Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

If there is one thing that both sides of this place should be able to agree on, it is Australians having a right to know how their government spends its money. That is why, today, we gave Senator Brandis the opportunity to in fact answer that question when we asked about the recent allegations in relation to cash incentives provided to people smugglers to return them to Indonesia. We did not get a straight answer—in fact any answer worth any merit—out of Senator Brandis. Instead, we got the usual mantra which the government is sticking to at the present time—as opposed to last week—of it being an operational matter.

This government, in doing this and hiding this from people, simply shows a lack of commitment to transparency and the rule of law. On the one hand, you have the Prime Minister saying one thing, with a discrepancy then with what the immigration and foreign ministers said last week. We know now that Minister Dutton and Minister Bishop are backtracking from the statement that a cash exchange did not happen. Today, Senator Brandis had a clear opportunity to make it clear to the Australian people where their taxpayer money has been spent.

The opposition will get to the bottom of this, if Senator Brandis refuses to do so, as our shadow immigration minister has written to the Auditor-General to investigate whether or not these payments did occur. In the meantime, our ongoing relationship with Indonesia is being jeopardised. We only have to see now the reports by the Indonesian Vice President, Jusuf Kalla, who said that the practice would be unethical and would make Australia a party to people smuggling. If the government has not provided payments to people smugglers to turn back boats to Indonesia, why won't it say that it has not? It will not say that. That can only lead to the summation that the likelihood is that it has. Not only would this be a state bribing but it could also turn out to be contributing to human trafficking as well. This is incredibly serious. It is so serious that Mr Kalla, the Vice President of Indonesia, has said so himself. He said clearly:

… a state bribing, that certainly doesn't fit with the correct ethics in state relations.

Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General of this country, today had ample opportunity to tell us that the government has not paid people smugglers. He is inviting us to think that this is exactly what has happened, in not answering the question and in trying to hide behind this mantra of operational matters. Operational matters for what purpose? There is no national security threat here in relation to raising operational matters. It is clearly a media strategy that is being now used by this government as it goes into damage control. First, we had it going into damage control from leaks from cabinet in relation to citizenship—leaks that Senator Brandis has ruled out that he leaked, but we know that somebody did leak within the government's cabinet. All over the place, are they, on citizenship changes. We don't even know what is coming forth; we have not seen any legislation, in that regard. That is probably because there is so much division and leaking going on from the cabinet that they do not know which way to turn next.

On top of that, we have this issue of cash incentives to people smugglers, to return them to Indonesia, that the government will not rule out. Again, there is no transparency from this government. In doing so, the government is offering people smugglers a new business model. The government needs to be very careful here. We will get to the bottom of this. We have written to the Auditor-General's Department to ask them to investigate whether or not these payments did occur. This is serious for this country, serious for our relationship with Indonesia and serious if this government is really serious about trying to stop boats.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh's feigned concern about our relationship with Indonesia shows the rank hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party. Those of us who were very close to the impacts of the ban on the live-cattle trade by the Labor government will understand how you can really destroy relationships with another government. The Indonesians relied upon that live-cattle trade for feeding many millions of its population but the Labor government—overnight—stopped the trade, without so much as a telephone call to the Indonesian government telling them they were going to do that.

Senator Singh raises other matters about our relationship with Indonesia. She might be able to tell me about the allegations of Edward Snowden, who suggested that the Australian government had been spying on Indonesian politicians and officials. That was not commented upon by the Australian government, as was appropriate. But if you look at the dates these allegations were made, they referred to the time of the Labor government. So if these allegations of Edward Snowden—and I would not give them much credibility—were true then they were implemented at the time of the Labor government.

Further, Senator Singh criticises Senator Brandis for not commenting on security matters. Senator Singh occasionally attends the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which I chair, when we inquire of the Customs and Border Protection people about these issues. She would well know that it has been an enviable rule that no comment is ever made on operational matters. That is a very sensible rule. The fact that I think it sensible does not give it a great deal of credence, perhaps, but I will read you this interview between a prominent politician and a journalist.

This prominent politician—by the name of Mr Bill Shorten—said this at a press conference early today, and I quote verbatim: 'If you're going to security matters about what happens elsewhere, you are all more experienced journalists here than I have ever served in this parliament. And you know that it does not matter what political party the politician is from. When it comes to security matters, we simply don't comment. Let me be really crystal clear.'

The journalist said: 'Given the circumstances, clearly you are aware that ASIS agents made payments to people smugglers during the Rudd-Gillard years in Indonesia, so why would you expect the government—.' Mr Shorten cut him off and said, 'I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying I won't comment on ASIS matters and again, Chris,' the journalist, 'you've been around the block long enough to know that no serious leader of Australia would ever start commenting on security matters.

Senator Singh, criticise Senator Brandis all you like but, perhaps by implication, you are also criticising Mr Shorten. I know that is a popular pastime in the media and around this building. I know within the Labor caucus Mr Shorten is often subjected to very severe criticism from his own side. Perhaps Senator Singh is part of the faction that does not support Mr Bill Shorten. If she is that, she is being fairly open about her criticism of Mr Shorten by criticising Senator Brandis for exactly the same approach to security matters that Mr Shorten himself took and spoke about in a media conference earlier today.

