Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and let me put it in different terms: what would be the motive for someone saying that we should lower our national security principles and let visa applicants know if we're doing a security assessment on them? What would be the motive for that? I can't think of a single motive that's in the national interests of Australia. I can think of a motive that might be in the political day-to-day media-cycle interests of the Leader of the Opposition. But if he's willing to sacrifice the national security interests of Australia to try to get a grab up in social media now, then that's his motive. It's not the government's motive. It's not my motive. You won't find me saying that if we're conducting a national security assessment on someone we ought to do it publicly, that we ought to phone a friend and let them know we're doing it. You won't find this government doing that.

And what sort of motivation has somebody got? I've got to say, if those opposite reckon it's a proper motive, what's the proper motive in this? Is it to publicly disclose all the criteria that ASIO uses? Wow! In what universe does any security agency on the planet publicly disclose all its criteria? In what universe do they do that? Yet the Leader of the Opposition is calling for that to happen now. I must say, I haven't seen his shadow home affairs spokesperson call for something as off the wall as what's being moved in the House right now. I haven't heard his shadow defence spokesperson call for something like that. And we do share confidential briefings with the opposition. We do make sure that that's happened, as they did when we were in opposition. But to share it with the world, to share it on the floor of the House of Representatives, is one of the most irresponsible things—and he knows it. He knows this is the wrong thing to do. Do the security agencies for the United States make their criteria public? Which countries in the world, when they're conducting a security assessment on someone, let them know? With those opposite it's, 'Oh, the Prime Minister this; the Prime Minister that.' But name the countries that do it—because they don't.

The Leader of the Opposition has moved this motion today because the man is irresponsible and a sook, and the country doesn't like either. People have never put up with someone who's a sook, someone who, because they're not on the treasury benches, because at a point in time they're not running the nation, is willing to have the most extraordinary tantrum. We've got used to the tantrums they throw on economic responsibility. We've got used to the fact that they'll throw a tantrum and if they can't be in charge of housing policy they'll try to stop houses from being built. We've got used to the fact that on policy issue after policy issue they'll vote with the Greens because they can't be in charge, that they'll throw their bat and ball in the air and go away.

But I never thought they'd play that game on national security. I never thought they'd play that game on our ASIO systems. I never thought they'd call for what has always been confidential and move a motion of the floor of the parliament saying that all this should be made public. I'm going after what he has put in writing and moved on the floor of this House. Look at the expression on the face of the Leader of the Opposition right now. It shows his attitude to national security. In contrast to that, we've got a government led by a prime minister that will not and has not compromised on national security, that will not and has not attacked our security agencies, a prime minister who has made sure that every step of the way we have kept the thresholds on national security that were already there. Whether we have been in government or opposition, I have never seen something as irresponsible as what is before the House right now. I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

See this speech in context