Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) 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.

This government has a serious problem with scrutiny. We have seen, in the most recent incidents and in recent times, through Senator Brandis's pattern of behaviour, senior public servants and agency heads used to cover their actions. Indeed, the additional information that Senator Brandis provided us with today about the email we were discussing in question time highlights the fact that Mr Thawley, who we have been referring to, is not only a very senior public servant; he is the most senior public servant. Indeed, he does have an office in the cabinet rooms, very close to the Prime Minister's office; but I am really not sure what the point is there.

The real point is: how can we trust the Attorney-General with very serious national security matters when he hides behind a second tab to mislead parliament? The Attorney-General's Department has been forced to reveal that both they and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet allowed four sitting days before correcting the record. We heard from Senator Brandis today that he does not have much more that he can add.

The opposition has obtained this email, which is evidence that Senator Brandis and Ms Bishop were told that they had misled parliament on the evening of Monday 1 June. At 5.30 pm on Monday 1 June the secretary of the Prime Minister's department, Mr Michael Thawley, called Senator Brandis's department from the cabinet office to instruct Senator Brandis's department to correct the record of misleading evidence during Senate estimates and in the house. Mr Thawley also instructed Senator Brandis's department—

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

Mr Deputy President, a point of order: that is not what the document says. If Senator Collins proposes to refer to a document, she should quote from it without misstating what it says.

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

That is not a point of order, Senator Brandis. That is a debating point.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis knows full well that he has an opportunity to debate this point. Unfortunately, in question time, he cannot answer questions. That is the problem. The most extraordinary thing about this saga is the extraordinary lengths that the government, from the Prime Minister's office down, have gone to to avoid this issue: failed answers during question time; the behaviour of Senator Ian Macdonald with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees; the appalling behaviour that occurred in the committee today; and countless other examples of how this government has sought to avoid dealing with this matter. The simple issue here is that there is an important matter of public scrutiny when a government goes out and refers to myself and the shadow Attorney-General as asking contemptuous questions, and when it turns out that the very basis of those questions was, indeed, accurate. And this government avoids four question times to hide their contemptuous behaviour!

I am not surprised that Senator Brandis is trying to avoid exposing how outraged Ms Bishop must have been when she discovered what had occurred here. I had asked very simple straightforward questions in Senate estimates about the handling of this letter. She went way overboard in, firstly, suggesting that anyone was claiming there would have been a different outcome to the Sydney siege and, secondly, in suggesting that we were claiming that this letter might have changed that outcome. There were no contemptuous questions on this matter. Indeed, Senator Brandis himself, during estimates, did not even imply that there was anything inappropriate in those questions. But the information provided to Ms Bishop obviously ramped up this issue so far that she thought she could claim in question time in the House of Representatives that there had been contemptuous behaviour from the opposition in this matter. Well, there had not been. And now we know, courtesy of Mr Thawley, that the only contemptuous behaviour here was this government's failure to correct the record when it became very clear on that Monday that the information that Ms Bishop and, indeed, Senator Brandis had was false. This lies with the government. This lies with their problems with scrutiny and their use of public servants to cover their actions. (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to refer to a couple of lines of questioning of the opposition to the Attorney-General today. It goes to their absolute desperation when it comes to the issue of national security and their desperation to try and show their credentials by trying to tear down the government through this false line of questioning. We can understand why there is that desperation given Mark Dreyfus's articulation of their national security credentials, their 'Bring the terrorists to Australia' policy, last week. With the horror fortnight that Bill Shorten has had, we can understand why they are looking for a distraction. But let's actually go to the facts rather than this attempt to try and create something where no issue exists. Let's go to the facts rather than the spin that Senator Collins has tried to put on it in a desperate attempt to cover up for the lack of national security credentials of those opposite.

We know that a departmental officer, at estimates on 27 May, advised that the letter of 9 October was provided to the review. The officer thought she recalled seeing that letter among the documents considered by the review. She did not consult with PM&C before providing this evidence. On 29 May that officer discussed her recollections with a fellow officer from the review at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and determined that her recollections related to a separate document. On Monday, 1 June, at 12.15, PM&C advised the department, via email, that the letter had not been received through the formal processes. There was a range of informal and less formal arrangements underway during the Martin Place Siege Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Review for the provision of information. The department was not certain on 1 June that the letter had not been provided in some other way and advised the Attorney-General accordingly. On the same day, the secretary advised the Attorney-General that he would provide authoritative advice to the Attorney-General on this matter in that week.

The secretary subsequently instructed the department to undertake a thorough internal review to determine authoritatively that the document was not provided. This process concluded on 4 June. So on 2 June the department advised the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that it was conducting an internal review and the department also asked for PM&C's advice on whether it would have made any difference to the siege review if the documents had been provided. On 4 June, once the department had concluded from its internal review that the documents had definitely not been provided, the secretary advised the Attorney-General, by letter, of what had occurred confirming there had been an administrative error and that the Monis letter and response had not been provided. The departmental officer wrote to the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to correct the Hansard of the proceedings of 27 May. That was sent at 2.55 pm and it was sent to the AGO at 2.57 pm. The Minister for Foreign Affairs then corrected the record at 3.09 pm on 4 June in the House of Representatives and the Attorney-General corrected the record, by letter to the chair of the committee, at 3.15 pm on 4 June.

