Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government prioritised party politics over the protection of Australians by dismantling the Home Affairs portfolio after the 2022 election;

(b) only the Opposition took a commitment to the 2025 election to undo the Government's damage and restore Home Affairs to its rightful place as the preeminent domestic national security policy and operations portfolio; and

(c) the decision to reconstitute the Home Affairs portfolio following the election, and the Prime Minister's acknowledgement that there were issues with information sharing during the Dural caravan incident are an admission that the national security architecture that was put in place by dismantling the Home Affairs portfolio failed at a critical time; and

(2) calls on the Government to apologise for putting party politics over Australia's national security by changing the Home Affairs portfolio three times in three years in a pointless factional tug-of-war.

It gives me no pleasure to move this motion. Our national security is such a fundamental job of the Commonwealth government that it's troubling that we even have to talk about this today, but here we are. We are dealing with a monumentally incompetent Labor government led by the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and we're calling it out today.

We're calling it out because we have seen a debacle over the last three years. From its very first day in office, the Albanese government set about demolishing the national security architecture that was established to protect Australians. I'm talking about the Department of Home Affairs, which was established in 2017. I remember it very clearly because I was the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that shepherded that legislation through the parliament, working very closely, in fact, with people who were very senior, like the former Attorney-General.

Now, the Department of Home Affairs, with elements of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, was consolidated with other counterterror, counterespionage, cyber and national security functions. But, under the thumb of the former Attorney-General, the Prime Minister undermined Australia's national security by gutting the Home Affairs portfolio in 2022, moving the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre into the Attorney-General's portfolio. The only operational national security agency which remained with Home Affairs was ASIO.

These machinery-of-government changes were never put to the people. They were never taken to an election. They were never discussed with the Australian people. The Prime Minister stood idly by while his Attorney-General gathered power to himself and dismantled an important department central to Australia's national security, and the consequences were serious and immediate.

Take, for instance, the listing of a terrorist organisation. This was a straightforward process under the coalition. If there was a terrorist organisation that needed listing, we got it done. We ran a low-drag high-speed operation. But on Anthony Albanese's watch, the process became convoluted and sluggish. The new process required the Attorney-General's and Home Affairs departments to ping-pong advice and submissions between each other and their ministers. As a consequence, the time taken for ministerial consideration of a terrorism listing completely blew out. In one embarrassing stuff-up, the former minister for home affairs was left out of a terrorist listing altogether, being completely absent from a terrorist relisting process. You can't make this stuff up. It's the sort of thing you watch on shows like Yes Minister or Utopia. But here we are; this is the Labor government. These kinds of basic errors on one of the most fundamental counterterrorism tools never happened under the previous Home Affairs construct.

But the Prime Minister decided he hadn't done enough damage quite yet. After he sacked the former minister for home affairs and the former minister for immigration for their botched handling of the NZYQ and direction 99 saga, the Prime Minister actually went further and said, 'You know what? We'll strip ASIO out of Home Affairs too.' You can't make this up. That meant that the Minister for Home Affairs was minister in name only. He had no agencies to deliver on the counterterrorism mission they were responsible for. In fact, the portfolio was completely stripped of the operational elements required to keep Australians safe. Perhaps this was the reason why the Minister for Home Affairs was missing in action from the major announcement in August last year that the terrorism threat level was being raised, on ASIO advice, to probable.

What's going on here? Australians would be asking: 'What's going on here? Why are they running such a ramshackle government and compromising our national security?' The answer is very simply that this is a government that prioritises factional and party politics over the protection of Australians. As a consequence, our national security agencies have languished under a lack of strategic direction from a weak Prime Minister. Whether it comes to terrorist plots on our shores or foreign naval vessels circumnavigating Australia, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, is not across the details when Australia needs him most to be. The Prime Minister even kicked out key national security agencies, including ASIO and ASIS, from the National Security Committee of cabinet. Guess who was brought on? You can't make this up. He replaced them with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. This is a government which is hopeless on national security. It's hopelessly divided by factional party politics. And it's compromising— (Time expired)

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Canning seems very pleased with himself. He seems like he's very happy with the way he's performing at the moment. He's happy to show off to his colleagues that he's ready, he's prepared, he's got his notes in order, he's thinking about the job, he's pressing Labor on all the important issues, and he's got control of the WA Liberal Party. They had their conference, member for Robertson, Dr Reid, on the weekend, behind closed doors. I wonder what went on in there behind closed doors?

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[inaudible] Western Australia.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it's not just the 'Western Australian'—it's also the 'Australian', member for Durack. I take that interjection. Clearly, the member for Canning has been very busy putting forward lots of policy areas—

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[inaudible]

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He doesn't like this!

