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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to Senator Dastyari.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brandis moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to Senator Dastyari may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

I'm sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has declined leave to move this motion, because the purpose of the motion is to give an opposition senator, namely Senator Dastyari, an opportunity to explain himself. The terms of the motion are these:

That—

(1) Senator Dastyari be required to attend the Senate chamber at 3 pm on 30 November 2017 to make a statement of not more than 20 minutes, addressing:

(a) the nature of his relationship with Mr Huang Xiangmo;

(b) the allegations made by Fairfax media on 29 November 2017 that Senator Dastyari gave Mr Huang counter-surveillance advice and conduct a covert conversation with him during a meeting at Mr Huang's home in October 2016, including full details of the covert conversation;

(c) the press conference held by Senator Dastyari on 17 June 2016, and in particular:

  (i) the nature of Mr Huang's involvement in the decision to hold the press conference;

  (ii) full details of what was said by him at the press conference;

  (iii) the reason why he used the press conference to specifically contradict official Labor Party policy on Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea;

  (iv) the reason the press conference was restricted to Chinese language media; and

  (v) why he subsequently gave untruthful accounts of what he had said at the press conference;

(d) the nature and value of all payments made to or on behalf of Senator Dastyari by Mr Huang or at his direction.

(2) That any Senator may take note of Senator Dastyari's statement for a period of up to 90 minutes.

Senator Watt interjecting—

I heard Senator Watt interject a moment ago that Senator Dastyari has already given a statement. We all know that Senator Dastyari gave a very brief two-minute, rather self-pitying statement and then immediately left the chamber before the debate occurred. During the course of the debate, I raised a number of very specific questions in relation to Senator Dastyari. Senator Dastyari was not present in the chamber to hear those allegations, and he has not responded to those allegations. It is for that reason that it is appropriate and, indeed, it is owed and due to the Senate as a matter of proper professional conduct, not to mention professional courtesy, for Senator Dastyari to address the allegations that have been made against him.

In saying that, I might point out that it is notable that, when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate rose to her feet this morning in response to my speech and when Senator Carr also spoke on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, neither of them offered a word of defence of Senator Dastyari—not a word. So Senator Dastyari, a colleague who is the subject of very serious allegations made, in the first instance, by the media and now, quite properly, raised by the government in this chamber, has not yet afforded the Senate the courtesy of responding in detail and with particularity to those allegations. This motion provides for an opportunity in the Senate's program immediately after question time today for Senator Dastyari to respond. He should be given the opportunity to respond. We will listen very carefully to what Senator Dastyari has said, and other senators may choose to take note of Senator Dastyari's statement.

This is a commonplace procedure that this chamber has adopted on several occasions, including earlier this year in relation to myself, when allegations were made against me in relation to the Bell litigation, as senators will remember. And I had no difficulty attending the chamber and responding to a long series of questions from Senator Pratt. So, it's a proper procedure. The Senate is entitled to something more than the two-minute, self-pitying statement that came from Senator Dastyari this morning, and I would ask honourable senators to give favourable consideration to the motion.

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

I think I'll be the only opposition speaker on this. We're happy to proceed with voting and with dealing with this. I just want to make this point: (1) Senator Dastyari has already made a statement; (2) I am going to be clear publicly what I've also made clear privately to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that it is the opposition's view that if there is an appropriate inquiry that the government believes Senator Dastyari should be cooperating with then he should so cooperate, and I'm sure he would so do.

Instead of going down that path of an appropriate inquiry, the government is choosing to engage in what we know is a political stunt, and that is disappointing on such matters. I know the government wants this to be a distraction from the fact that Mr Turnbull has effectively lost control of the government. He has reversed policy in that he has, I think for some 600 days, said that there will be no royal commission into the banks. He has now been driven by Mr Christensen and Senator O'Sullivan to reverse that position. He has backbenchers openly undermining his leadership. And his government is desperately using the issues in relation to Senator Dastyari as a political distraction. I again say: the opposition's view is that, if the government believes that there are matters here that ought be considered and inquired into and puts that reasonably to the opposition, then a reasonable inquiry would be cooperated with. This is not such a reasonable inquiry. This is a political stunt, and I think everybody understands that.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. This is a motion that we have seen similar versions of in relation to other matters that have related to colleagues in this place. The motion seeks to give Senator Dastyari the opportunity to come to the chamber at three o'clock in order to address a number of issues, which are canvassed in the motion itself and which colleagues would be well aware of through the media. Senator Dastyari did, it should be acknowledged, come into the chamber at the start of today and make a very brief statement. This motion will give the opportunity for a fuller statement from Senator Dastyari. I should note that the motion that is before colleagues is one that is time limited so that there is the opportunity for other colleagues to take note of Senator Dastyari's statement for a period of up to 90 minutes. So, I think this is an appropriate motion that does two things. It provides the opportunity for Senator Dastyari to give a fuller contribution. It also provides the opportunity for colleagues in this place to take note of what Senator Dastyari says.

