Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) 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 the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senators Collins and O’Neill today relating to proposed amendments to citizenship laws and to recent media reports concerning people smugglers.

What an act it was by the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Unfortunately, it does not look like the senator can hold a candle to his leader, Senator Abetz. In his short time as acting leader, he has already alienated the crossbench and he has taken a frighteningly cavalier attitude towards Senate estimates by being more interested in the poem My Country than in his responsibilities to it, and more interested in his collection of classic Australian bush poems rather than in the budget situation. I think he was very aptly described the other day by my colleague on this side of the chamber Senator Cameron, who described him as the equivalent of Mulga Bill on his bicycle riding into the ditch, and that is where this government is taking Australia—into dangerous territory where we will suffer injury.

The arrogance of the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate was absolutely on show again today, with the crossbench voting against the government, voting with the Labor Party and the Greens to institute two new inquiries to see what is actually going on, because this minister is determined to hide and to cover up from the Australian people every one of the dirty deals that characterise their actions with regard to international relations. The senator is facing divisive issues close to home, with his own cabinet colleagues selling him out to the media. There are at least some voices on the other side that will speak, it seems, to tell just a little of the truth to the Australian people, who this man is seeking to mislead.

The senator refused to answer questions today about why he has excluded his own colleagues from receiving information from the Solicitor-General. Such hubris, such arrogance—that is the characteristic of this man that dominates every response in question time. Why? We have to ask. Does it show a lack of trust in his own colleagues? It would seem so. Perhaps it is an even greater problem for Senator Brandis that he is so on the outer now that his gaffe-after-gaffe prone activities have his colleagues not wanting to have anything to do with him. How much longer can the senator expect to continue on in this way?

I will go to the questions that were asked by Senator Collins first. The misrepresentation of the words of the noted silk, Mr Bret Walker SC, are very important, but they were merely brushed aside as irrelevant by the arrogant Attorney-General in his responses today. Mr Walker actually stated:

My report does not provide a justification for what they intend to do—

'They' being the government—

It is not what I said nor what I think now and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.

That is Mr Walker saying that the Attorney-General is wrong; and, indeed, Mr Walker is correct. Mr Walker casts doubt on the capacity of the government even to do the due diligence of checking reports carefully:

I doubt many of those citing my report have read beyond the one paragraph they refer to. That does not bode well for mature consideration or lawmaking.

What we saw on show here today was not mature consideration, and it was not a fair effort by any stretch of the imagination in answering the questions that were put to the Attorney-General today.

Senator Wong asked questions about why the foreign minister of the country was excluded from receiving advice from the Solicitor-General on the constitutionality of the proposal to strip citizenship from Australian nationals. Things are so dysfunctional, so bad, in the government ranks that they are hiding information from one another, let alone hiding it from the Australian public. I turn now to the questions that I asked about reports published in Australian papers today: Indonesian police reports, saying that people smugglers were actually paid by Australian officials to turn back the boats—recorded interviews, photographs of cash, reports about vessels crashing on reefs. These are facts that are on the public record in Australian newspapers. Instead of answering those questions, we have a government that says: 'The media reports are promoting discord.' They are promoting a question for the government—a question and a request that they tell the truth. We are relying on this government to finally come forward and actually speak the truth for a change.

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

The contrast between the government and the opposition in the Senate was evident for everybody to see today. When you saw the level of questions and the level of excellent responses by ministers to questions, the difference was absolutely amazing. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate asked questions that took less than one minute to respond to, because, as a former minister, Senator Wong herself knows that those questions that are raised in cabinet will not be the subject of commentary across the Senate chamber. Adding further insult to herself, Senator Wong then went on and quoted from Minister Turnbull, only to find the excellent Attorney-General turn that around against her and he, of course, concurred with Mr Turnbull's comments about the rule of law. That did not take very long—did it?—before we got to the questions asked by Senator O'Neill. The Attorney-General, of course, had no hesitation in drawing Senator O'Neill's attention to the words of her own leader, Mr Shorten when he went on to say—

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

I did not interfere when you were speaking, Senator O'Neill. Mr Deputy President, I did not interrupt when Senator O'Neill was speaking, but it is interesting that Mr Shorten made the statement that governments do not comment on security matters. Who was the authoritative—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

Who was the authoritative source that Senator O'Neill was quoting?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back, you might resume your seat. The Senate needs to come to order.