That is the process that has been outlined. As soon as there was definitive advice, that advice was advised in various ways to both the Senate and the House of Representatives by the relevant ministers. This is nothing but a tawdry attempt to try and distract from where the Labor Party is on national security and a whole range of other issues, not least of which is Bill Shorten's credibility when it comes to the AWU and telling the truth to Neil Mitchell and a whole range of other issues and questions of judgement. Another example of that, which played out in question time today, was in relation to documents in relation to ASIO that were discussed today. I again quote from Duncan Lewis in relation to the claims made by the opposition in relation to those documents:

There has been reporting in some quarters of the media regarding the sensitivity of documents used in briefing the Prime Minister yesterday. The Director-General of Security confirms the documents used in the briefing were not the subject of a national security classification. The documents were carefully edited and were unclassified. The content of the documents did not compromise national security

Again, this is another pathetic attempt to try and score points on national security which has been thoroughly refuted by Duncan Lewis. I think the Labor Party should apologise to him and I think they should stop playing ridiculous politics on this issue. (Time expired)

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

I want to add my voice to concerns that have already been raised in this chamber today about what was effectively a media opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General at the ASIO headquarters yesterday. We can have a debate about the comments by Mr Duncan Lewis regarding what was or was not the information that was presented. What I am concerned about, and what I believe the Senate should be concerned about, is this trend towards the politicisation of these kinds of issues. There is nothing wrong with the Prime Minister of Australia going to the headquarters of ASIO for a briefing. I am sure that it is something that has happened with many Prime Ministers and many attorneys-general on a regular basis. I imagine that, on many occasions, the senior figures within ASIO will come to government—but the use of cameras and taking in photographers, and the photos that were taken? From a Sydney perspective, it concerns me when you have maps that highlight 'hot spots'. That is the term that has been used in the media to cover suburbs like Lidcombe and Greenacre, Punchbowl, Bankstown, Alburn and Lakemba. It reeks of the fact that not only are these props being used as part of a media opportunity but these communities have been slurred. These communities get impacted upon. The reputations of these kinds of communities get tarnished. This idea that it is somehow appropriate or right for the Prime Minister to be taking media cameras into ASIO headquarters to take photos of a briefing of that kind, frankly, concerns me because it reeks of politicisation.

It is the same trend that we saw and heard when the Attorney-General answered questions to this effect today. It is the same trend that we have seen regarding the most recent bill that was introduced into the House yesterday, and, as the Attorney-General pointed out, it has been appropriately referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Again, the fact that this bill was being debated and was out there in the public domain, yet the legal advice and the legislation itself was not shown to the opposition for such a long period of time, is concerning.

I feel there has been a very good, bipartisan approach towards national security issues over the past few years. What is worrying is that there is an increasing trend and, dare I say it, a desire, at times, from the government to try and break that consensus by their actions and by their behaviour. I feel that the politicisation of these kinds of issues—the use of ASIO headquarters as a media opportunity—is not something we should support and not something we should endorse.

In the brief time that I have remaining, I also want to touch on the issue of naval shipbuilding that was in a question from Senator Madigan—

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

Senator Dastyari that is not the question before the Senate.

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

I thought it was questions answered by senator—

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

It is questions asked by the opposition to Senator Brandis.

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

My apologies. I want to touch on this issue regarding the Monis letter—what had gone on and the steps that had been taken before that. The gap of time—the number of question times and the number of opportunities that the Attorney-General had to correct the record, and a decision was made not to is, I think, something that should be of concern to the Senate. I understand that there will be a committee process underway.

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

The record was corrected within an hour and a half.

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

Order!

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

There will be a Senate committee and a Senate inquiry. I believe that the Attorney-General should have, on the Monday, corrected the record. I know that is not a view the Attorney-General shares, but I believe the first available opportunity would have been on that Monday. If, after that point, the Attorney-General wanted to conduct further inquiries, that would have been a matter for the Attorney-General, but I think it should have been corrected as soon as possible. I think it is alarming that that is a view that also appears to be shared in the email correspondence that has recently been released. That also seems to be the view of Michael Thawley, the head of the Prime Minister's department. The correspondence here from the deputy secretary can only be read in one way, and that is that the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet came out and made clear what his views were. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers given by Senator Brandis to questions from the opposition, although, I might say, it probably would have been a more useful use of everybody's time if we had been taking note of the answers that were given to questions that were asked by the government in relation to the thuggery and behaviour of the CFMEU. We might have actually got some more substantial comment than the fliff and fluff that we have about the issues that were raised by the questions we have proceeded to take note over—those questions that relate to the Man Monis letter and the questions that were asked in relation to the ASIO situation, particularly.

