Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am usually not one for commenting on the groundhog-day-like nature of the breadth and depth of what those opposite bring to the MPI table each day. Perhaps the member for Wannon has Tuesdays rostered in as immigration day on the calendar. If so, bring it on. Every day they want to come into the chamber and spruik the credentials of the Leader of the Opposition as a no-nonsense hardliner. They give a free kick to the government every time, right in front of the sticks.

Can I just give a humble mention to the army of skeletons in the Leader of the Opposition's ministerial closet. Each and every passing review of the leader's time as minister has a litany of instances of incompetence at best. Those opposite moving a motion predicated on ministerial responsibility is a bit rich when they are led by the member for Dickson. I was waiting patiently for those opposite to extend their outrage to their leader after it was discovered that their leader granted a visa to a man who would go on to commit violence in the Australian community, one who was known at the time to have prior criminal convictions too. I can imagine the Leader of the Opposition having a range of options going through his head when he was making the decision to grant that ill-fated visa. He probably thought the man's CV was good enough to be awarded a contract with his department for his troubles, a department which was discovered to be doing business under his watch with companies whose directors were involved in everything from bribery and money-laundering through to avoiding US imposed sanctions of Iran. These were decisions that did not just make Australians less safe; these were decisions that undermined our allies and the system of rules based order that we aim to protect and defend. None of the many examples that have been unearthed about the time of the member for Dickson frankly surprised this side of the chamber in the slightest. And why should they have?

I remember those opposite, led by the member for Wannon and the Leader of the Opposition, loudly criticising not just the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs but the Minister for Home Affairs, and the Attorney-General for good measure. They must have been some truly diabolic acts indeed to have provoked such an aggrieved reaction, not just in this place but outside of it, and in the media too. These ministers, as ministers of the Crown, were guilty of following an order handed down by the High Court of Australia.

I remember many on that side of the chamber frothing at the mouth as they joined in the chorus, led by the member for Dixon, and shouted about the sanctity of our Constitution, at times affectionately calling it our rule book. But when it is convenient and suitable, he expects ministers to defy the High Court and the rule of law itself. If that is the way he expects a minister to behave, I can only wonder what future reviews might uncover from the Leader of the Opposition's days as a senior cabinet minister under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments and member of the National Security Committee of cabinet.

There can simply be no rational response to those opposite when they try to justify their indifference towards the very bedrock that underpins the rules and principles that lie at the heart of our system of constitutional government as being optional. If the member for Wannon wishes to come into the chamber next Tuesday after question time to talk about which side in this place can better protect our nation or to talk about ministerial responsibility and accountability, he's certainly welcome to do so, but I urge those sitting behind the member for Wannon to wake up from their trancelike state of cognitive dissonance and drag themselves back from the ledge of attempting to use national security as something that is liable to partisan pointscoring. I'm sure all of us would like to think that the member for Wannon is better than that. This view might even be shared by the member himself.

I would actively encourage the member for Wannon to take the words of former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss to heart, especially when she remarked that the member for Wannon has to show that he can play at a higher level. Today's performance, much like his performance during the previous Tuesday's MPI, proves that there's always a chance he will reach that level one day perhaps. It certainly won't be today. It may potentially be when a certain location freezes over—matching the member for Wannon's glacial pace.

See this speech in context