Senator Singh, if you are going to criticise Senator Brandis, you are clearly—by extension—criticising your own leader. Mr Shorten, however, as with Senator Brandis, knows that under no circumstances should any Australian government official or minister comment on security matters. (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of Senator Brandis's answer to Senator Conroy in respect to the well-traversed subject of the broken promise on submarines. I want to put this on the record very early in this contribution. Whether it is Japanese, German or French expertise that is selected by the Commonwealth, there is one fundamental strategic imperative that must accompany this decision: Australia must insist the successful company transfer its design, engineering and shipbuilding capacities in a way that is integral to the build through-life support program. Strategic, economic and defence considerations all dictate this requirement.

We have any number of experts in this field, whether they be former Defence experts, independent experts, head of the Commission of Audit experts or Hans Ohff, former CEO of ASC and fellow at the University of Adelaide and whom I have just quoted. They all say one fundamental thing. They say that our defence and economic imperatives align with a build in South Australia.

We have heard a couple of questions asked of Senator Birmingham over the last couple of days about the initiatives—very good initiatives—he is proposing for employment opportunities and training organisations. But the reality is that in South Australia you cannot walk to the local paper shop, you cannot visit the service station, you cannot walk to the shopping centre, you cannot visit your friend's house and you cannot go to a barbecue without being told: 'We must build the submarines here. What are you, as my federal MP or representative, doing about that?'

I can go on at length about what we are trying to do about it, but the other side are in a horrendous position. There is probably 80 or 90 per cent support in the electorate in South Australia for a design-build-sustain of submarines in South Australia. It is so widely held and so deeply felt that it is impossible for those on the other side to move anywhere in South Australia without facing that question. They really do need to get onside and demand that the federal government does what the experts are saying it should do. If we have not got the design capability or the expertise for design—we have not got 300 designers on tap—then make them come to Australia, set up shop, do it efficiently and do it right here. It is a defence imperative, an economic imperative and, dare I say it, an electoral imperative for a lot of South Australian Liberal members of parliament.

We do know that the member for Hindmarsh is onside on this. He wants them built in South Australia because he cannot move anywhere in Hindmarsh without getting sandbagged on it. He has written to the Prime Minister. You only have to listen to the commentary in South Australia to know they are trying to find a safe state seat for him once he gets belted at the next federal election. We do know that the electorate of Boothby is very vulnerable to a campaign on this. If you look at the Xenophon vote, if you want to go down the political lane on this, it was exceptionally high in the seat of Boothby. It was really, really high. If Senator Xenophon stands a candidate there simply on the submarine issue in South Australia, and we have a credible campaign and candidate in South Australia, the seat of Boothby is in play—only 8,500 votes need to change.

My reading of it, when I walk around and visit workplaces and social gatherings in South Australia, is that I have not seen an issue like this before. With the demise of Holden, with the loss of all of those manufacturing jobs there, with the impending loss of the ASC and the future of that building and manufacturing sector, which is so critical to add-on small businesses—the drycleaner who gets a bit of work from someone who is going to and from the ASC, the takeaway shops, the service stations—and the building of new houses and all of those things that hang off well-paid good jobs in manufacturing, this is a really critical issue that needs to be decided earlier rather than later, and not be based on a prime ministerial whim for a deal with his friend the Japanese Prime Minister. We know what a great multiplier of jobs manufacturing is and this needs to be done as a sustainable defence of an economic imperative. They should build it in South Australia.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor question time tactics committee is just a gift that keeps giving. And as I look at the three across the board here—Senator Wong asking a question of Senator Brandis to do with border protection, Senator McLucas coming up with housing affordability and then Senator Conroy with regard to submarines—I do not know where to start! I will start with the last; I will start with Senator Conroy, the shadow defence minister.

As Senator Brandis pointed out, during the time of the Labor government, despite the overwhelming voices of Senator Gallacher, Senator Wong and then Senator Don Farrell, he could not remember hearing any of those voices screaming out about the fact that not one single solitary submarine was being built. There was not even a plan for a submarine to be built, let alone a warship in South Australia or anywhere else. Where were their voices? They were not around. Do not come in here now with your crocodile tears!

Of course, Senator Conroy will always be known for the NBN, the 'no bloody net'—I mean the National Broadband Network. I recall when I first came into this place asking naive questions of Senator Conroy. This was to be the biggest ever infrastructure program. In my naivete, I asked where was the business plan? Senator Conroy said: 'Business plan? We don't need a business plan.' I said, 'What about a cost-benefit analysis?' He said, 'We don't need a cost-benefit analysis.' I said, 'Would you be doing a risk analysis?' The answer was no.

But what is the coalition government doing about the submarine project? It is participating in a competitive evaluation process so that we can get the best of the best. And have Western Australians got an interest in this? You bet we have. Where are the submarines based? At Garden Island. And where does most of their maintenance take place? Ten kilometres to the east, at Henderson. We have a very keen interest in it. But let you be assured, Senator Gallacher, and let you go back, through you, Mr Deputy President, to all of your colleagues in South Australia and say, 'At long last the submarine project is in the hands of a competent, confident, mature government—unlike that of Labor over the last six years.'

