|
representatives vote 2022-11-30#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-12-02 12:10:43
|
Title
Motions — Member for Cook; Censure- Motions - Member for Cook - Censure Scott Morrison
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>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.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-11-30.6.2) that censured former Prime Minister and current Cook MP [Scott Morrison](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/cook/scott_morrison) (Liberal). It was introduced by Watson MP [Tony Burke](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/watson/tony_burke) (Labor).
- #### Rebellion
- Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) [crossed the floor](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#rebel) to vote "Yes" against the rest of the Liberal party, who voted "No".
- ### Motion text
- > *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.*
<p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the House:</p><p class="italic">(1) notes:</p><p class="italic">(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';</p><p class="italic">(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:</p><p class="italic">(i) had himself appointed to administer:</p><p class="italic">(A) the Department of Health on 14 March 2020;</p><p class="italic">(B) the Department of Finance on 30 March 2020;</p><p class="italic">(C) the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources on 15 April 2021;</p><p class="italic">(D) the Department of Treasury on 6 May 2021; and</p><p class="italic">(E) the Department of Home Affairs on 6 May 2021; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) did not inform:</p><p class="italic">(A) Cabinet;</p><p class="italic">(B) the relevant Departments;</p><p class="italic">(C) the House of Representatives; or</p><p class="italic">(D) the Australian public;</p><p class="italic">about these additional appointments; and</p><p class="italic">(c) as found by the Honourable Virginia Bell AC, the actions and failures of the Member for Cook:</p><p class="italic">(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</p><p class="italic">(ii) were 'apt to undermine public confidence in government' and were 'corrosive of trust in government'; and</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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:</p><p class="italic">… the principles of responsible government were "fundamentally undermined" …</p><p>She also said:</p><p class="italic">… the lack of disclosure of the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government.</p><p>She also said:</p><p class="italic">… the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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:</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p>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 <i>Gazette</i> 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 <i>Gazette</i> 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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—</p><p>An opposition member: It's just politics.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>I refer members to the statement made to the House about time limits during this debate.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|