Do Scott Morrison’s explanations against censure stack up?

Former prime minister Scott Morrison issued a lengthy and largely unrepentant address in parliament on Wednesday before he was censured for eroding public trust in democracy, having secretly sworn himself in to administer the departments of treasury, home affairs, health, finance, and industry, science, energy and resources during his last term in government. Here we look at a few of his claims.

Former prime minister Scott Morrison.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Did Scott Morrison apologise?

Sort of. Morrison apologised to those he “offended” through his acquisition of the ministries, but he followed that up by asserting that he did not apologise “for taking action, especially prudent redundancy action, in a national crisis in order to save lives and to save livelihoods”.

Morrison conceded taking the portfolios of treasury and home affairs were “unnecessary” in hindsight and he was mistaken in believing former finance minister Simon Birmingham was aware of his acquisition of that department as well, describing it as an omission on his part.

“Had I been asked about these matters at the time at the numerous press conferences I held, I would have responded truthfully about the arrangements I had put in place,” Morrison said.

The former prime minister also challenged the government to stop and consider the following:

“Have you ever had to deal with a crisis where the outlook was completely unknown? In such circumstances, were you able to get all the decisions perfectly right?

“And where you may have made errors, were you fortunate enough for them to have had no material impact on the result and the result itself proved to be world-leading?”

Was he actually sworn into multiple ministries?

Morrison argued he wasn’t sworn in “to hold the office of any of those ministerial portfolios, and as a result any contention that I served as minister of those portfolios in that office is false”.

“The documentation authorised by the governor-general carefully does not include any reference to being sworn to hold the office of minister,” Morrison said.

Morrison did not swear an oath. There was no secret ceremony with Governor-General David Hurley for the additional ministries. He didn’t even have to visit Hurley in person. Instead, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and personal staff in his office liaised with the governor-general to have legal instruments signed.

Hurley confirmed this in August, saying recommendations to appoint ministers were not by convention considered by the federal executive council – a body that includes the governor-general and at least two ministers, which oversees the signing of acts into law and making statutory and judicial appointments among other things.

The actual wording on the documents shows Morrison was appointed to “administer” the portfolios, however, according to the solicitor-general’s published opinion of the matter on August 22, Morrison advised the governor-general the appointment to the resources portfolio would allow him “to be the responsible minister for matters within that portfolio, if and when required”.

Did Morrison wield his new powers under any of these ministries?

In his fiery defence, Morrison said he exercised no powers under his new portfolios, except for a decision to revoke the licence of an offshore gas exploration project under former resource minister Keith Pitt’s portfolio.

This is backed up by the findings of former High Court judge Virginia Bell, who said: “Mr Morrison only exercised a statutory power that he enjoyed by reason of the appointments on one occasion”.

Were his actions lawful?

Morrison argued in his address that the solicitor-general found his actions were not unlawful. This is correct. The solicitor-general concluded that the appointment of Morrison to administer the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources was constitutionally valid, and, according to the Bell report, “the reasoning applies with equal force to each of the appointments”.

However, Bell said Morrison hadn’t attached any significance to the fact each appointment gave him the same responsibilities as the other ministers appointed to the departments.

“In the absence of such delineation, there was a risk of conflict had Mr Morrison decided to exercise a statutory power inconsistently with the exercise of the power by another minister administering the department,” her report says.

Were his actions necessary to survive the pandemic?

Morrison was at pains throughout his address to couch his decisions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the related health and economic harms, talking at length about Australia’s enviable position in the world when it came to death rates and the maintenance of the country’s AAA credit rating.

“As prime minister, I sought to exercise my responsibility during this extremely difficult period in a matter that would best advance and protect Australia’s national interest in the welfare of the Australian people,” he said.

The Bell report acknowledged the appointments to the Health and Finance Departments in March 2020 were made “under the extreme pressure” of responding to the pandemic. Senior ministers recalled justifying Morrison’s appointment to Health so that if then-health minister Greg Hunt became incapacitated, Morrison could use his broad powers under biosecurity legislation.

“The appointments, however, were unnecessary,” the report said. “If Mr Hunt or [then-finance minister Mathias] Cormann had become incapacitated ... Mr Morrison could have been authorised to act as Minister for Health or Minister for Finance in a matter of minutes.”

Bell found the appointments to DISER, Treasury and Home Affairs “had little if any connection to the pandemic”.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.