George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the minister to the AFP raids on the home of the Canberra Times journalist Mr Philip Dorling yesterday morning. Can the minister inform the Senate of the reason for the raids? Is it not the case that the raids related to the article by Mr Dorling which appeared under his by-line on 14 June this year?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis, for the question. I understand that such a raid did occur and I have read the reportage of that, but my advice is that there is an ongoing AFP investigation and it would not be appropriate for the government to comment on that until the investigation is completed.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I have carefully avoided directing any aspect of this question to any operational matter. It has been the convention in this chamber and in estimates committees—and I would invite you to rule on this—that a question in relation to an agency such as the AFP that is not directed to operational matters is in order and therefore the ground of objection taken by the senator to answering the question is impermissible.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: there is no point of order. Senator Brandis seeks to debate whether he likes my answer, but I gave him a very—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I told him my answer.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You declined to answer.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not right. Anyway, I do not mean to debate this. Mr President, I gave Senator Brandis my answer. He may not like it, but there is no legal point in relation to that. I am happy to take his supplementary question, but there is no point of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On the point of order, as Senator Brandis knows I am not able to instruct the minister how to answer the question or what to answer. I draw to the minister’s attention the question that was asked by you and ask the minister if he has anything further to add to his answer.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have nothing further.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister’s refusal to answer the question notwithstanding your invitation to do so, Mr President, how does the minister’s attitude sit with the Rudd government’s commitment announced by his colleague Minister Ludwig on 24 May 2007 to provide shield laws to journalists and to review laws that criminalise reporting of matters of public interest?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Brandis well knows there has been a longstanding precedent that we do not comment on investigations that are continuing. I refer to him that I had advice, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the AFP investigations.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. The supplementary question was directed to the statement of Labor Party policy by Senator Ludwig concerning shield laws for journalists, and to the significance of his refusal to answer the primary question in relation to Senator Ludwig’s statement. It was nothing to do with operational matters at all.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, as you know there is no way I can instruct the minister to answer the question in a particular manner. I draw the minister’s attention to the question and the issue of relevance. The minister has 40 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not get to all parts of the senator’s question because I had only got 20 seconds into it. As I was going to go on to say, there is no conflict between this most appropriate response on behalf of the government relating to a live investigation and the government’s commitment to provide better protection for journalists as they carry out their work. Our commitments in that regard will be delivered as with all other election commitments made by this government. I see no conflict between that and not commenting on a current AFP investigation. I am sure Senator Brandis knows that. (Time expired)