These are serious matters that have come to the attention of colleagues. These are matters that Senator Dastyari himself has acknowledged are serious. These are issues that are of such significance that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, required Senator Dastyari to resign his position as Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate and to resign his position as chair of a parliamentary committee. That action required by the Leader of the Opposition indicates that these matters have reached something that passes a threshold of concern for opposition members and senators.

It has been noted by a number of colleagues that this is not the first occasion upon which the judgement and the actions of Senator Dastyari have been called into question. Senator Dastyari himself has acknowledged that, and yesterday the Leader of the Opposition also acknowledged that this was not the first occasion. We have, over recent days, discovered new information about the events which this motion refers to, in particular the issue of the South China Sea and what Senator Dastyari said at his press conference. The recording of those comments is now available. That is new information, and we have new information in terms of the conversation that Senator Dastyari had about mobile phones and their capacity to be used as devices by particular agencies. These are both new pieces of information. As I say, these are not just matters that have passed a threshold of concern for the government. They have passed a threshold of concern for the Leader of the Opposition himself and for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Plibersek. So this is an appropriate motion to give Senator Dastyari the opportunity to talk more fully to these matters and for colleagues to have a reasonable opportunity to take note of what it is that Senator Dastyari has to say. I encourage my colleagues to support the motion.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to explain very briefly why I will be supporting the Attorney-General on this issue today. I thought that Senator Dastyari's two-minute-noodle address this morning was insufficient and left a lot of questions unanswered. Yesterday I was asked about the issue by Rafael Epstein out of the blue on the ABC, and I genuinely thought that the latest transgression by Senator Dastyari must've occurred before he was stood down by the opposition last year, before the Christmas break, before his summer holiday. I was shocked to discover that the latest transgression occurred after he'd been 'punished' by Bill Shorten, the opposition leader—made to resign from his position and then restored five months later. I thought surely it must've happened before that and he'd learnt his lesson. He hadn't. He's done something again. He is possibly in breach of national security. He certainly had a different attitude, privately, to his own party on the South China Sea issue. I also support this motion because I'm intrigued to find that Senator Dastyari and Bill Shorten have found a whole new word to describe lying—'mischaracterisation'.

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

I'm always uncomfortable when these issues involving individual senators are raised. I know it often happens. There have been two instances in the last few months where the Labor Party have personally attacked individual ministers. I might say that the attacks have gone absolutely nowhere, but I'm always uncomfortable when this chamber is used in that way. I think Senator Dastyari, in fairness, should be given the opportunity to answer the allegations made in the Fairfax press. He had an opportunity this morning, Mr President, but he talked about everything except for the serious allegations that have been made. Now, I personally am not an insider—I really don't know whether the allegations are true or not; I can only go on what I read in the newspapers. I thought that Senator Dastyari, when he got to his feet this morning, was going to explain all of the quite serious allegations, if they are true. I don't know if they're true, but the journalist is apparently prepared to face defamation action if they're not true, so I assume that they are.

I thought Senator Dastyari this morning might take the opportunity to tell us exactly what it was and why and try to assure us that there were no breaches, but he didn't mention that. He went to the basest of excuses, involving his children and confecting some sadness, when we know that Senator Dastyari actually puts on his own social media videos of his children talking about political matters like banking royal commissions. He didn't address the allegations that have been made. That's fair enough.

I then thought his leader, Senator Wong, who had quite a long time to then defend and explain the situation, might say something that could explain to the chamber Senator Dastyari's activities and actions. But, no: Senator Wong spent almost 20 minutes talking about everything else except the allegations. It clearly seems to me that the Labor Party leadership in this chamber have lost confidence in Senator Dastyari as well. Then there's Senator Carr, who spent another 20 minutes supposedly in defence of Senator Dastyari, but he said nothing about that issue. He raised every other issue, every red herring he could raise, but didn't address the issues that are before the public at the present time.

