Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

A censure motion like this is as rare as it is grave. The fact that it has become so necessary constitutes a profoundly sad moment in the life of our national parliament, but to ignore it would to be complicit in saying, 'Well, that was okay.' This House of Representatives has a responsibility to declare its view on what occurred with these extraordinary actions by the former Prime Minister. I wake up every single day very cognisant of the honour that I have in serving as Australia's 31st Prime Minister. I'm also very aware of the responsibility that comes with it. I'm also very conscious of the power that comes with it.

Power should never be abused. This was an abuse of power and a trashing of our democracy, and the Bell inquiry makes that so clear. For this parliament to have an inquiry and then not respond comprehensively to it would not be doing its duty. The explanation for the first two appointments by the former Prime Minister was, 'What would happen if a minister became incapacitated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?' We all know and I know as Prime Minister that, as Virginia Bell found, an acting minister could be appointed if needed, to quote the inquiry, 'in a matter of minutes'. The appointments were unnecessary. The last three appointments had little connection to the pandemic, according to the Bell inquiry, and were made because of the former Prime Minister's view and concern that an incumbent minister might exercise his or her statutory powers in a matter with which Mr Morrison didn't agree. That is what the Bell inquiry found. There was the PEP-11 determination but also FIRB decisions, with the power to stop or undo foreign powers acquiring interests in Australian assets, or the power to strip people of their citizenship.

Cast your mind back to 21 May, when the then Prime Minister made an announcement about the arrival of a boat. Text messages were sent to millions of Australians, in direct contradiction of the guy who had stood up at a press conference after press conference and said that he would not talk about on-water matters. At the time, that was done and authorised by the Liberal Party. That extraordinary attempt to distort an election result was made by the Prime Minister but also someone who had been sworn in with the authority to act in the Department of Home Affairs, which is why the then minister has called for the member for Cook to resign from parliament.

The fact is that our democracy is precious. There's no room for complacency. We've seen overseas, including with the assault on the Capitol building in the United States, that we can't take our democracy for granted. The explanations that were put forward were described by Ms Bell as 'not easy to understand' and 'difficult to reconcile' with the facts. The implications were there in the Bell inquiry. There was a 'risk of conflict' if different ministers wanted to exercise the same power 'inconsistently'. Ms Bell confirmed the Solicitor-General's view that the principles of responsible government were:

… "fundamentally undermined" because—

the member for Cook, the then Prime Minister—

was not "responsible" to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer.

It undermined public confidence in government. It was, according to Ms Bell, 'corrosive of trust in government'. The public didn't know, according to the Bell inquiry, something it was 'entitled to know'.

Yet, this morning, I came here not certain as to whether I would speak. But I have to respond to the former Prime Minister's comments. He has confirmed again that he just doesn't get it. He said this morning he'd had conversations 'privately with my colleagues'. It's not about Josh Frydenberg; it's about the people of Australia. That's who we're accountable to—through this parliament, at this dispatch box. We asked questions about PEP-11 and we asked questions about health, not knowing that the then Prime Minister was actually responsible and sworn in. The former Prime Minister flicked more questions to ministers than had all previous 29 prime ministers. The former Prime Minister shut down debate at this dispatch box each and every time people attempted to make a contribution about the serious matters.

He goes to the impact of COVID and the responsibility he had. I had that sense, too, as the Leader of the Opposition, which is why we on this side of the House, when we sat over there, took responsible decisions not to play politics but to vote for packages and to declare in advance of packages coming forward that, even if our amendments were not successful and even if there were measures which we did not agree with, such as the raiding of superannuation, we would not stand in the way, even though there was a political cost that we were conscious of.

But we understood our obligation to the national interest. This was not a one-man show. It was the Australian people who stood up and protected themselves, not just in the parliament. It was the people who stayed at home, the people who got vaccinated, the heroes of the pandemic who went out there and worked with people who were sick. All of the unctuousness and self-congratulation we heard this morning should be dismissed. He came up with a different explanation today: 'If only he was asked.' He blames the media and everyone else. Why didn't we come in here and ask if he'd been sworn in as Treasurer or finance minister! It's just beyond comprehension and this parliament should be, as a whole, standing up and voting for this motion—the whole parliament.

