Australia politics live: ‘deeply disappointed’ Bridget Archer crosses floor to support censure motion against Scott Morrison

Key events

Filters BETA

Key events (14)Scott Morrison (35)Australia (14)Coalition (13)This House of Representatives (11)Anthony Albanese (10)

Anthony Albanese: Scott Morrison ‘owes an apology to the Australian people’

The PM comes to the conclusion of his speech:

I thought this morning that we would see some contrition – some. A semblance of contrition. We got none of that.

We got hubris and we got denial from the former prime minister, who in spite of the fact that when we were appointed and there was a range of things that we could have done as a government.

It 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 alleged was to have occurred a long, long time before she was in parliament.

That’s what the former government did. That’s what the former government did. There was none of that from us. None. 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 with it. This morning, what we saw was just a justification of his government’s record.

Now, 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 are many things that the former government did to deal with the Covid pandemic that we supported wholeheartedly. There are 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 whether the former prime minister’s actions in being given responsibility to administer a whole host of portfolios, which even after the first two came out as a result of him feeling it was OK to tell two journalists what was going on, is 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 portfolios as well as an additional portfolio. Whether that was appropriate.

Secondly, whether there should have been transparency about that. There should have been. There should have been.

The former prime minister owes an apology, 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.

The Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during debate on a censure motion moved by the leader of the house Tony Burke against the member for Cook Scott Morrison in the House of Representatives chamber. Wednesday 30 November 2022. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

Updated at 19.31 EST

Anthony Albanese: ‘People had a responsibility to act. They didn’t’

The PM has asked for extra time to continue speaking here. He has gone from being unsure if he would speak to taking up two slots. And he is doing most of it off the cuff.

People had a responsibility to act. They didn’t.

It was a slippery slope that undermined the functioning of this parliament. That undermined our 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 why people didn’t speak up.

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 cannot still conceive of the idea that, 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!

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.

Updated at 19.17 EST

Anthony Albanese: former deputy PM ‘should never have been asked to be put in that position’

He came up with a different explanation today. If only he was asked! To blame 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?

What’s your day job?

It’s just beyond comprehension that this parliament should be as a whole standing up and voting for this motion. The whole parliament. Because it began with measures like the former deputy prime minister, who I have a lot of respect for, and he knows that.

… The former deputy prime minister was told by the prime minister’s office then to not 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 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 declare it. The former deputy prime minister, the second one, former deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, was asked on Insiders why it was that he was aware of the Pep 11 decision and why he did not speak up and say something about this at the time.

This was his response, and I quote:

‘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 on August 21, 2022.’

Updated at 19.13 EST

Anthony Albanese: ‘This is not a one-man show’

This morning, I came here not certain as to whether I would speak.

But I have to respond to the prime minister’s comments, who has confirmed again that he just doesn’t get it, the former prime minister.

He said this morning that he 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 ask questions about Pep 11. We asked questions about health.

Not knowing that the then prime minister was actually responsible and sworn in.

The former prime minister flipped more questions to ministers than all previous 29 prime ministers.

The former prime minister shut down debate at this dispatch box each and every time where people attempted to make [enquiries] about the serious matters.

And when it goes to Covid, I had that sense too, as the leader of the opposition, which is why we on this side of the House now, when we sat there, took responsible decisions to not play politics, to vote for and to declare in advance of packages coming forward, that even if our amendments were not successful, 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 to that, that they were conscious of.

But we understood our obligation to the national interest. This is not a one man show.

This was the Australian people who stood up and protected themselves, not just in the parliament.

Those people who stayed at home, people who got vaccinated, the heroes of the pandemic who went out there and worked with people who were sick.

So all of this self-congratulation that we heard this morning should be dismissed.

Updated at 19.10 EST

Anthony Albanese: Morrison ‘was not responsible to the parliament and through that to the electors’

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 it was fundamentally undermined because the member for Cook, the then prime minister, was not responsible to the parliament and through that to the electors for which 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 something it was entitled to know.

Updated at 19.06 EST

Anthony Albanese: censure motion ‘a profoundly sad moment’

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 be to be complicit to say – well, that was OK. 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 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 [taken lightly].

Updated at 19.07 EST

Anthony Albanese delivers speech on censure motion

It wasn’t set in stone that the PM would speak on this. He is facing an almost empty chamber as he does – there are only a handful of Coalition MPs left in the chamber.

Updated at 19.03 EST

Bridget Archer: ‘This is not a game’

I’ve said time and time again that we talk very much in this House about the great privilege and honour of being here. But we talk less often about the responsibility that comes with that. There is a great privilege that comes with being the prime minister. But with that comes great responsibility and accountability. Which you can’t have without transparency.

And it might be a shock to some who sit here from all sides, but this is not a game.

There are things that sit above the cut and thrust of politics and the essential motion goes to our system of democracy.

It would be remiss of me not to mention that for me this issue also sits at the heart of the ability of our party to move forward.

This is a clear opportunity for a line to be drawn and to move in the right direction. We must heed the message sent to us at the May election. Learn those lessons. Reset and move forward constructively.

In closing, I just say this. I am a Liberal. I believe in Liberal values. And our statement of values says this: we believe in the rule of law. Under it there is freedom for the nation and for all men and women. Democracy depends upon self-discipline, obedience to the law, and the honest administration of the law. And it is for this reason, I’m obligated to support this motion.

Updated at 19.02 EST

Bridget Archer: ‘I do not accept explanations’ made by Scott Morrison

Bridget Archer again shows her courage in speaking up when her party won’t, and criticises Scott Morrison’s speech and explanation.

I do not accept any of the explanations put forward by the former prime minister for his actions. And I’m deeply disappointed by the lack of genuine apology or, more importantly, understanding of the impact of these decisions.

Updated at 19.02 EST

Liberal Bridget Archer rises in support of the censure motion

The Liberal MP for Bass says it is not an attack on the three years of Scott Morrison’s leadership, but “rather a reflection on the specific actions taken, that in my view, defy the expectations we have for our leaders”.

As Virginia Bell concluded in her report, the actions taken were corrosive to trust in politics. Those actions sit outside the expectations of the Australian people. And it sits outside of how we expect elected representatives in the highest office to act.

I’ve relentlessly advocated for more integrity in politics and fought for an integrity commission that would begin to restore the public’s faith. In elected officials. To sit quietly now would be hypocritical and I firmly believe we should be intentional in the actions we take to ensure that we do not let this happen again.

Updated at 19.01 EST