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to make a point of order on relevance. The member here has had 50 seconds. He hasn't even addressed the topic at hand, which is the Labor government's failure on home affairs.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Canning, he has another four minutes.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll get there! Home affairs is an important topic, but it would be remiss of me not to mention that the member for Canning, who is the mover of this motion, has come into this place after a very busy weekend fighting for national security—combatting those culture wars on flags, welcome to country acknowledgements and net zero, even. He's friends with the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce. The member for New England is on a unity ticket with the member for Canning. There is one similarity threading through all of their work, and that is undermining the leaders of the Nationals and the Liberal Party. The member for Canning is getting himself ready to be the leader—the leader-in-waiting—and the member for New England is ready just to let Mr Littleproud know that he's there and that he's happy to support Mr McCormack, which is quite an amazing turn of events.

Home affairs is a policy area where those opposite ignored advice from our intelligence agencies about the way in which they spoke about matters of national security. They ignored advice around their language, how to frame matters and how to address the escalation of serious social cohesion issues in our society. Those opposite, at the last election, came in headstrong, wanting to tear our country apart and provide division instead of unity in every situation possible. They wanted to ignore the advice of our national security advisers and intelligence officers to monitor their language and act with decorum, decency and leadership. The member for Canning knows this all too well. He is very aware that those opposite have opportunities to act in the national interest and that, instead, too often, the Liberal Party chooses to act with division and point the finger at minorities in this country. They point the finger at a whole range of groups, which, frankly, heightens tensions; it does not reduce them. This was against the exact advice of our intelligence officers.

We will not be taking lectures about national security from the party that seeks to divide rather than act in the national interest. In fact, they're seeking to divide their own party at this moment. They're seeking to put up motions in their own conferences, led by senior members of the Liberal Party and the WA Liberal Party. They're very happy to make sure that there is no space for the Leader of the Opposition to frankly set a new tone in the national debate. I give the Leader of the Opposition credit; she's trying to bring the Liberal Party back to somewhere near the sensible centre and trying to ensure that the Liberal Party acts in a somewhat responsible way. But it is members like those opposite who are very, very happy to undermine her and ignore that, and ignore the advice of our national security advisers—just like they did last term—and continue on with their culture wars and their divisive politics.

In terms of the home affairs department, the member for Canning also spoke about the prescription of terrorist organisations. For the very first time, under us, there were some significant prescriptions of terrorist organisations. There were a number of terrorist organisations prescribed, including, for the very first time, far-right organisations that were entrenched in Neo-Nazi ideology. That was important recognition by the government of organisations that, frankly, have no place in Australia. That work continues; we work in a collaborative and bipartisan way, seeking to heed the advice of our intelligence officers and our security officers.

I say to the opposition: less time on culture wars and conference motions, and more time actually giving your leader the space she needs in order to bring the party back to the sensible centre. Otherwise, enjoy the fringes of politics, where you currently are and where you'll stay for a long time.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next member, I remind everyone in the chamber—I know we're all very excited to be back in the Federation Chamber—to, under the standing orders, refer to other members by their electorate name, not their personal name.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Canning, which makes very clear that the Albanese Labor government has completely the wrong instincts when it comes to the Home Affairs portfolio and our national security.

When Labor were elected in 2022, one of their first decisions was to begin to dismantle the Home Affairs portfolio. They did so by removing the Australian Federal Police, financial crimes regulator AUSTRAC and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission from Home Affairs. In 2024 the Prime Minister went further, transferring Australia's domestic spy agency, ASIO, out of Home Affairs to the Attorney-General's Department. The PM defended this shift by saying that ASIO needed to be in the same place as the AFP. Of course, there was no admission that he was responsible for separating the two agencies. It's noteworthy that these changes were not taken to the 2022 election but had consistently been on Labor's wish list. As we know, they've always been uncomfortable with the coalition's strong national security agenda.

Fast forward to today, and the Attorney-General has been marched to the back bench and Labor have backtracked on their changes, now bringing ASIO, the AFP and AUSTRAC back into Home Affairs. Common sense has finally prevailed. Why? Because, according to the Prime Minister, there were issues that arose out of information-sharing during the Dural caravan incident. This is a damning admission by the Prime Minister, acknowledging that the national security changes he introduced by dismantling Home Affairs failed when it mattered most. While the caravan incident turned out to be a hoax, the outcome could have been catastrophic if it had been real and the system had still failed.