I have a lot of respect for the former Deputy Prime Minister, and he knows that. I might speak beyond my allotted time here, Mr Speaker. (Extension of time granted) It began with measures like the former Deputy Prime Minister being told by the Prime Minister's Office not to be transparent about whether he was Acting Prime Minister in 2019. That is how these things begin. And I don't blame the former Deputy Prime Minister for being loyal to his Prime Minister. I respect that. But he should never have been asked to do that and be put in that position; nor should there have been a cabinet committee of one; nor should those people who were aware of this not declared it.

The former Deputy Prime Minister—the second one, Barnaby Joyce—was asked on Insiders why it was that he was aware of the PEP-11 decision and why he did not say something and speak up about this at the time. This was his response, and I quote the member for New England:

I had negotiated an extra minister, which we were not entitled to. I had another person on the ERC, which we were not entitled to. I negotiated more staff for the National Party, which we were not entitled to … If I pursued this, it was quite simple. He just took away the portfolio that we weren't entitled to and took us back to the number we were entitled to. He would have the portfolio back and we lose all power.

That was from 21 August 2022.

People had a responsibility to act. They didn't. It was a slippery slope that undermined the functioning of this parliament and that undermined the democratic institutions that this House has a responsibility to act on. I think that the comments of the member for New England go, in his own words, to motivation—to why people weren't speaking about it. I know that there's a range of different contexts. I've spoken about arrangements that were entered into that were not transparent. I was asked a question this week about the discussions I had with Senator Pocock and asked to be transparent about it—and I have been, as has Senator Pocock.

These things are important. It's actually how our democracy functions. I still cannot conceive of the idea—and this is why questions weren't asked—because it's impossible to conceive that a Prime Minister does not have the authority to have influence over their ministers. I hope I do, to be transparent about it! At the end of the day, I have that great honour of leading this quite extraordinary group of ministers that have been sworn in. I assure you I have not thought for a millisecond about being sworn in in order to override them.

But there's something else that's really serious, and this goes to the PEP-11. There were a range of ministerial responsibilities, including the responsibilities that the Minister for the Environment has, for example. Like the minister for resources and the minister for immigration, a range of ministers have portfolio responsibility. The acts have been written very clearly so that it's not the 'minister in consultation with the Prime Minister or with someone else'. They're written that way so that the ministers can take account of all of the evidence that's before them and then make a decision that is their decision, one that they own. When the PEP-11 decision was made, there was no transparency with the Prime Minister saying he was doing it as the Minister for Resources and Water. The exact opposite occurred, and the minister for resources didn't say that he had been overridden. It was the minister for resources's job to do that.

A Prime Minister who asks for a minister's resignation receives it, without exception—and under the Liberal Party system it's easier than under our system, which elects our ministry. I have never seen that not occur. And then the Prime Minister appoint someone else to that job. That's the appropriate course to take under the Westminster system, and if a decision is made that a minister feels that they can't, in all good conscience, continue to serve then they resign. And that happens under our system. It happened under the former government that I was proud to serve in.

I'll conclude with this comment, and I thank the House for the extension. I thought this morning we would see some contrition—some semblance of contrition. We got none of that. We got hubris and we got arrogance and we got denial. There were a range of things that we could have done as a government; there wasn't a royal commission, like occurred into former Labor leaders' activities, for example, against former Prime Minister Gillard on something that might have occurred or was alleged to have occurred a long, long time before she was in parliament. That's what the former government did. There was none of that from us—none. We appointed a former High Court judge, Virginia Bell, to undertake an inquiry. We did that under the expectation that there would be cooperation with it. But the former Prime Minister chose to only talk to that inquiry through his lawyers, in spite of his public comments at the time that there would be full cooperation.

This morning, what we saw was just a justification of his government's record. Some of that is quite rightly the subject of political debate, and we will agree on some of it and disagree on some of it. There were many things that the former government did to deal with the COVID pandemic that we supported wholeheartedly. There are other things that we think could have been done better—that's quite rightly the subject of political debate. That's not what is before the House today.

What is before the House today is, firstly, whether the former Prime Minister's actions, in being given responsibility to administer a whole host of portfolios—even after the first two came out, as a result of him feeling it was okay to tell two journalists what was going on; that's how the first two came out; then there were further revelations, and we found, through the Bell inquiry, that he also considered being sworn in to administer the Environment and Water portfolio as well, an additional portfolio—were appropriate. Secondly, it's whether there should have been transparency about that. There should have been.

The former Prime Minister owes an apology, and not to people who he shared brekkie with at the Lodge. He owes an apology to the Australian people for the undermining of democracy. And that's why this motion should be supported by every member of this House.

See this speech in context