Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House: 'We listen to intelligence agencies. We don't try to second guess them.' But this morning it was revealed the Department of Home Affairs advised the government to list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation more than two years ago. Prime Minister, when this national security advice was received, on what basis did the government reject it?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. There have been a range of comments made in just the last 24 hours. On Monday we received the information and the advice. On Monday afternoon we had the appropriate committees enacted. By Tuesday, we had got our personnel out of Iran to safety and had expelled the ambassador here from Australia, along with three other diplomats from the Iranian embassy. We received bipartisan support, I recall, for that action, but it appeared that it didn't last too long.

The member asked about information and when it came back. Indeed, to quote someone: 'Yes, there were calls to list the IRGC back when I was the chair of the intelligence committee, which was from 2017 through to late 2020. The government makes those decisions. The government makes the decision to amend the Criminal Code and then list a terrorist organisation.'

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order on relevance, if I may, Mr Speaker. This is a question about the government's decision to reject national security advice two years ago. The Prime Minister is not in order.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister was asked about the decision that was taken and on what basis that was. He'll need to make his answer directly relevant, ensuring that he complies with the standing orders. If he's got information to give the House about how the decision was made, he's entitled to do that.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's certainly very relevant because the member for Canning, the shadow minister for this area, went on to say today: 'For whatever reason the coalition government did not want to. In fact, we had briefs as to the reason why which I can't discuss here.' That is what he said because he understands intelligence. 'I stand with the government, as does the rest of the coalition'—that's what the shadow minister responsible said this morning. This is backed up by his statement yesterday: 'The decision was a good one. It was backed up by forensic intelligence provided by ASIO and other partners.'

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on relevance. She's only entitled to one point of order on relevance.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asking whether the Prime Minister is following your previous instruction. The statements of the member for Canning more than two years ago are not relevant to the question.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've been down this path before. There's no ruling that I'm going to make around this. If you were not happy with it at the time when I brought the Prime Minister back to it that would have been the time to take action. You can't go back in time and ask for a second chomp at something.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We're just going to handle this respectfully. It's an important issue. The Prime Minister is going to continue and make sure his remarks are directly relevant regarding on what basis the decision was made.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've gone on to quote someone who knows something about intelligence and national security about why intelligence information isn't the subject of public debate. That was the quote from the member for Canning. Indeed, the member for Barker backed this up. This is what he had to say: 'I congratulate the Prime Minister on his response. It's been swift. It's been decisive. He's to be congratulated for that.' (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Macnamara is warned.