This wasn't the only issue with the new arrangements. Previously, the listing of a terrorist organisation was known and was a straightforward process. But in Labor's first term this became convoluted. The new process created a back-and-forth loop between the Attorney-General's Department and the home affairs department, blowing out the time required for a decision to be made. In one instance, the Minister for Home Affairs was left out of a terrorist re-listing entirely—absolutely hopeless. These issues should not have been a surprise to the government, and they should apologise.

When we first established the home affairs department in 2017, it was designed so all the intelligence and security agencies would fall within a single department and be responsible to a single minister—sounds like common sense, I'd say. That's why we committed, before the last election, to restoring the integrity of the Home Affairs portfolio—unlike those opposite, who made no such commitment.

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of Labor's failure regarding structures protecting our national security. You only have to look back at the nonsensical changes to the composition of the National Security Committee of Cabinet.

Under the coalition, Australia's domestic and foreign intelligence agencies both served as permanent members, as you would expect. But, to add insult to injury, those intelligence agencies were replaced by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Chris Bowen. Can anyone really argue that Minister Bowen has better insights into our security challenges than the heads of our intelligence agencies? Honestly, this is just nonsense. Those opposite, unfortunately, suffer from a general predisposition to oppose the coalition's initiatives before realising we were right all along and having to backtrack. As the shadow minister for cybersecurity, I think an obvious example was the initial criticism from Minister O'Neil calling our SOCI reforms 'bloody useless' before going on to say other countries asked her how they could construct something similar—not so useless it would seem.

This trend goes back a long time, with the most notable example probably the Rudd-Gillard government's rejection of offshore processing, which culminated in 50,000 illegal arrivals by boat and over a thousand deaths at sea. Our government, under the leadership of former prime ministers Abbott and Morrison, as the relevant minister, successfully cleaned up this mess with Operation Sovereign Borders.

We on this side understand that the No.1 priority of government is to keep our citizens safe, and we are not afraid to make the tough decisions that are required or to invest properly in our defence and national security infrastructure. We hope this government takes national security seriously.

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank the member for Canning for bringing on this motion here today. I listened politely and I listened very patiently to the member's contribution—and to that of others—on home affairs and national security. While I appreciate that he was trying to paint himself as the lone sentry at the gates, sounding the alarm while the rest of us are asleep, the problem is that, when the member for Canning was in government, it wasn't just the gates that were left open; it was the entire border of sound governance. Let's not forget here today that this is the same member, part of a coalition government, who sat silent while cybersecurity infrastructure was let to rot, while visa backlogs blew out and while home affairs became less about keeping Australians safe and more about keeping coalition headlines alive.

The member for Canning talked about national security and keeping Australians safe, but he failed to mention the decade-long threat posed by his own side's incompetence. We had the chaos of revolving ministers. We had the secrecy of opaque contracts and the brilliance of outsourcing everything but responsibility. Frankly, the member for Canning speaking about national security is like the fox lecturing the hens on henhouse perimeter fencing. It's bold. It's theatrical. But, ultimately, it's not credible.

The adults are back in charge now, Member for Canning, and we're not here to play dress up; we're here to govern. Under Labor, the Home Affairs portfolio is no longer a political vanity project. It is a functioning portfolio that protects Australia and plans for the future. To the member for Canning: enjoy the speeches and enjoy the stunts, but leave the serious security work to those of us on this side of the chamber, who are actually doing the job.

In an increasingly complex and volatile world marked by geopolitical instability, evolving cyberthreats and global crime networks, Australians need a government they can trust to protect them, a government that acts with integrity, with foresight and with responsibility. Under Labor, national security is not just a slogan; it is a serious responsibility, and we back that responsibility with real investment, with robust oversight and with an unwavering commitment to keep Australians safe.

Let's look at some of the facts. The Albanese Labor government has strengthened our national security architecture through strategic investment in cybersecurity, in intelligence capability and in border security. Through the Home Affairs portfolio, we have restored integrity and coordination across our key agencies in the intelligence community, the Australian Federal Police and Border Force, ensuring that they are equipped to respond to 21st-century threats. Cybersecurity, in particular, has become the new front line of national defence, and Labor are leading the way with our comprehensive nation-building plan to make Australia a world leader in cyber-resilience. After a decade of neglect and after a decade of fragmentation, under the former coalition government, Labor has provided clear leadership, working with industry to lift standards and defend against malicious attacks.