Senator Dastyari, I have to say, had the opportunity but didn't do it himself. He may have assumed, as I assumed, that Senator Wong or Senator Carr would then come forward to explain exactly what the facts are, how it all happened and what the purpose was. But, no: two of the senior members of the Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator Carr, spent 20 minutes saying absolutely nothing. That, to me, as I said earlier today, is a very curious state of affairs. It seems to me that even the Labor Party are concerned about what has happened. The leader in the Senate and Senator Carr were not prepared to enter into a full-scale defence of, or a vote of confidence in, Senator Dastyari.

So we're left in the position where a colleague of ours in this chamber has had some very serious allegations made about him. I don't know whether they're true or not, but I think that Senator Dastyari should be given the opportunity of addressing the serious issues in the public area at the present time. To do anything else would be a denial of what I would assume anyone's civil and public political rights might be—to be able to answer these questions. I don't know whether Senator Dastyari will have another opportunity in the debate today or the debate next week, but it is in the public's attention at the moment. I think, in fairness, we should allow Senator Dastyari to make his statement. The motion moved by Senator Brandis clearly gives him the opportunity and identifies what needs to be said, and we would all be better off with that. (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting part 1 of this motion, but we don't see a need for part 2 of this motion. We think Senator Dastyari should be afforded the opportunity to come and address the very serious nature of the allegations that have been raised today and explain more wholly some of those issues and the nature of his relationship with the individual involved. It must be noted that it's not just Senator Dastyari who has a relationship with Mr Huang Xiangmo; it's understood that this individual also has a direct relationship with and has been a donor to the Liberal Party, as well, so it would be good to be able to hear an explanation from the Liberal Party as to the nature of that relationship, who Mr Huang Xiangmo has communicated with within the coalition side, what he has expected to get out of that relationship and so on, because this is a very serious issue.

The allegations that were made about Senator Dastyari presenting a position on foreign policy that was at odds with his own party and in support of a financial donor are very serious matters. It is rather ironic that we spent the last few months in here debating individuals who allegedly had a conflicted allegiance to Australia as a result of their dual citizenship, yet here we have a very real and material case where it appears that an individual has made decisions that may have been influenced by the financial relationship that he has with this individual.

We also have very serious concerns about how this material came to light. We are concerned that information like this might be made public not simply through the diligent and hard work of the individuals in the media who exposed it but through complicity from our intelligence agencies. That's a very serious question: how was this information gathered? How was the information obtained? I think that warrants a very serious investigation. We would be extremely concerned if our security agencies were being politicised in some way or inserted themselves into what is, obviously, a very serious issue, so we need to get to the bottom of that. But, for the moment, the facts do appear clear: Senator Dastyari's previous statement was completely and wholly inadequate. He should be afforded the opportunity and, indeed, be asked very directly by the Senate to come in and explain in much more detail many of the issues that were raised.

We won't be supporting part 2 of this motion, which effectively gives an opportunity for individual senators to continue making political points, because we also had that opportunity this morning. We had a long debate this morning where individuals were able to make their points. We don't think we need to repeat that, and we think it's very important that this place gets on with the business of legislating. There are important pieces of legislation that need to be debated by the chamber.

We will support requiring Senator Dastyari to attend the chamber. We will be supporting a requirement that he outline the nature of the relationship he has with this individual and, indeed, account for the fact that he appears to have given conflicting evidence to the media that's not supported by a later account of events. We will in time, though, be asking more questions about how this information came to light, whether the security agencies had any role in obtaining this information, whether there was any conversation with members of the government about that and whether that evidence was used against Senator Dastyari, but they are questions for later. For the moment, it is important that Senator Dastyari gives a very clear and whole explanation of events.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to discuss this very important issue. In the time I've been in this chamber, I have not heard or been aware of any issue that is more serious than this. As many of us know in this chamber, the threat of covert foreign interference—

Senator Watt interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left, Senator Watt. Senator Reynolds, please continue.

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

Why didn't you jump in and say something?

