Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith—That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

Whether in misquoting the Director-General of ASIO while answering a question without notice from the Leader of the Opposition on 15 August 2024, the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the House, such as would constitute a contempt of the House.

Mr Speaker, I am disappointed and, I must say, somewhat surprised at the decision that you have just announced, and it leaves me with no alternative but to take the step I now take. I note that just last week when a Labor member of parliament raised an issue of privilege you did agree to refer it to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. It is very important that there be scrupulous impartiality in the way that these matters are dealt with, but, in view of the decision you have taken, there is no alternative but for me to move this suspension.

I note, for the information of the House, that there is a precedent for the House agreeing to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee in circumstances where the Speaker has declined to grant precedence. On 21 May 2012 this House agreed to refer the case of the then member for Dobell to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, over his deliberate misleading of the House.

Therefore, the step that I am now taking puts the House in the position to take a decision, should it choose, to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In view of the gravity of what occurred on 15 August in question time, I submit that it is entirely appropriate that the House should make that decision, and it's certainly appropriate that standing orders should be suspended so that the House can consider this matter and so that a motion to refer could be put and voted on, because, I say to this House, this issue is a very important one for the operation of this House and for the question of whether the Australian people can trust this Prime Minister and take what he says at face value. It's deeply unfortunate that it's necessary to move this suspension. It's deeply unfortunate that it was necessary to raise this as a matter of privilege. But it should surely be the case that the Australian people can expect that, when the Prime Minister says something in this chamber, they can have confidence that it is both truthful and accurate.

Of course, mistakes do occur on the fly in the heated and fast-moving environment in which we operate. But, where a mistake has been made, it has been the long-accepted practice of this House that a minister, including a prime minister, who has made a statement which in all the circumstances is misleading will come into this House at the earliest possible opportunity to correct the record. Since the opposition has raised this matter, the Prime Minister, by contrast, has taken every possible opportunity to avoid doing what he would rightly be expected to do.

Let me remind the House of what happened. The Prime Minister, in the course of question time on 15 August 2024, stated that the director-general of ASIO had said in an interview on Insiders on 11 August 2024:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

But, in fact, what Mr Burgess actually said was:

If they've been issued a visa they've gone through the process. Part of the process is where criteria are hit they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

The Prime Minister left out the crucial words from what the director-general of ASIO actually said. The director-general of ASIO actually used the words 'where criteria are hit'. The Prime Minister deliberately omitted the words so that it would appear that what Mr Burgess was saying was that everyone who gets a visa has had a security assessment by ASIO, but that is not true. It is a matter of public record that not everyone who has received a visa to travel from the Gaza war zone to Australia has had a security assessment by ASIO. The Prime Minister's deliberate misquoting gave a false impression to anyone listening to him in the House or on the official broadcast of proceedings.

Since the Prime Minister made the statement containing this misleading quote, this inaccurate quote, this quote that omitted the critical words and, as a result, what he said to the House was a fundamental mischaracterisation of what Mr Burgess had in fact said and was a characterisation which gave the opposite impression of what Mr Burgess had actually said, the opposition have repeatedly called on the Prime Minister to do two simple things: to correct the record and to provide an explanation as to the government's handling of the security assessment process that is applied when individuals have sought visas to come to Australia from the Gaza war zone. We have moved motions to deal with this matter and, in each case, the government has simply adjourned the debate before allowing it to come to a vote. On each occasion the Prime Minister has declined to appear in this chamber and explain to this chamber what happened and to do as he ought to do. As is the convention in this place when you've said something that is wrong, inaccurate or incorrect, you come in and correct the record. Any prime minister of integrity or of good character would do that. On this side of the House we recognise that errors get made. We recognise things that get said in the heat of the moment. But the fact that this Prime Minister has consistently over a number of sitting days refused to come into this place and correct the record is powerful evidence that this was intentional from the outset. This was a deliberate misleading of the House.

That is why this matter urgently needs to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. The Prime Minister on Monday tabled a transcript as presumably an attempt to get through this issue without having to do what is required in the circumstances, without having to admit that in fact he misled the House. He tabled a transcript of Mr Burgess on Insiders and that transcript does contain the phrase which he deliberately omitted when he spoke in this place—'part of that visa process is where criteria are hit'. That is included in the transcript that the Prime Minister tabled on Monday, and yet the quote that he used on the previous Thursday deliberately omitted those words with the consequence that the opposite impression was given to those listening in this chamber or on the broadcast as to whether it is the automatic process that whenever an application is made there is a security assessment by ASIO. In fact, it is clear from the full and accurate quote that that is not what happens, but we know that it suits the Prime Minister's political interests to give the impression that that is what happens. That is why he engaged in this deliberate misquoting.

The committee of privileges has significant powers. It can call for documents from individuals connected to the matter. It is, we submit, an entirely appropriate circumstance in which those powers should be used. I conclude by reading a quote:

If successful I am determined to restore a greater sense of responsibility to the Office of Prime Minister.

A deeper respect for the Australian people and for the integrity of our democracy.

Real accountability—and delivery.

That soaring rhetoric came from the now Prime Minister when he delivered remarks on 4 March 2022 at the Lowy Institute. We are asking that the Prime Minister live up to the accepted standards of this place and to his own soaring rhetoric. That is why this matter is urgent.

See this speech in context