We are also acting on the less visible but equally vital front lines of extremism, foreign interference and organised crime. Under the minister's leadership, the Department of Home Affairs has sharpened its focus on domestic violent extremism and strengthened counter-terrorism coordination while investing in programs to build community cohesion and resilience. But let's not forget national security must be balanced with democratic values, and only Labor strikes that balance, protecting Australians while upholding the freedoms and rights that define our democracy. We do not politicise intelligence, we do not scapegoat communities and we do not outsource responsibility.

Compare that to the coalition. Under their watch, Home Affairs became a bloated, politicised and reactive department, security agencies were thrown into turf wars, cybersecurity preparedness slipped and immigration processing descended into dysfunction. Time and time again, they treated security like a political football—chasing headlines rather than solutions. The coalition talks tough; Labor acts smart. We believe that security is not built on slogans but on strategy, not with fear but with facts, and not by division but through unity and competence. I commend the work of the Albanese Labor government on the Home Affairs portfolio and reaffirm that only Labor can be trusted to safeguard our future.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got a little tip for the member for Robertson. Before he comes in here and starts disparaging the member for Canning, he should have a look at the member for Canning's biography. Have a look at what the member for Canning has achieved in his political career and, before that, his military career, and don't you ever, ever, member for Robertson, come in here and denounce the member for Canning. He has been one of the finest Australians, as far as his military career is concerned, and don't ever spend two minutes—the first two minutes of your five-minute contribution—denouncing the member for Canning, because that is just not the right thing to do. He is a fine veteran and he is somebody who I think will make a great shadow minister for home affairs.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hope he stays shadow minister.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just can't believe he just spent two minutes playing the man rather than arguing the policy position which has been put forward in this private members' motion by the member for Canning, because it is important. Home security, the home affairs department and the Home Affairs portfolio are too critical to get wrong.

What we have seen under this Labor government is an erosion of the Home Affairs portfolio, and, if ever national security were being played as something of a game, it was when we as a nation outsourced national security to a Virgin pilot who realised and alerted our authorities to the fact that there were live-firing exercises off the Australian coast. If that weren't bad enough, what we're seeing on diplomatic stage at the moment is nothing short of an embarrassment. It truly is. What we're seeing is a dismantling of the Home Affairs portfolio and department and a watering down of this. It's simply not good enough that, when the shadow minister puts up a very serious topic for discussion for the home of democracy, we find a member sent in here with his talking points who spends the first two minutes playing the man and rubbishing somebody who has so much credibility in this area. It's almost just embarrassing to listen to him.

The machinery-of-government changes were never put to the Australian people, and this is what we are seeing time and time again with this Labor government. We're seeing ministers let the department run the show rather than the other way round. We've just saw it last week with the beef situation. What we're seeing here, unfortunately, is the government watering down what is a very important portfolio area, a very important department. We saw in the Dural caravan situation, we've seen it with the live-firing exercises off our coast. National security—if we listen to the Minister for Defence, the member for Corio—is at a critical juncture, and what we are seeing is the government not taking it seriously enough. This is just another example of this.

Take, for instance, the listing of a terrorist organisation. Now, this was a straightforward process under the previous government. The previous for 10 years placed the national security interests of citizens first and foremost, as you would expect a good government to do—and we were a good government, make no mistake. The member for Robertson can come here, after that government was completed, and he can get his taking points from the Labor dirt unit, and he can spruik all he likes about what we did or didn't do, but facts matter. Facts are important. What he just spruiked then was certainly not based on facts.

Unfortunately, on this Prime Minister's watch, the listing of a terrorist organisation has become sluggish and convoluted. The new process requires the Attorney-General's and Home Affairs departments to go backwards and forwards with advice and take submissions between each other and their ministers. As a consequence, the time for ministerial consideration of a terrorism listing has blown out. That's just one example.

The member for Canning is right, the member for Canning has experience in in regard, and the rubber is starting to hit the road. What we are seeing is a complete devolution and dilution of the Home Affairs portfolio, and it's simply not good enough.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I get that the shadow minister for home affairs wants to make a splash in his new portfolio, and I know he's ambitious, particularly for his leader, but this motion is absolutely ridiculous. He went through a history of the creation of the Department of Home Affairs and claimed that what we were doing was factional and party political. He was elected in 2015 after a distinguished military career, but in 2017, and all the way up from the time he was elected to the creation of the Department of Home Affairs in 2017, you had George Brandis from the liberal wing of the Liberal Party—the Attorney-General—fighting against the concept of the creation of the Department of Home Affairs—led by the arch conservatives and the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, the then member for Dickson—on the front page of the national media. They did press about it. It was totally ridiculous. Don't accuse us of playing factional and party political when you saw the LNP Queensland branch—liberal and conservative wings—on full display in the creation of the Department of Home Affairs.