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

How obvious is the government—we've only had one opposition speaker.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, if Senator Wong would like the call, then she should ask for the call. But I do have the call at the moment on this most serious of issues.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Reynolds! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

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

I have spoken. If the government were serious they'd proceed to a vote, but they've got Macdonald and Reynolds up. It shows it's a political stunt.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Wong! Senator Reynolds.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, I can't recall any issue that has struck at the heart of our democracy more than this issue does today. There is no doubt that the threat of foreign interference is a problem of the highest order and is only getting worse. As the D-G of ASIO has recently advised, foreign intelligence activity against Australians and Australia is occurring at an unprecedented level. Both espionage and covert foreign influence can cause immense harm to our national sovereignty, to the safety of our people and to the integrity of our democracy.

As the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I know our committee has reviewed this issue extensively, on a bipartisan basis. We've reported already on foreign donations, and I know the government is looking at both increasing in legislation anti-espionage and foreign interference measures and measures in relation to the electoral process. But what is very clear to me as the Chair of JSCEM is that only Australians should have the power to influence Australian politics. One of the issues we grapple with in the committee all the time is the public perception of the integrity of our own democracy and of corruption within that democracy. While Australia globally—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you'll support foreign donation bans, will you?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I will not take that interjection. You are the last one to talk about this issue in terms of respect of this place.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We could be debating foreign donation legislation right now!

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You might not like to hear this, but it is absolutely true. This is a serious matter. It is a matter of national security and the integrity—

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

Treat it seriously, not as a political stunt!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can run all the interference you like for Senator Dastyari and his pathetic two-minute explanation this morning on one of the most serious questions of integrity and of compromise by a foreign power we've ever had, that I can recall, in this chamber—

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

That's a big allegation.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, they are big allegations, and that's why Senator Dastyari's pathetic excuse this morning—he didn't even try to provide explanations for not only his past conduct but the new allegations. To come into this chamber and make reference to his children and then make some reference to a royal commission is despicable. He has not in any way answered any of the serious questions of national security that have now arisen.

I would just like to read out what Senator Dastyari should be answering—and it's very good to see the Greens are supportive of this as well:

(1) Senator Dastyari be required to attend the Senate chamber at 3 pm. on 30 November 2017 to make a statement of not more than 20 minutes …

Two minutes was patently inadequate—

(b) the allegations made by Fairfax media on 29 November 2017 that Senator Dastyari gave Mr Huang counter-surveillance advice and conduct a covert conversation with him during a meeting at Mr Huang's home in October 2016, including full details of the covert conversation;

This morning, Senator Dastyari clearly reiterated that he has got a bad memory. He was at a press conference that he had convened on Mr Huang's behalf at a Commonwealth office, with Commonwealth podiums, with the Chinese media the only ones there, and he couldn't even remember. 'It didn't accord with my recollection of this discussion,' he said. I have never, ever heard such a piece of baloney in this chamber. He has either got such a bad memory on such an important thing or he is simply not telling the truth.

Senator Dastyari must come back to this chamber today and actually explain to us the nature of these allegations. Are they true? If they're not true, he needs, given the gravity of the situation, to come and explain to all Australians, who need to have faith that those in this chamber are not subject to foreign interference or influence in our democratic processes. For those opposite to run a protection racket on Senator Dastyari not once, not twice but now three times shames us all in this chamber. Senator Dastyari, come here and provide a proper explanation as outlined in these terms of reference.

What do we want to know from Senator Dastyari? We want to know: the nature of Mr Huang's involvement in the decision to hold the press conference; the full details of what was actually said by him at the press conference; the reason he used the press conference to contradict Labor Party policy; and, why he gave subsequent accounts untruthfully. (Time expired)

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to support Senator Brandis's motion. I believe there needs to be accountability in this chamber. Senator Dastyari has not explained himself. I find the Labor side to be so hypocritical. They are so ready to point the finger at One Nation at any time on accountability issues, especially Senator Murray Watt. They are constantly going at One Nation. So I believe that, in all fairness for the chamber, there should be an explanation here. It is a protection racket. Why don't they just let him explain himself and satisfy the people not only in this chamber but in all of Australia. Where is your accountability now in this—in protecting someone like your senator?

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.

Senator Dodson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.

Senator Gallagher did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash.

Senator Brown did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.

