Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting this censure motion, and that is for three reasons. Firstly, this motion is not an appropriate use of the forms and procedures of this House. Secondly, what we are seeing is an exercise by this government in political payback and distraction. Thirdly, the right way forward here is to adopt recommendations made by former High Court Justice Bell in her report.

This is not an appropriate use of forms and procedures of this parliament. The government has sought to ventilate this issue through a number of processes, but what it's now seeking to do is use the forms of this parliament to, for essentially political reasons, bring further scrutiny to bear on this issue. It's very clear that this censure motion makes no practical difference. It's also very clear to any objective observer that this is simply a naked political exercise seeking to damage the reputation and standing of the former Liberal prime minister and by extension all on this side of the House.

The standing orders are very clear as to the proper purpose of censure motions. Indeed, standing order 48, which deals with censure motions, specifically refers to censure of the government, which is a pretty big clue that the proper purpose of such a motion is for the parliament—the legislative branch of government—to hold to account the government—the executive branch. The very terms of this motion note this fundamental point. The terms of the motion refer to a system—and this is a correct description—by which the executive is accountable to the legislature. The Practice notes on page 325 that it is very rare for there to be a censure motion against a private member or a backbencher. Indeed, they have only been moved on two occasions, and both times that was by agreement. We have had a number of references from the Attorney-General to one of those instances, but I make the fundamental point: that was by agreement. There is no agreement here. Let me quote the Practice, which is very clear in relation to this matter. It says:

A motion in the form of a censure of a Member … 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 … given the relative strength of the parties in the House, and the strength of party loyalties, in ordinary circumstances it could be expected that a motion or amendment expressing censure of an opposition leader or another opposition Member would be agreed to, perhaps regardless of the circumstances or the merits of the arguments or allegations.

In other words, the Practice very clearly says that what the government is seeking to do here is not in accord with the forms and procedures of this parliament. What the government is doing here is at odds with the traditions and practices of this House. It is nothing more than a political exercise designed to damage the standing and reputation of the former Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister presents himself as a champion of parliamentary process—he frequently makes that point in the public domain—but it seems he is quite prepared to trash longstanding conventions to seek to gain short-term political advantage.

We hear the argument that, in the circumstances that occurred, the then Prime Minister, the member for Cook, was not accountable to the parliament, because he couldn't be questioned in relation to the portfolios that he had been sworn into. That proposition does not stand up to a second's scrutiny. The simple fact is that every Prime Minister—and this was certainly the case when the member for Cook occupied that high office—can be, and is on a daily basis in this place in question time, asked questions across the gamut of the issues for which the Prime Minister is responsible as the person who leads the executive government. When it comes, therefore, to the question of the accountability of the then Prime Minister to this parliament, the case has not been made that that accountability in any way had been compromised.

It is the task of the government to make the case that there is a need for a censure motion. Indeed, on the contrary, what they are proposing is something clearly at odds with the forms, procedures and traditions of this place. The simple fact is that, from the moment this matter came into the public domain, the overriding objectives of this government have been, first of all, to exploit this as an exercise in political payback, designed to damage the reputation of the former Prime Minister and in turn all of those on this side of the House, and, secondly, to use it as a diversionary tactic so that the government can avoid awkward questions about its lack of progress on the real issues facing Australians—the cost-of-living crisis, the sharp increase in the prices of gas and electricity, and the sharp increases in interest rates—and the lack of any plan on the part of the government to deal with these matters.

From the time this matter came into the public domain we've heard repeated exaggerated and over-the-top claims from Labor ministers and members of parliament about this matter. We heard the claim that the conduct of the former Prime Minister was illegal. The government sought advice from the Solicitor-General. Inconveniently for the government, that advice did not back up the hysterical claims that were being made on a daily basis by the Prime Minister and his ministers.

The Solicitor-General's advice found that the appointments were valid. It found that there is no constitutional requirement or statutory requirement for the appointments to be publicised. The Solicitor-General confirmed in his advice that multiple ministers can be appointed to administer a single department and noted that this commonly occurs. The Solicitor-General also acknowledged that this is a political issue, not a legal issue. At paragraph 33 of his opinion, he said:

The conventions and practices are generally enforced politically, not legally.

He highlighted that departure from conventions and practices does not result in invalidity.

The government, not content with obtaining and publicising that advice, sought to have a second bite at the cherry and keep this issue in the media cycle for several more weeks and months. It appointed former High Court Justice Bell to prepare a report into this matter. That report said, amongst other things:

Given the appointments were not disclosed to the Parliament or to the public, and that Mr Morrison did not exercise any of the powers he enjoyed by reason of his appointments apart from making the PEP-11 decision—

which, of course, was publicised—

the implications of the appointments are limited.

The Bell report also says:

As long as the appointments remained secret and Mr Morrison elected not to exercise his powers as the minister administering a department, it is not apparent that there was any impact on the structure of the ministry.

These are clear findings, inconsistent with much of the exaggerated commentary that we have heard from ministers today and that we've heard repeatedly from the Prime Minister and Labor figures.

There is an obvious question as to whether it was even necessary to commission the Bell report, given that it largely covers the same ground as the opinion from the Solicitor-General, and its recommendations are quite similar. I emphasise that I make no criticism at all of either the Solicitor-General or of former Justice Bell, both of whom were asked to do a job and they did it conscientiously.

The way forward here is clear. The right way forward is to get on with addressing the issues raised in both the opinion and the Bell inquiry. A number of sensible recommendations have been made for improving the clarity and transparency of ministerial appointments. The question that Australians might reasonably ask is, 'Why has the government taken so long to do anything about it?' The Solicitor-General delivered his opinion on 22 August. There are clear reform options set out in that opinion. Very similar recommendations were made by former Justice Bell.

The government's been on notice for more than a month about the recommendations for legislative change from former Justice Bell. She wrote to the Prime Minister on 26 October advising of the recommended legislative change that she'd be proposing. The government could have had that legislation ready to debate today. That would have been a sensible way forward. Instead, what they're seeking to do is leverage this for maximum political advantage. This is nothing more than a grubby political exercise.

See this speech in context