John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think every senator in this chamber would acknowledge that it is important for the Australian public and, of course, the parliament to be kept informed of important matters to the extent possible. That is a principle that all ministers accept. But any minister, particularly those who have national security responsibilities, has to consider also what is appropriate to place on the public record. All ministers who have national security responsibilities have accepted the principle that is outlined in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice. I rarely quote Odgers', but let me do so this morning. It is a very accurate representation of the position. It says:

It has been the policy of successive governments that questions seeking information concerning the activities of the ASIO or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) will not be answered.

It goes on to talk about certain precedents and the fact now, of course, that ASIO officers or the director-general do appear before Senate estimates committees and answer questions. So there is a longstanding precedent which every member of parliament understands: ministers have been and should be constrained on what they say publicly about intelligence and security matters.

That does not mean that a minister with national security responsibilities cannot, if he or she believes it is appropriate, seek the leave of the chamber to make a statement. I certainly did that at times when I served as Minister for Defence. I also, in consultation with other parties in the chamber, used the forum of question time to address important matters that were very significant at the time in public debate in this country.

I have never known of a situation where a minister who seeks to make a statement would not be given leave of the Senate. I believe, certainly in this instance, if Senator Brandis chose to do so then that would be the case—and it should be the case. But the issue here is: should the Senate make such a demand of Senator Brandis? I have read Senator Brandis's public statement, headed 'Execution by ASIO of search warrants in Canberra', and he makes the point:

The warrants were issued by me on the grounds that the documents contained intelligence related to security matters.

I do not know what, if anything, Senator Brandis would be able to add to the public statement he has made. What I am concerned about at this stage, in advance of question time, in advance of the forums of the chamber that are available to us, is putting demands on a minister such as those that are suggested in this motion for the suspension of standing orders. That would be a new precedent, which I think would be inappropriate for this Senate to agree to. There is a longstanding mechanism for us dealing with these matters. It is tried and true; it has stood the test of time; it should continue to stand the test of time. (Time expired)