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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Why did Mr Morrison, when posting video of his media conference to Facebook, delete any criticism of the violent protesters in Melbourne and only include those sections in which he criticised vaccine mandates?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pretty confident that Mr Morrison doesn't sit there and post the video content himself. I'm not aware of the edited versions or what content Senator Wong in particular refers to from which post. I am certainly aware that Mr Morrison's clear condemnation in relation to violent activities and extremist activities that promote or provoke violence in any form has been clear, resolute and repeated time and time again, despite the fact that those opposite try to paint some picture otherwise. We have been very clear in relation to the condemnation of such violence and, as the Prime Minister has said from the very first day when he became Prime Minister, his aspiration is to see policies pursued that bring Australians together and support the best ability—

Oppo sition senators interjecting—

I know that those opposite want to provoke these debates. They of course want to line up the different state Labor premiers to mount their coordinated attacks. Obviously they don't think their own leader is very good at making those attacks. They have to rely on others to make those attacks on the Prime Minister. This insinuation that the Prime Minister has not made those statements condemning violence or the attempt to provoke violence is frankly false. The Prime Minister has been clear on that time and time again.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a supplementary question?

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

This morning on radio this minister twice refused to condemn without qualification violent protesters and violent rhetoric. Will he now do so? Will he now condemn them without qualification and, if so, will the Prime Minister follow his lead?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

NGHAM (—) (): Perhaps that goes to the tone of all the questions we've seen today. Of course, the Labor Party take any type of comment or remark out of context and twist it so they choose. I was crystal clear in my condemnation on radio this morning. I know precisely what I said, even if I haven't had the time that they pretend to have had to twist, contort or selectively edit the Prime Minister's statement and what they choose to go from. I know that I was crystal clear in my condemnation and that I made sure, as I have in previous public remarks and iterations, that I indeed condemn those who have shown violent signs and those who have sought to promote or provoke violence.

Those opposite seem to think that there should be no acknowledgement that there might be some Australians who are not undertaking such violent actions but who do hold concerns. We're not going to be deaf to all Australians. That is not the approach our government will take.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a second supplementary question?

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

Why are Mr Morrison and this minister pretending to have condemned the violent protesters when instead Mr Morrison is engaging in doublespeak in order to campaign to a small and extreme element of the Australian population?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why do the Labor Party always seek to divide? Why do the Labor Party always seek to pursue arguments based on selective quotes and to contort different statements that others have made? Why do the Labor Party always seek to make sure they personalise the argument, as they do against Mr Morrison time and time again? Why are the Labor Party so grubby in all of their tactics that they deploy?

Last week it was revealed that they are paying people to put content on TikTok personally attacking the Prime Minister. That's what the Labor Party are up to. They're using the Chinese-owned TikTok website to go after the Prime Minister in the most personal way they can. Why are they doing all of this? Because they're not willing to talk about their own policies. That's what was clear when Mr Chalmers yesterday refused to rule out tax hikes, refused to say where they might spend any money and refused to detail their policies—because they're just about a vicious personal smear campaign.