It is quite interesting when you are flicking through your Twitter feed over the last hour. Even Samantha Maiden has tweeted and referred to the pursuit of the issues raised in question time today by the opposition of the government on these two particular matters as 'a total pursuit of irrelevancy', which I thought was a very interesting comment. She referred to the Monis letter situation as clearly a muck up of some sort, which has been acknowledged as an administrative issue and not a conspiracy. We often find that we like to make things into conspiracies simply because they make for better reading, but the simple matter is that it has probably just been some sort of administrative error, an oversight or something that slipped through the cracks, which appears to be, possibly, what has happened here. In relation to the ASIO situation, she refers to the plotline as plainly silly. So here we have one of Australia's leading media commentators calling out the opposition's questions in question time today for exactly what they were.

It is really quite interesting that Senator Collins got up in taking note today and made the comment about this government having 'a serious problem with scrutiny'. I would have thought that was a little rich coming from those opposite who, in their six years in government, made an absolute art form of making sure nothing was scrutinised. Certainly, we only have to look at a number of the programs that were run by the government—your pink batts, home insulation, cash for clunkers or whateve If ever there were an example of a government that had a serious problem with scrutiny, it was the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments.

But I do not think there is any issue here with scrutiny. If we are referring to the matters that were raised by questions asked today on the Man Monis letter, it is just not a matter of scrutiny. This has been quite publicly put out there. It has been explained I do not know how many times. With the number of times that the matter has been raised in question time subsequently, I do not think I would have needed a briefing note on the matter; I could explain it off the top of my head. It was a simple situation. As far as I am aware, a piece of information was given to a estimates hearing of the Senate. It was subsequently realised sometime later that that information was not actually correct. The true and accurate information was sought in relation to this matter, to make sure that no further false information was given in this place, and that information was subsequently obtained. One would have thought that would be the end of the matter. Talk about making a mountain out of a proverbial molehill—I have never seen anything quite like it.

Senator Dastyari in his contribution a few minutes ago referred to the politicisation of issues. Please—please, please, please—Senator Dastyari. There are some opposite who probably do not attempt with quite the same fervour or excitement to politicise issues in this place, but coming from Senator Dastyari that was really a bit rich. This is the man who was quite happy in The Killing Season to have himself re-photographed so that he could get his face on television. He was, sadly, brought somewhat unstuck by a little technological issue—namely, he did not realise there were no iPhone 6s in 2010. To come in here and suggest that, in a matter of national security, this government, the government of which I am a member, would put anything apart from the greatest level of importance on national security, and to suggest that the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General or the foreign affairs minister—or whoever it may be—would politicise an issue as serious as national security for their own political gain, is an outrageous statement coming from somebody like Senator Dastyari. (Time expired)

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the answers given by Senator Brandis to questions in question time today. I do not share the view of Senator Ruston that these are matters of 'fliff and fluff'. Quite frankly, I think they are far more serious than that. Quite frankly, I also do not share the view that the simple suggestion of administrative oversight is true. I do not believe, at the outset, in conspiracy theories either. What I do believe in is that, if there are circumstances where this government has the opportunity to be open and accountable, it does not choose that path. It chooses a path deliberately of trying to obfuscate, to block and to create a cover-up, rather than let the light shine in. This government has form on this. This government continues to not want to answer questions, and I think this instance is but one example of that.

You look at the facts of the matter; you go back to the original response from the government that this was a letter that was sent to the review—and the response at estimates was that. Quite clearly, I think, it was sent very soon after that. It was clear to the government that the letter did not arrive at PM&C. That is the administrative error, and that can be accepted as administrative error. What cannot be accepted are the actions that have been taken post that to cover up. We all know in this place that it is not the administrative error; it is not the issue itself that will kill you in this place; it is the cover-up that will kill you in this place. In that instance, the government had an opportunity to correct the record at the earliest possible time. For its own purposes, it chose not to do so, and I think there are some pretty clear examples of why it chose not to do so in this instance.

You had Ms Bishop from the other place quite outraged at Mr Dreyfus's question—she 'went him', in the proverbial, for daring to ask. I think this government was embarrassed about that display by Ms Bishop because Ms Bishop ultimately was wrong and would have to correct the record and bear the full brunt of the explanation during question time in the House. I do not think Ms Bishop wanted to feel that, and I do not think Senator Brandis wanted to feel it in here either. It is an easy mistake to make—you can decide that maybe the administrative error can be stretched out and cover the period to allow you to escape scrutiny in here, be out the door for another week and everyone can forget about it. It is not the place to do that, because what happens is that you will get caught, found out or coughed up by the Public Service, by your colleagues or by dint of circumstance.

In this instance, it is clear from the email that the PM&C chief mandarin coughed up Senator Brandis. He literally directed him by email at 5.30 on 1 June: 'You should correct the record.' Senator Brandis ignored that, for whatever reason he wants to spin on that, and did not do anything until after question time, at the end of the week, when Ms Bishop and he decided, 'This is a quiet period; we should correct the record at this point.' The duty in this place is to immediately correct the record. That is what the duty is here and for public servants as well—not to take comfort from the cover-up. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.