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.
