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

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told Australians that national security experts advised against a Commonwealth royal commission. In establishing the royal commission, has the Prime Minister defied national security advice, or was he just making stuff up?

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

The Leader the Opposition said, on 23 December: 'I'll continue to call for parliament to be recalled. It's a comprehensive package that we put forward.' Then, on 27 December, she said, 'Every single day the coalition stands ready to go into parliament and to move our own legislation.' On 30 December she said, 'We have proposed a comprehensive package of laws that we should be debating in the parliament right now.'

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

The Leader of the Opposition?

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

For the Prime Minister to be so deflective and dismissive of a question on national security really does him no good whatsoever, and I draw your attention and the Prime Minister's attention back to the question about national security advice and the Prime Minister's citing of that advice for not calling a Commonwealth royal commission.

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

The Prime Minister just needs to make sure his answer is being directly relevant.

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

I am, absolutely, Mr Speaker.

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

He wasn't asked about alternative policies. He was asked about making stuff up—

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

I was asked about making things up—

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

and about comments he made.

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

I've already said what we did in the immediate aftermath of the 14 December attack. I didn't say when the NSC met—I can't talk about that, obviously. There wasn't any forum where I was, 'Okay, why don't we set up a committee?' What it was was: 'How do we act? How do we keep people safe? What do we need to do immediately?' That was the priority.

But the Leader of the Opposition, during all of that time—and as we have seen again today, in spite of the fact they voted for some of the legislation—voted against the areas of national security. I tell you what—see if you can find a national security expert that doesn't support the gun laws that went through this parliament with the support of this side but not that side. One of the problems we've had throughout this is the gap between the rhetoric of those opposite and what they've actually done. They said they had legislation and they didn't.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition? There's only been one point of order taken.

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

Yes, and my point of order goes to the order of the House.

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

Resume your seat. The Prime Minister was talking about national security advice. I'm going to make sure he returns to that part of the question that he was asked about.

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

The way that this government functions is orderly. It's about getting things right and seeking advice, including off the leaders of the Jewish community. That's the process that we put in place for the vilification legislation, which they called for and then voted against. In all of the negotiations, in every single measure put forward by those opposite, their approach hasn't been, 'How do we strengthen the legislation?' It's been: 'Oh, we've got an internal problem. Can we weaken it a little bit here and there?' That's been the process, to be very clear, of the legislation that will pass the parliament.

Because we don't have the numbers in the Senate, we have had to deal with either coalition or Greens support in the Senate, which we have managed to do. But the hypocrisy—they called for the parliament to be resumed, then said it was too soon; called for vilification laws in the Segal report, then opposed it; called for all of these measures to go forward, including on security and guns, and then voted against it. What we have done is work with the community in a collaborative way and get things done through this parliament in spite of, not because of, those opposite. (Time expired)