Morrison faces probe into whether extra portfolios misled parliament

Scott Morrison faces an investigation into whether he broke parliamentary rules through his secret seizing of cabinet portfolios.

Former prime minister Scott Morrison faces an investigation into whether he broke parliamentary rules through his secret seizing of cabinet portfolios. Picture: Steven Saphore/AFP

Scott Morrison faces an investigation into whether he broke parliamentary rules through his secret seizing of cabinet portfolios, with one of Anthony Albanese’s frontbenchers saying it would not have happened if the nation were a ­republic.

The Prime Minister said on Sunday the government would move to probe Mr Morrison’s decision to have himself sworn into five ­additional portfolios, even if it was found to be legal, and was considering changes to federal laws to prevent it from happening again.

Leader of the House Tony Burke said the government would look at whether parliamentary rules were broken. Government sources said the government could look into whether Mr Morrison misled parliament in statements to the House of Representatives or he could be referred to the House’s privileges committee.

The debate over Mr Morrison’s secret portfolios has led to questions around Governor-General David Hurley’s involvement in ­allowing the appointments to happen, and the need for further constitutional reform.

Assistant Minister for the ­Republic Matt Thistlethwaite said Mr Morrison’s extra portfolios, ­revealed by The Weekend Australian on August 13, highlighted the need for a national ­conversation about having an ­independent head of state.

“If we had a head of state that was appointed by the Australian people then it is my view that the prime minister would not have gotten away with this,” he said.

“One of the things our constitution relies on is a series of conventions and none of them are written down … when they are tested it’s a matter for the Australian people to have trust and faith in those processes and Morrison's actions have undermined the trust in those conventions.”

Ahead of receiving legal advice from the Solicitor General on Monday, the Prime Minister said there was “no suggestion” Mr Morrison had acted unlawfully but argued he had undermined trust in Australian democracy and public institutions.

“There’s separate questions about the functioning of our democracy, about conventions and whether any conventions have been overturned, and whether there’s a need for any reforms required to ensure that something like this can never happen again,” Mr Albanese told Sky News.

“I’m not going to pre-empt the advice that we receive, but very clearly, there’s a need for proper scrutiny of what occurred here.”

Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey said the government needed to be “more concrete” in its allegation that Mr Morrison had misled parliament, and to provide evidence that it was the case.

The allocations of portfolio and ministerial changes are ordinarily notified publicly and announced to the house, however ministers may also be sworn to administer other portfolios that are not tabled in parliament. “As best we know, the Morrison ministry list was tabled in parliament and it says at the bottom of it that ministers may also be sworn into portfolios which are not listed,” Professor Twomey said.

“If that’s the sole cause of misrepresentation to parliament, I can’t see how that in itself is misleading parliament but query if there is anything else … but it is up to the people who are asserting that to provide proof.”

Greens legal affairs spokesman David Shoebridge has called for the government to investigate Mr Morrison’s actions through the privileges committee, which would ­require support from the government.

Former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce on Sunday said he found out “obliquely and over a period of time” that Mr Morrison had taken authority over the resources portfolio, but did not agitate over the intervention amid concern Mr Morri­son would have taken the resources portfolio from the Nationals.