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

I move:

That a motion relating to Senator Dastyari may be moved immediately and determined without amendment.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That—

(1) Senator Dastyari be required to attend the Senate chamber at 3 pm. On 30 November 2017 to make a statement of not more than 20 minutes, addressing:

  (a) the nature of his relationship with Mr Huang Xiangmo;

  (b) the allegations made by Fairfax media on 29 November 2017 that Senator Dastyari gave Mr Huang counter-surveillance advice and conduct a covert conversation with him during a meeting at Mr Huang's home in October 2016, including full details of the covert conversation;

  (c) the press conference held by Senator Dastyari on 17 June 2016, and in particular:

     (i) the nature of Mr Huang's involvement in the decision to hold the press conference;

     (ii) full details of what was said by him at the press conference;

     (iii) the reason why he used the press conference to specifically contradict official Labor Party policy on Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea;

     (iv) the reason the press conference was restricted to Chinese language media; and

     (v) why he subsequently gave untruthful accounts of what he had said at the press conference;

  (d) the nature and value of all payments made to or on behalf of Senator Dastyari by Mr Huang or at his direction.

(2) That any Senator may take note of Senator Dastyari's statement for a period of up to 90 minutes.

I understand, Mr President, that paragraphs (1) and (2) of the motion will be put separately.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be put separately.

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

I'm not going to rehearse what was said in the chamber this morning, but I do want to explain why it is that the government is moving this motion, why it is important that Senator Dastyari attend the chamber and why it is that the government regards this as a very serious matter indeed. As several senators have pointed out in this debate—indeed, senators from all interests represented in the chamber other than the Australian Labor Party have pointed it out—every senator is accountable to this chamber for their conduct. There can be no dispute about that proposition. We have had the Australian Labor Party move against government senators and ministers, as they're perfectly entitled to do, to require them in various ways to account to the Senate. At the moment, my colleague Senator Fifield is the subject of a requirement that he attend the Privileges Committee in relation to certain allegations.

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

No, not Privileges, George.

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

I'm sorry, a Senate committee in relation to allegations—untrue allegations, I might say—that have been made against him. Senator Fifield willingly—perhaps not gladly but willingly—submits to the wish of the chamber that he attend and will do so.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has done.

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

Has already done so, I'm told. Earlier this year, the Senate moved a motion requiring me to attend in the chamber to respond to a series of questions from Senator Pratt concerning my involvement in litigation concerning the Bell group of companies. I willingly and quite happily attended the Senate chamber and answered every single question that Senator Pratt asked of me, and there are other examples as well.

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

How much notice did you have, George?

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

Virtually none, Senator. So, Senator, the obligation that you demand of my side of politics is not an obligation that lies only upon the government. The obligation of senators to the chamber is broader than the obligation of the government to be accountable to the parliament. All senators have an obligation to the chamber to account for their conduct, and if allegations of misconduct, particularly allegations that, to put it plainly, go to the fitness of a person to serve in the Senate, are made then that senator against whom those allegations are made has an obligation to give an account of himself.

I want to stress that the allegations are not made by the government. The allegations were made by Fairfax Media and the ABC—two media organisations that have never been regarded as particular friends of my side of politics, by the way—but, given the gravity of the allegations, they have been raised by me and by other members of the government in the Senate this morning.

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

You said they were credible.

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

Yes, the government does consider that these allegations are credible—in other words, believable. We are not determining the allegations. We are not endorsing them. They are serious allegations made by serious media organisations, Fairfax Media and the ABC, and, in relation to the latter, by Mr Nick McKenzie, Mr James Massola and Mr Richard Baker, three serious journalists. We raised these allegations in the chamber this morning because we take them seriously.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

It is the clearest possible demonstration of the fact that the Labor Party are not taking this matter seriously that they constantly interject. If they were taking the matter seriously, they would not be interjecting. Senator Dastyari came into the chamber this morning and gave a very brief explanation. It was not even an explanation; it was an attempt to dismiss the matter in the course of announcing his resignation. It took all of two minutes. He then left the chamber and hasn't been seen since. He hasn't even been seen in the chamber for the purpose of this motion. He owes it to this chamber to show his face and answer specifically the specific allegations that were made by Fairfax Media and raised by the government and particularised in this motion.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will now move to the substantive motion, and I'll be putting clauses (1) and (2) separately as requested and as indicated in the debate earlier. The question is that clause (1), paragraphs (a) to (d) inclusive, of the motion moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that clause (2) of Senator Brandis's motion be agreed to.

Senator Dodson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.

Senator Gallagher did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash.

Senator Smith did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.