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

I was being distracted by those opposite, Mr Deputy President. The authoritative source that Senator O'Neill was quoting from was none other than the captain of the people smugglers himself. What a wonderful reputation!

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Senator Lines interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

What a wonderful source that person would be to be quoted by a senator from the Labor opposition.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators should cease interjecting.

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

As everybody in this place knows, we are talking about the six years when we know about a person who drowned at sea every second day. There were many more—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell the truth!

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth will come out!

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

Tell the truth? Those are the body counts! Those are the body counts, Mr Deputy President. But when you go to speak to those naval officers, as we had the opportunity to do—I asked them: 'Was 1200 the real number?' They said: 'They are the ones we know about, Senator Back.' I had Senator McEwen with me on that occasion when we travelled up to Darwin for that inquiry.

As the Attorney-General has told us, US $500 million was poured into the pockets of people smugglers as a result of the failure of the last government. There were 50,000 illegal arrivals, who were put on more than 800 leaking vessels, as the result of the encouragement given to them by your government. Then, of course, we come to the commentary by Senator Collins on the Attorney-General with regard to Mr Bret Walker. I have had the opportunity to read some of the final report of Mr Bret Walker, and probably the most accurate thing that Senator O'Neill quoted was that Mr Walker seems to have changed his mind; it is his opinion now.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what I said.

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

Mr Deputy President, here are some of the comments that Mr Walker made in his final report. First of all, Mr Walker—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what I said.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

If you listened, rather than tried to speak, you might learn.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back, just resume your seat. I have been constantly calling the Senate to order, and it is time that the interjections ceased completely.

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

The points I wish to make with regard to Mr Walker's comments in his final report are these. First of all, he said that dual citizenship is not a human right; he referred to the action going on in Britain, where a similar discretion is given to the Secretary of State—a minister of the government. Of course, Senator Brandis made no commentary at all, either yesterday or today. He made no commentary at all on what Mr Bret Walker said. For the benefit again of Senator Collins, he merely read out verbatim from Mr Walker's report. Now Mr Walker might come back and want to retract—to change it, to amend it or whatever—but to attack the Attorney-General on something that Mr Walker himself had said in his report is a bit rich. (Time expired)

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was actually hoping I could cede my time to Senator Back to keep him going, but unfortunately I am not sure I can! To take the heat out of the issue a little bit, I want to talk about some of the substance of what we are actually here to discuss—taking note of the answers from Senator Brandis to the questions that were asked of him. I think the real concern here is that fundamentally it comes down to how we as a Senate want to tackle this question of transparency and information. What are the opportunities and what role should this Senate be playing? I think it is unfortunate that some of the opportunities to answer the true questions that are being asked and which were asked today for Senator Brandis to respond to are being missed. The issue of transparency and information and getting to the bottom of what has happened—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you get paid money to be on the ABC program?

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

Maybe he'll get a Walkley!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A Walkley? Or a Logie!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari, take your seat. We might let the other senators exhaust their comments and then we will resume. When the Senate comes to order, I will give you the call.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have fans everywhere, and there are fans in this chamber. That is fine. It does not bother me. I will be doing autographs later in the evening!

On the issue of transparency—and I think this is really important—legitimate concerns are being raised regarding what has happened on the high seas and what has happened with the purported amounts of cash. They are, at this point in time, simply allegations. No-one from this side is coming forward and saying that they are necessarily matters of fact. We are saying that these are serious allegations. They are important allegations. They are allegations of a significant nature. They have been made. It is in the interests of us in the Senate and in the interests of the parliament for us to be able to have an open, frank and transparent debate within the boundaries of what is and is not in the national interest, taking into consideration the national security implications.

