Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move:

That the House censures the Attorney-General:

(1)for launching an unprecedented attack on the Australian Human Rights Commission designed to undermine its independence;

(2)for treating an independent statutory office holder with contempt; and

(3)for directing the Secretary of the Department of Attorney-General to offer an inducement to the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission in return for her resignation.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the House censures the Attorney-General:

(1)for launching an unprecedented attack on the Australian Human Rights Commission designed to undermine its independence;

(2)for treating an independent statutory office holder with contempt; and

(3)for directing the Secretary of the Department of Attorney-General to offer an inducement to the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission in return for her resignation.

Prime Minister of Australia, lying is not insider nonsense. It is proof that the Attorney-General and his government have failed the test of leadership. Yesterday you plumbed a new depth in using the power of the executive branch—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, this is a suspension motion. It is not a censure motion, and it is not permitted under the standing orders to accuse people of lying.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition has the call, and the point the Prime Minister makes is true. Address your marks to the censure motion and desist from unparliamentary language. In fact, withdraw.

Honourable members interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday and today we have seen a shocking attack by the most powerful man in Australia upon the president—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have silence. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, he has used an unparliamentary term, and he should withdraw it.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Yesterday and today we have seen the Attorney-General and the rest of his government reach a new and shocking low. When people like the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister of Australia, with all of the power of government, use their positions to bully and intimidate independent statutory office holders then we should suspend standing orders to discuss this matter. The actions yesterday—and as much as the Prime Minister and Attorney-General want to say it is not the real issue—when powerful men in remarkable positions of strength use their authority not to lead the nation but to attack critics then we have a severe problem with the strength of our community and our government in this country.

I understand that the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and members of the government may not approve of the President of the Human Rights Commission's report, but what I do not understand is that, rather than dealing with the issues in the report, what they have done is attack her character. They have attacked her character. What we also saw yesterday was the embarrassing and scandalous situation where the President of the Human Rights Commission was forced to sit two people down from the Attorney-General, a target as the Attorney-General turned on her and attacked her. Then we saw she had to put up with the assassination of her character by the Attorney-General and by this man. We have seen an assassination of character. This is the tool in trade. I believe Australians are sick and tired of an angry Tony Abbott. I believe Australians are sick and tired of the constant overreach of the Prime Minister of Australia.

Being Prime Minister of Australia is a remarkable privilege. It is a bully pulpit to be able to advocate ideas.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that this is a suspension motion.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. But what we mean is, whilst it is a bully pulpit, it is not a pulpit for bullies, and that is what we are seeing with this government. We should suspend standing orders because what we have seen with this attack on the President of the Human Rights Commission is a new low by the most powerful man in Australia against an upright, proper and decent woman. We have seen in this attack by the Prime Minister the classic overreach of the angry Prime Minister. He says that he does not like what she has written, so therefore she must resign.

We have seen word games played by this government. When is a resignation not a resignation? When Tony Abbott and George Brandis ask for it. When is an inducement not an inducement? When these ministers and the Attorney-General offer it. The President of the Human Rights Commission understood perfectly well what was happening when the secretary of the department came along and said, 'I'm sorry to tell you this, but the Attorney-General's lost confidence in you; the government's lost confidence in you.' You cannot sack this statutory office holder. There is a clear implication if you say to this independent statutory office holder, 'the government has lost confidence in you, but you cannot be sacked'; there is only one course of action being asked for by these powerful people—the Attorney-General and his leader, the Prime Minister—it is clearly putting pressure on her to resign.

Then we hear about the embarrassing spectacle that no job was offered. Today the foreign minister gave a strong and appropriate defence of the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department. She certainly defends the secretary of the department; she said he is a very truthful person. We agree. We think he is a truthful person. What we do not believe is that we are hearing the truth from the Attorney-General or from this Prime Minister.

You can just see the decision-making in the inner sanctum of this government—at least the bits that we have not seen already leaked. They would have sat around and said: 'We want this woman gone. We want her out of the position.' That is what they would have said. You can see them saying: 'George, send a messenger to get rid of the messenger. Send her the message that we no longer have confidence but if she does the right thing and fits in with the agenda of this government we will find her a job somewhere else.' Unfortunately for this government and its bullying ways, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission was not playing ball.

