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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to the public commentary of numerous coalition backbenchers on the US election. This morning the member for Hughes said about President-elect Trump's plea to cancel the Paris agreement on climate change:

Paris is cactus.

Is the comment consistent with the Prime Minister's announcement today that Australia has ratified its Paris climate targets?

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

I have not seen the comments of the member for Hughes, but the policy of the Australian government is obviously as stated by the Prime Minister and relevant ministers.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.

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

I refer to commentary by Senator Bernardi, currently funded by taxpayers to be in New York as this parliament's observer at the United Nations, who has lauded the election of Donald Trump as a 'movement against the establishment political parties'. Is the Prime Minister concerned—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are an enormous number of interjections happening which are disrupting the question. I would ask that the clock be reset and the question be re-asked.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Seselja?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interjections were simply about the fact that Senator O'Neill was neglecting to mention that Senator Singh was also in New York on taxpayer—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. That is a debating point. I would ask senators to observe silence when senators are asking questions and giving answers. You may commence your question again, Senator O'Neill. We will reset the clock.

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

Thank you very much, Mr President; I did have trouble hearing myself. I refer to commentary by Senator Bernardi, currently funded by taxpayers to be in New York as this parliament's observer at the United Nations, who has lauded the election of Donald Trump as a 'movement against the establishment political parties'.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Macdonald?

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

The way the question was asked suggesting Senator Bernardi was doing something wrong is pejorative and is not within the standing orders. The senator should also state that Labor senator Lisa Singh is also in New York.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald! You are debating the point. There is an opportunity at the end of question time for these matters to be rectified. The minister the question is directed to could also make reference to that.

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

Is the Prime Minister concerned by the movement against establishment political parties, particularly by conservative groups based in South Australia? What implications does this have for government policy?

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

I will come to your question in a moment, Senator O'Neill, but I wonder why it is that you would preface your question with the words 'Senator Bernardi, who is currently on a taxpayer funded trip to the United Nations' while omitting to mention that your colleague Senator Lisa Singh is on the same taxpayer funded visit to the United Nations which has been a convention of this parliament for many, many years. The innuendo against Senator Bernardi seems to be both unfair and borderline dishonest.

There is no doubt that there will be an enormous amount of commentary on what everybody acknowledges to have been a very, very historic election, an election that was unexpected by most. Senator Bernardi is perfectly entitled to make comments. The comment that has been attributed to him has been made by many others.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.

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

I refer to Senator Macdonald, who this morning said about Queenslanders, 'They also thought in Tony Abbott they had someone they could relate to, and I think all of those things did impact upon the result and did lead to a bigger-than-expected vote for Pauline Hanson.' Does the Prime Minister agree that Pauline Hanson is now a senator because he replaced the member for Warringah as Prime Minister?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, I will allow the question, but it strictly was not a supplementary question to the primary question.

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

I know that this is the last question time of the week, and perhaps the Labor Party is running out of steam, but I do question the utility of asking questions about comments on contemporary political events that may have fallen from backbench members of the government. As a fellow Queensland senator and as friend of Senator Ian Macdonald—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Pauline Hanson indeed was elected at the federal election and Senator Malcolm Roberts was elected too. The One Nation party got a very good result in Queensland; there is no doubt about that. Senator Macdonald's remark—which I have not seen, but I take at face value what you have attributed to him—was a commentary on the fact that the One Nation party did do particularly well in the Senate in Queensland as it did in other states.

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

And I too was on the taxpayer funded program in New York with the then Labor senator Mark Bishop. My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate of the strategic implications of the US election result for Australia's defence and security?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Back for a very sensible question on the US election outcome. Let me restate that, in the first instance, Australia's highest priority in security and strategic terms is and will continue to be our alliance with the United States in terms of protecting our own national security and our own position. Indeed, as the Prime Minister himself discussed with President Trump this morning, this very strong and deep alliance remains at the core of Australia's security and defence planning.

It has been adverted to in question time earlier, and in the debate on the motion by the Greens, that, since the signing of the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, it is our common and enduring interests and shared goals which have underpinned this longstanding relationship and will continue to do so well into the future. Our support to that alliance is unwavering. For the past 70 years, as the defence white paper states and as I alluded to earlier, the strong presence of the United States has underpinned the stability of this region and around the world.

I look forward to continuing the relationships that we have built up over the time of this government through this transition period and then with the new Trump administration after the inauguration. My recent visit to Washington, and that of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, reinforced those key personal relationships with interlocutors across the spectrum in Washington and enabled us to inform ourselves of activities around the election campaign itself and the future, as it may arrive, in the post-election environment. Through early engagement with the new administration, I and our colleagues will be resolute in working closely with the new administration in support of our common regional and security interests. This government is committed to deepening our longstanding defence cooperation with the United States in the pursuit of peace, security and stability in our region. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back, a supplementary question.

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

Can the minister inform the Senate how Australian and US troops are working together in international operations?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Together with the United States, our ability to work collaboratively is stronger than ever. Senator Back would know—through not only his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee but also his own family experience—how important that collaborative capacity is for our international engagements in the military context. As I have advised the chamber previously, the Australian Defence Force is currently making some substantial military contributions to the US-led Counter-Daesh Coalition in Iraq and Syria to combat this extraordinary terrorist threat. Not only are we contributing through our Building Partner Capacity mission in Taji, through our Special Operations Task Group in Baghdad and the Air Task Group; we also have key senior ADF personnel embedded in coalition headquarters. Further, of course, the United States and Australia are working together in Afghanistan. We work on UN deployments together. We exchange officers in key positions in both militaries. The depth of the relationship and the purpose of the relationship— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back, a final supplementary question.

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

I thank the minister for her responses. Can the minister advise the Senate of US and Australian collaboration in defence and security in pursuit of our common strategic interests?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did have an opportunity to speak about some of this earlier. The depth of that relationship—and, even more importantly, the breadth of the relationship—is perhaps not always appreciated. When you see our Defence Science and Technology Group and the Chief Defence Scientist working with the United States and other Five Eyes partners—the work they do in the technical cooperation, 'the technical partnership' as they call it—when you see how the US-Australia Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty enables both of our countries to share access to equipment, technology and information and services as we seek to achieve a fully interoperable force, then you see that they are foundational for our collaborative work. Our cooperation on the submarine program is an enduring example of where we work together so very closely. Our jointly developed combat system and the heavyweight torpedo are currently operational both on Australian and on US submarines. We have a joint naval communications station at beautiful Exmouth, in in Senator Back's own state of Western Australia, which I have had the chance to visit— (Time expired)