I think it is unfortunate that the Attorney-General, when asked these questions today, chose to try to turn that which was a legitimate debate into something that it was not. Let's be clear: nobody wants or should want to see people die at sea. Nobody wants to see people smuggling. We as a Senate, a parliament and a nation want to have a proper debate about the best way to bring these kinds of practices to an end. There is a legitimate concern that, if paying people smugglers is a technique that is being used, that should not be the path forward. Yet, unfortunately, when we tried to go down that path of questioning, when we tried to go down a legitimate line of inquiry with legitimate questions about how much money has been given, we ended up having obfuscation, with the Attorney-General doing everything he could to avoid answering the real question.

Unfortunately we saw that happen as well when we were talking about the issue of national security and dual citizenship. Again, let's have the debate. There are people in this chamber and in this parliament who believe that there may be a case in the right circumstances for the stripping of dual citizenship. There may not be a case for that. We want to make sure. We have to look at the specifics and have that debate. I think it is unfortunate that we are trying to do this in the vacuum of actual legislation. If legislation had been presented and put forward, it would be a lot easier for us to have these debates.

But, again, when we try to ask some legitimate questions that have been raised by someone as senior as Bret Walker SC, what do we get? We get stonewalling. We get the debate being shifted. So far, in what have been very difficult debates, I think it has been a positive development for this parliament that there has been, to an extent, so much bipartisanship on these kinds of issues. But that cannot exist when the information is not there. You cannot have a bipartisan approach in a vacuum. Unfortunately, we have not seen this legislation and, when we ask legitimate questions of the Attorney-General, he tries to enact a bit of theatre and play some games but he does not answer them.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, would like to take note of the answers given by Senator Brandis to questions from Senators Wong, Collins and O'Neill. The answer given to especially Senator O'Neill's question comes down to what we are doing on border security. It is interesting that we take the word of a people smuggler, someone who appears on television wearing a balaclava. I think this comes down to the different approach taken between our parties. It is the coalition who have strengthened the borders and have strengthened border security in this country. It is the coalition who have stopped the boats. It is the coalition who have put a steel border up—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Paid the boats.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take interjections. We sat here quietly on this side and listened to the other side. I sat here very quietly—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, just resume your seat for a moment. I do not think anyone can claim that this motion to take note of answers given today has been without interjections from both sides. I have called the Senate to order on a number of occasions, and I would ask the Senate to remain in order for the remainder of Senator McGrath's contribution.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should put on record that I did interject. I certainly smiled and laughed at some of the interjections, so I am guilty, as charged, of that. It is very important to look at the consistency in some of the responses that have been given by the different leaders. Labor last night again refused to rule out what it has called on the government to rule out. On 7.30 last night, it was reported that the ABC had asked Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, if he could rule out the possibility that payments had been made to people smugglers by the former government during the Rudd-Gillard years. A Labor spokesperson said:

It's unlawful … to divulge security or intelligence information.

The Abbott coalition government has implemented, lawfully, a suite of proven policies that have stopped the boats. We have done what governments before us have done but applied the measures with vigour and resolve. We have broken the people smugglers' business model. This is what it comes down to. The person who is quoted in today's paper and who appeared on Sky News today is a people smuggler. It is someone who makes their money out of the misery of other human beings. I do not think we should be taking their word in terms of telling the truth.

It is also significant that the deputy opposition leader yesterday refused to commit her party to maintaining the tough border policies that ended the years of dysfunction and failure of the Rudd-Gillard governments. The question that probably should be put is: where does Labor and Mr Shorten stand on turn-backs? Our record stands for itself. The most decent—the most moral—thing you can do is stop the boats and stop the deaths at sea. Even on Sky TV this morning, the member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh, when asked if the Labor Party paid people smugglers, said that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on operational matters. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, also refused to comment on the same question when asked in a press conference earlier today.

