Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Justice. Last night on 7.30 the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, said a deal to trade guns for votes by the Minister for Justice was not authorised. Is that accurate? Was the minister acting without the authority of the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the great advantage when I am questioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about gun regulation in Australia of actually knowing something about the subject matter. That does give me a great advantage in this matter. The premise of her question is completely and utterly false. The idea that this government in any way, shape or form did what she is alleging—somehow traded on gun laws—is completely and utterly false. I already set out in the House on Tuesday exactly what has happened here. It was a very simple process that resulted in a conversation between the then government and Senator Leyonhjelm. We put a sunset clause on a regulation that restricted the import of lever-action shotguns with a capacity of over five rounds, and we did that at his request as part of a conversation that we were having with him. I had hoped that we would have concluded the negotiations with the states, which actually have responsibility for classifying guns in Australia, during that 12-month period. There was no understanding with anybody, including Senator Leyonhjelm, that the government would do anything other than extend that ban if that agreement had not been put in place. Indeed, I can read you the specific words from the regulation that we passed through the Senate on 7 August 2015. The regulation said:

… a temporary prohibition on the importation of those firearms is being put in place. This is an interim measure until the review and update of the National Firearms Agreement are completed.

And we used very similar language when we renewed that regulation, when that sunset clause came into effect 12 months later.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the minister concluded his answer?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have not.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I do not see how the minister can be directly relevant without referring to the former Prime Minister.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right will cease interjecting. You will understand that I will always hear the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. I do not extend that more widely than that. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that he cannot insist that a minister use certain words. The minister is being directly relevant to the question. The Manager of Opposition Business might not like the answer but he cannot have a question asked and demand a certain answer. The minister is entirely in order.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because the opposition knows nothing about gun regulation, I will give them a very quick guide. The states and territories classify guns in Australia according to their legality. We do that based on the advice we get from our law enforcement agencies. The Commonwealth controls the importation of guns. Of course on all matters in relation to this, on all matters in relation to the conversations that we had with Senator Leyonhjelm, I have been very up-front about what happened. He obviously has a different view about it, but the government's position has been entirely consistent.

On the question about my interaction with the Prime Minister's office in relation to this: we interacted in the usual way by keeping the Prime Minister's office appraised of what was going on.