Prime minister says if government becomes first in 90 years to lose vote on floor of parliament, he will ‘simply ignore it’

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Scott Morrison has revealed his plan to move forward if his government becomes the first in almost 90 years to lose a legislative vote on the floor of the parliament, and “simply ignore it”.

Because he thinks it’s “stupid” legislation.

The Morrison government risks a humiliating defeat when parliament resumes next week, with Labor, the Greens and most of the crossbench on track to pass Kerryn Phelp’s medical evacuation bill for refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru.

Kerryn Phelps' offshore detention bill could pass with simple majority, academic says Read more

If the Coalition loses the vote, it will be the first time since 1929 a sitting government lost a substantive legislative vote on the floor. When the Stanley Bruce government lost that vote, Bruce called an election the next day. Morrison told Sky News he would not be repeating history.

“If we lose that vote next week, so be it. We won’t be going off to the polls,” he said on Tuesday night.

“The election is in May. I will simply ignore it and we’ll get on with the business.

“But I’m not going to be howled down by the Labor party who want to dismantle a border protection system I had a key hand in building.”

Morrison was also scathing about the legislation itself.

“This is a stupid bill. It’s written by people who haven’t got the faintest idea how this works,” he said.

“We do and I am so appalled that the Labor party would even play this sort of political game to get a cheap vote in the House next week.

“I will stay on the side of strong border protection and he [Bill Shorten] can take a running jump … We will vote it down, and if that means that the bill goes down, it will be on Bill Shorten’s head. Now Bill Shortens wants [you] to blame the crossbenchers for this, no no, Bill, it’s all on your head.”

Morrison told reporters in Melbourne on Wednesday that the bill would also stop the government from rejecting medical transfers to asylum seekers with criminal histories, despite supporters of the bill insisting these protections would remain in place.

“They may be a paedophile, they may be a rapist, they may be a murderer, and this bill will mean that we would just have to take them,” Morrison said.

“This is what will happen if Bill Shorten does not put national security ahead of his own political opportunism.”

Shorten responded by saying the prime minister should be “ashamed of himself”.

“The fact of the matter is people who have done those crimes don’t get the refugee status unless the government’s missed them when they’ve assessed them as refugees,” he said.

“The idea that somehow because you’re a Liberal you dislike those crimes more than if you’re someone else, I just get sick of that moral superiority and finger pointing.”

Play Video 0:59 ‘I will fight them on this’: PM fires up over border protection – video

When defeat became a real threat on the final sitting day last year, Morrison called a snap press conference, where he vowed to “fight them” on this. In an emotional display, he vowed to do “everything in my power to ensure these changes never see the light of day”.

The government, with the help of Cory Bernardi, starved off defeat on the bill last year, by filibustering the bill in the Senate, delaying its return to the House until it was too late to call a vote.

But Labor has said it won’t be backing away and, while Cathy McGowan has indicated she will make up her mind when the bill comes before the House, her crossbench colleagues said they had seen no indication the Indi MP was backing away from supporting it.

Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) .@ScottMorrisonMP on @drkerrynphelps's refugee medical evacuation bill: This is a 'stupid' bill and I am appalled the Labor party is playing politics on border security.



MORE: https://t.co/GrUFLIuWm4 #jonesandco pic.twitter.com/U6Yhqj0IJ5

The Phelps bill would see the relevant minister have to justify to the parliament why they have rejected a request for an asylum seeker or refugee to be treated in Australia if two independent doctors judge they need to be moved.

An independent health advice panel would review any cases rejected by the minister.

Zali Steggall says Labor needs to commit to stopping Adani coalmine Read more

But the Morrison government argues the final decision should remain with the minister and, attempting to head off a potential defeat next week, offered a medical panel to give non-binding feedback on transfers.

Phelps rejected that, and Labor recommitted its support to the crossbench bill on Tuesday, arguing medical transfers were already occurring and the minister could reject applications for transfers on security grounds.

The Morrison government lost its majority in the House when Malcolm Turnbull’s retirement from politics ended with the Liberal party losing the Wentworth byelection to independent Phelps, in a historic swing.

Julia Banks’ defection to the crossbench left the government with 72 MPs, leaving it four votes short of an absolute majority. Labor, with 69 MPs, is also short, but a simple majority of 75 can pass a bill.

In an essay on the Australian Public Law blog, Prof Anne Twomey has argued 75 MPs would be enough to change standing orders, which require an absolute majority to bring private members’ bills to vote.