Let me tell you, there were 27,000 people left on temporary protection visas in sheds who languished all the way through under the Department of Home Affairs. Now, remember that figure because there's another 27,000 figure—27,931 people who, in 2018, in the year of the creation of the Department of Home Affairs, asked for protection visas when they arrived here by planes. So they're tough on boats but weak on planes. They were very gentle on the applications for visas for nannies for Liberal Party mates—very gentle—and very gracious and charitable on contracts for people who happened to have connections in relation to this issue. They were criticised up hill and down dale by the Auditor-General for their administration of the Department of Home Affairs. You only have to look at it to see some of the toughest language you have ever seen from the Auditor-General in relation to it.

What we have done here are machinery of government changes, and all governments do this. It's routine. It's important for better coordination and communication, and sharing of information for national security agencies and departments. Under the previous government, you had only to see survey after survey in the Department of Home Affairs to see morale was worse in the Department of Home Affairs than in any other department in the Commonwealth government. So you had speaker after speaker from the Liberal and National parties here giving us lectures when their own departmental public servants were so critical of their administration. Now, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, has been upfront about the fact that this change is partly as a result of the need for better sharing of information as a result Dural caravan incident. We're going to make sure to learn from that experience. We make no apologies for the necessary steps that we've undertaken to make sure Australia's safe. We're not engaging in party political and factional tug-of-war circa 2016-17-18, as we saw under the coalition. This is a deliberate and considered move. It's about prioritising national security.

It's not surprising that a number of national security experts have backed it in, including John Blaxland, Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies at the Australian National University. ASPI has backed it in—John Coyne and James Corera from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. I can tell you that that is not a body affiliated with the Australia Labor Party. They have praised the decision in an article on ASPI's website. What we've done has got the support of security intelligence experts, and those opposite are criticising us about it. ASPI wrote on their website that institutional integration, for example, brings ASIO and the AFP under one minister alongside cyber, immigration and citizenship and will allow for better coordination between national security operations and strategic policymaking. How about you listen to the experts? In the areas of science, they don't want to listen to the experts. In areas of education, they don't want to listen to the experts. In areas of international, strategic and national security, the Liberal and National parties don't want to listen to the experts. It's anti-intellectualism. Go back to Robert Menzies. This is the bloke that created and expanded universities. The party of Menzies is no longer.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They say that a country that doesn't prioritise national security does so at its own peril. Of course, nothing could be further from that truth than this government. In the previous parliament under the so-called stewardship of the then attorney-general, this government gutted Home Affairs because this government does not believe in national security. That much is very, very clear. In the last parliament, I had the privilege of being the Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, a very important committee. Some—I'd be one of them—would say that's the most important committee in this place. Why? It is because it deals with the national security of our nation. But, when we look at the internal factional tug of war that went on in the last Albanese government, we saw, as I said, Home Affairs being gutted in some sort of institutional power grab by the then attorney-general. We saw that this absolutely failed. I was watching this train wreck unfold.

When we were in government, when there was an organisation that was going to be considered for listing as a terrorist organisation, that was done in a matter of a few short days. Under this lot, under Labor, because of the gutting of the Department of Home Affairs that they did, we saw information ping-ponging between the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs. Information went missing or information wasn't being attended to by various ministers, and it was taking up to 60 days to list an organisation as a terrorist organisation. When we were in government, we would do it in two or three. Results speak for themselves, and a government that does not prioritise national security puts 27 million Australians at risk.

I know, having served on that committee, just how disinterested this government is in relation to national security. I'll give you another example. In the last parliament, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was not formed for weeks after the parliament recommenced; weeks and weeks went by. I hope that is not repeated in this parliament. It has been three months since this government won power, again. We're in our second week of sitting, so I'll give them some leeway, but let's wait and see how long it takes this government to prioritise the formation of the most important committee in this place. Bear in mind, it's the Prime Minister that chooses who sits on that committee—in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. So, Prime Minister, get your skates on. We need to ensure that the PJCIS is formed as quickly as possible.

In the last parliament, we saw instance after instance of this government failing to prioritise the national security of Australians. We saw the NZYQ case. We saw the circumnavigation of Australia by the People's Liberation Army Navy. But apparently it's all fine; there's nothing to see here! We continue to see mixed messages by this government. I don't know whether the Minister for Defence actually talks with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but the defence minister acknowledges that we're in the most geopolitically unstable period since 1945. But apparently there's nothing to see here because we're all friends with the CCP again! We'd all like to spend six days in China like the Prime Minister just did.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is interrupted, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.