Let me go to border protection, as asked about by Senator Wong. Why do they keep giving us these gifts? Senator Brandis, you must yourself be absolutely astounded when we know that Labor, when it came into government, had a circumstance in which there were no illegal immigrants coming into this country; we had solved the problem. I remember the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Chris Evans, saying there would not be a need even for the Christmas Island detention centre because Labor had solved the problem. And what happened? As Senator Cash told us, this has cost some $12 billion. As Senator Brandis told us, there have been some 50,000 illegal entrants and 1,200-plus people who have drowned at sea—they are the ones we know about; one every second day. And we speak about the people smugglers. I note, from my own experience while undertaking business on the Indian subcontinent, there were not just people smugglers in Indonesia; they were in Sri Lanka, they were in Bangladesh, they were in Iraq and they were in Afghanistan. And those people smugglers, they creamed it. And here we have Senator Wong now coming in here pretending umbrage about the actions being taken by the coalition government.

As Senator Brandis and Senator Cash told us in this place, we have closed up their evil, rotten trade and we will keep it closed unless, or until, Labor come back into government. I call on Mr Shorten and Ms Plibersek to stand up here and say you will not remake the mistake you made at the end of the Howard years when you turned back a policy that worked, when you created, again, a whole industry for people smugglers.

As Senator Macdonald said, if you want to pretend outrage about what the Indonesian government might be saying, then simply remind them of what happened in June 2011 when the supply of beef protein to 69 million low-SES Indonesians was cut down overnight without the government even having the courtesy to explain to the Indonesians why they did that. And then we had Labor saying, 'Oh, the ban was only on for five weeks.' The ban on live exports was not only on for five weeks. It was the coalition that pressured them into putting that back.

What a shame that I do not have the time to comment on the so-called affordable housing outrage of Senator McLucas. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always fun to speak after Senator Back. I have worked with Senator Back on a number of committees and he can be quite calm and relaxed, but he gets into his seat in this chamber—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He gets into a lather.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are absolutely right, Senator Conroy: he gets himself into a huge lather. He obviously thinks that yelling makes him more convincing. I do not know whether the Western Australian senators on that side all go to the same school of theatrics, but they do all seem to be quite loud and they do all seem to think that yelling makes them more believable.

To get back to the point, I am very pleased to take note of answers given by the embattled Senator Brandis. Serious allegations have been made about the actions of agencies under the control of this government. Minister Brandis has failed to substantially answer any of those questions put to him today. The Australian people deserve to know the answers to these serious questions, because these issues are too serious for Minister Brandis, Prime Minister Abbott, Minister Dutton or Minister Bishop to try to sweep under the carpet. It seems to me that not only could Senator Brandis not give any clear indication today of the answer, but it is pretty typical of the way he mismanages his portfolios on almost a daily basis.

He has failed to successfully prosecute any policies since he became a minister and now we see that information regarding the operation of agencies under his control is being leaked to the media. The government is falling apart at the seams. Ms Bishop, just a few days ago, denied that Australia was paying people smugglers. It was not then an on-water matter or an operational matter. She did not say it was an on-water matter. She did not say, 'We don't comment on matters of security.' She outright denied it. Now Minister Bishop, Minister Dutton and Prime Minister Abbott will not deny it at all, and today neither would Senator Brandis. If in over a week nobody on that side can actually deny that people smugglers have been paid one would have to go to the conclusion that it has happened—it would be confirming that it has happened. People have been offered every opportunity to quash the idea, but they have absolutely failed to do so. In fact, when the Prime Minister was asked he stated that by hook or by crook they would stop the boats from entering Australian waters. I am sorry to say it is more by crook.

I find it absolutely disgusting that they would stand on that side and constantly yell at us about immigration issues and asylum seeker issues, and then they would actively encourage more people smugglers by offering them money to take asylum seekers back. If that were to get into the media in Indonesia, which I am sure it has, I think it would be saying to people, 'Well, if you want to make a quick buck, get a few people on a leaky boat and the Australian government will pay you to take them back.' If that is not the case, and that has not happened, you have to wonder why on earth nobody on that side can say that that has not happened. Originally, Ms Bishop and Mr Dutton said it, but they obviously have been told to rein in their comments and not comment any more. It leaves us all wondering about exactly what is going on over on that side.

The Australian people have an absolute right to clear and direct answers. That is why we have referred this matter to the Auditor-General for investigation. It is perhaps the only way that we have to get to the heart of the matter, because, as I said today, any questions in this chamber with regard to the issue failed to get any clear answers whatsoever.

Today Senator Brandis just repeated the coalition's mantra that they will not comment on security and intelligence matters, but we have seen that somebody is commenting on those things. We have seen from the media article 'Aussie spies in boats payoff' that it is clear that someone is commenting on it. The government should not be leaking information from its own intelligence agencies for political gain. If it was not the government doing the leaking, then Minister Brandis in particular has an extremely serious problem with classified intelligence material being leaked. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.