House debates Questions without Notice
National Security
Malcolm Turnbull Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer
2:44 pm
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister credibly claim to be tough on terrorism when he has today defended the Attorney-General’s reckless remarks, which put at risk the outcome of an ongoing terrorist trial, and then brushed aside, as mere commentary, the grave criticisms of his own Attorney-General by the trial judge himself?
Kevin Rudd Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister
There is nothing like the member for Wentworth rising in high dudgeon, I always say. It is a piece of theatre from central casting as confected as the member for Wentworth’s recent discovery of compassion for pensioners—which did not exist as of four months ago.
Malcolm Turnbull Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question relates to an ongoing terrorist trial and the Attorney-General putting its outcome at risk. The Prime Minister might return to the substance of the question.
Harry Jenkins Speaker
Before giving the Prime Minister the call, I will say that the Prime Minister is aware that he has to be relevant to the question. Independent of these things, I want to clarify if this is an ongoing trial.
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House
On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I know where you are going and can assist the House by—
Unidentified interjection - Hansard doesn't record who said this
Honourable Members:
Joe Hockey North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House
The trial has concluded, but it may be subject to appeal and therefore the comments of the Attorney-General are very relevant and do not represent something that is sub judice.
Harry Jenkins Speaker
This is the matter that I wished to raise. I indicate to the House that they should be careful about transgressing the sub judice conventions of the House. As I have indicated to the House, I was trying to determine what stage we were at. So far I have been satisfied that, in the narrow way in which the answers have been directed to the question and the narrow way in which the questions have been put, it satisfies the convention so far. But the House should be careful.
Kevin Rudd Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The benefit of your intervention just now is to underline the absolute hypocrisy of those opposite. Here we are, debating a matter which they believe—or argue—is of such sensitivity that it should not be the subject of political comment, and what do they do? They make it the subject of political comment. I find it remarkable. The harder the question goes to whether the government is serious about terrorism—
Unidentified interjection - Hansard doesn't record who said this
Opposition Members:
Opposition members interjecting—
Duncan Kerr Denison, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
You weren’t defending civil liberties 12 months ago!
Harry Jenkins Speaker
The Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs might get the benefit of giving legal advice in the Pacific islands!
Christopher Pyne Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Mr Speaker, on a point of relevance: the question does not go to the outcome of the trial. It goes to the comments of the Attorney-General—
Harry Jenkins Speaker
The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has indicated that he has concluded.
Unidentified interjection - Hansard doesn't record who said this
Honourable Members:
Harry Jenkins Speaker
Order! I appreciate that the hubbub might not be because the member for Leichhardt has a good following in this chamber, but the member for Leichhardt has the call.