamentally undermined” because Mr Morrison was not “responsible” to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer.

[my yellow highlighting]

20. Finally, the lack of disclosure of the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government. Once the appointments became known, the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government.

The Saturday Paper, Editorial, 3 December 2022:

Like a veteran troubadour, Scott Morrison rose from the backbench on Wednesday and delivered all the old hits: indignation, self-pity and sly evasions. The moment – parliamentary debate of his historic censure for secretly swearing himself into several portfolios as prime minister – demanded new notes, of course, namely songs of contrition. But Australians were kidding themselves if they thought they’d hear them.

Last week, former High Court justice Virginia Bell wrote that Morrison’s weird and secretive acquisitions were “corrosive of trust in government” and found that he had attempted to swear himself into a sixth ministry, Environment. Bell found that the secret assumption of powers was not illegal but gravely unorthodox and concerning, and wrote – despite Morrison’s previous justifications – that three of the five appointments he made for himself had little or nothing to do with the pandemic. She also wrote: “Being appointed to administer multiple departments seems an exorbitant means of addressing Mr Morrison’s concern about his ministers’ exercise of statutory power in cases that were not subject to Cabinet oversight”.

Despite the solicitor-general arriving at a similar conclusion, and the disgust of his own colleagues when they learnt, sometimes through the media, that he had secretly appointed himself to their portfolios, Morrison spoke with characteristic defiance. He told parliament the censure motion was “political intimidation” to which he would bravely refuse to submit, and with an air of brittle righteousness invoked the crisis of the pandemic: you have no right to judge me, he was saying, because you weren’t there in the seat of power during the storm. Incredibly, Morrison also said that had he been asked about his secret manoeuvre – of which his closest colleagues were oblivious – then he would have answered honestly.

With the lone exception of Bridget Archer, the Liberals decided to back their man. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton called the motion “a stunt” – a recurring party line – and their side of the chamber emptied after Morrison’s speech in theatrical protest. As they did, MPs filed past Morrison and shook his hand.

It is confirmation, if we needed it, that Morrison was a dangerously loose unit. He was not, as some in the press gallery once argued, an “extreme pragmatist”. He was paranoid, bullying and profoundly allergic to scrutiny. Prolifically deceptive, he was also thin-skinned and prone to unsavoury fits of rage and self-pity. His contempt for the media is obvious, but that contempt also extended to his own cabinet and basic conventions of democracy. And thus, to the Australian people. [my yellow highlighting]

And so, on Wednesday, parliament successfully passed its motion 86-50. It made Morrison the first prime minister, or former prime minister, to be censured in the house. It was proportionate acknowledgement of a historically deviant act and a suitably ignominious distinction for a man who was grossly unfit for the office he once held.

Image of the Week

 

"A censure motion will be moved in federal parliament against former prime minister Scott Morrison."
Australian Associated Press, 28 November 2022. 
IMAGE: Mick Tsikas/AAP PHOTOS

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.

Australian Government in the House of Representatives to move a censure motion today on the person of former prime minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott John Morrison

 

This morning. Wednesday 30 November 2022, Trump-lite is to get some of the comeuppance he deserves.....

Go to House of Representatives live at:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Watch_Read_Listen 

30/11/2022 9:00AM - 8:00PM AEDT

The censure motion will be put to the Parliament by Leader of the House, Tony Burke, MP for Watson, Minister for Employment and workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts.

Note:

A motion in the form of a censure of a Member of Parliament, not being a member of the Executive Government, is not consistent with the parliamentary convention that the traditional purpose of a vote of censure is to question or bring to account a Minister’s responsibility to the House. 

However, it is acknowledged that ultimately the House may hold any Member accountable for his or her actions. 

Under the rules of procedure for the House of Representatives as at 2 August 2022, a notice of motion which expresses censure of or no confidence in the Government, or a censure of any Member, must be reported to the House by the Clerk at the first convenient opportunity. 

Motions of censure have been successfully moved against two private Members of Parliament in the past.

BACKGROUND

ABC News, 28 November 2022:

The federal government will move a censure motion against former prime minister Scott Morrison over his decision to secretly appoint himself to a number of extra ministries.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced today that cabinet had agreed to move the motion this week, the final sitting week for the year.

As Labor has a majority in the House of Representatives, the motion will pass.

Mr Morrison secretly appointed himself to administer several ministries throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including to the treasury and home affairs portfolios.

Late last week, a report into his actions found they were "corrosive" to trust in government.

Mr Albanese said cabinet had agreed to implement all six recommendations from the report.

"We will introduce legislation later this week to make sure that this can never, ever happen again," he said.

"And this week, as well, the house will be moving a censure motion [against] the member for Cook as a result of the findings of Virginia Bell and the inquiry.

"This is about accountability of our democratic system, and whether the parliament was functioning properly, and about the relationship between the prime minister and the people of Australia, who expect [elected officials] to be held to account through our parliamentary processes."

One question remains: What was Morrison thinking?

Bell's report shreds any last remnants of credibility the former prime minister might have in regards to his disdain for proper process and in the way he treated his colleagues and the public.

Censure motions allow MPs to express their disapproval of their colleagues but do not have any direct legal consequences.

They are uncommon and it is very rare for a former prime minister to face one…..