This government will not detail operational activities under Operation Sovereign Borders. What matters is that, under our policy, the boats are stopping. Illegal maritime migration is being stemmed and so are the deaths at sea. My colleague Senator Back from Western Australia made mention of the 1,200 people—the known 1,200 people—who perished at sea under the former Labor-Green government. Those were 1,200 people who we could have saved if our policies had been in operation. In 2008, we had seven boats; in 2013, 302 boats arrived. Since we were elected, in 2014 and 2015, only one boat has arrived. We have put up borders of steel; whereas the Labor Party, sadly, through their failed policies, had, effectively, borders of lace. They put together a border of their nannas' doilies to create a border to stop people smugglers—and it did not work. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers from Senator Brandis to questions from Senators Wong, Collins and O'Neill. I would like to put on the record that my grandmother was a staunch feminist and she would not have had a doily in her house to put anywhere.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—

Again, we see this broad generalisation, these sweeping statements from the government to anything that is serious.

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Today, when we tried to ask very serious questions about citizenship, about cabinet leaks—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lines, just resume your seat. The Senate needs to come to order. I want Senator Lines to be given the same respect that I insisted be given to Senator McGrath—and that is to be heard in silence.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What those opposite do not like to hear is the truth. There are very serious questions being asked in Australia right now by voting Australians and by the media about what really transpired on the high seas. The government can say all it likes. They may have stopped the boats. They have certainly turned boats around and they have made boats disappear. But what they do not appreciate, because they are really a government of the 1960s, is that the media has moved on. We have a 24/7 media now; we have Twitter; we have Facebook; we have all sorts of investigations going on—and you cannot hide these things. This morning, whether they liked it or not, evidence came out that the Abbott government paid captains of leaky boats to turn them around and go back to Indonesia. We will hear more and more about that. Just like their cabinet leak, that leak is now out, and more and more journalists will go after the truth.

We heard Senator Brandis use the term 'braying' in here. Well, I heard braying from Senator Brandis today. That is what we heard in this place today. The government can berate and they can ridicule and they can yell like Senator Back chose to do, but the truth will come out—and it is slowly coming out. They can refuse to answer questions; one week they will give a comment and the next week they will not. But the truth about what is happening on our high seas—despite the government trying to brand everything as an on-water matter or trying to brand everything as something that is national security—will eventually come out. We will not resile from asking the hard questions in this place. They can refuse to give answers, or they can give ridiculous, insulting 10-second answers like we heard today from Senator Brandis. But we will continue to ask them—and the truth will come out. What an embarrassing start to the day it was to have two inquiries simply because they refused to tell the truth, simply because they will not come clean in this place, simply because somehow they think they can avoid scrutiny. Well, they cannot.

On the issue of citizenship, we have heard all sorts of rumours. We know, for example, there is a real problem in the government, not just between the backbenchers and the government but between cabinet ministers. There is a real issue on the issue of citizenship. As usual, the Abbott government has jumped out there and tried to bully people and somehow lead by berating and belittling people, while others in the cabinet have said, 'Hang on, enough's enough.' So now they have a leak in their cabinet. Despite them now not wanting to talk to us about what they might be proposing in the area of citizenship, they pretend they are still consulting. That will not wash either.

Now an eminent QC has made comments in the media, and what do we see? We just see cherry-picking by Senator Brandis. Although Bret Walker himself said he has been misquoted, did that stop the flurry of Senator Brandis insulting him? No. Senator Brandis might like to read fiction and poetry at Senate estimates, but, if the man who wrote the report said, 'I didn't say that,' the fiction given in answers by Senator Brandis to questions today will not wash. The government needs to learn that you might be able to hoodwink some people some of the time but that that does not last. Bret Walker today clearly said—I heard him myself this morning on the radio—that he has been misquoted. Yet here today the man who said bigots are good somehow tried to suggest, 'No, no. Bret Walker got that wrong; this is what he said.' Cherry-picking will not wash. I am sure Bret Walker will continue to defend himself, as he should, and we in this place will continue the hard questions. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.