Prime Minister, I think you underestimate many Australians when you dismiss this matter as an 'insider issue'. I think there are a lot of Australians who have been appalled by your conduct and your character assassination of this President of the Australian Human Rights Commission. I think you have reminded a lot of Australians what they deep-down feel about you, that you are a—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that this is a suspension motion.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a suspension of standing orders motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then kindly refer to it.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important to suspend standing orders because Australia has been reminded of the character of this Prime Minister and of this Attorney-General. Never could we have imagined such a scenario. I know there are good members of the government—perhaps not those who are yelling out—who are deeply uneasy at this open attack on an independent statutory office holder.

I congratulate the member for Wentworth, who has come out and been supportive of Gillian Triggs. I also acknowledge that the foreign minister seems to have some quiet confidence in Gillian Triggs. And I know there are more of you out there—probably even more than supported the spill motion. This is why we have to support the suspension of standing orders motion.

No government minister should be proud of the last 48 hours. No government minister should be proud of the absolute plumbing of the depths and this attack on this respected, independent person. What is it about the Abbott government and the Attorney-General that they do not understand the separation of powers? What is it about this government that, when the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission comes down with a report that the government does not like, all of a sudden the independent office holder must go?

Please, members of the government, Attorney-General and Prime Minister, do not treat Australians as mugs and say: 'No resignation was sought and no alternative job was offered'. We can play the word games, Mr Prime Minister. You can talk about how 'no inducement was given'. Your messenger said to the President of the Human Rights Commission, 'the government no longer has confidence in you'—there you go, character assassinating again.

But they knew they could not sack this office holder, so the clear implication of saying to Gillian Triggs, 'The government has no confidence in you,' is 'You must resign'. That is the clear implication. Then, they said: 'We will look after you. We will find you a special role.' Now the government has said today in parliament, 'There was no special role offered'. Yet, yesterday, the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department said there was a role offered.

The foreign minister was left to hang out a bit today when she said, 'no special role was offered'. Yet it was in Hansard yesterday that the secretary of the department said there was. Someone is not telling the truth here, and I believe it starts with the Attorney-General and it starts with the Prime Minister.

What the government needs to understand is that, rather than shooting the messenger as they are doing here, they should be taking heed of the message. I believe that many Australians, be they Liberal or Labor supporters, or any other party, they have— (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting a suspension of standing orders from the Leader of the Opposition, because the Australian people expect us to get on with the job of good government in this country. That is what the Australian people expect us to do in this place. They do not expect us to get down in the chum bucket—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will desist and is warned.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not going to hop into the chum bucket with 'Beltway Bill'—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, normally in a suspension motion debate we are reluctant to raise points of order; but, when members are not being referred to by their correct title, it should be withdrawn and dealt with appropriately.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the Leader of the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. I am not surprised about the sensitivity of the Manager of Opposition Business, because the simple fact is that the whole strategy of the opposition today has been to talk about a matter which people in Australia must be scratching their heads about and wondering why on earth Labor thinks this is the most important thing we could be talking about today.

On this side of the House, we are talking about jobs for Australians; the 600 new jobs a day that we are creating. We are talking about growth; 2.7 per cent growth this year, versus 1.9 per cent in the last year of the Labor government. We are talking about child care; the Minister for Social Services has been down at the National Press Club today talking about how to make the lives of ordinary Australians easier every day because of the good decisions this government makes around child care, around jobs, around families, around foreign investment in Australia. We are protecting Australians through national security, stopping Australians from being subjected to terror attacks. That is what this government is getting on with every day. We are planning things for small business, so small business can continue to be the engine room of the economy; to create jobs, to create growth.

What is the Labor Party doing? The Labor Party are popping their heads right in the chum bucket. All they want to do is talk about the detritus of Australian politics. That is what they want to talk about. They want to have a big argument about a matter that the Australian public would be thinking about as, 'Surely, our elected politicians have more important things to do?'

So we will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders, because we have a whole raft of business today on the daily program to deal with. We are right in the middle of a debate about the Broadcasting and Other Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Bill 2014—an important bill to change Australia for the future and to change Australia for the better. I know that my colleagues are lining up to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No 3). They are, in fact, lining up to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) because they know they can talk in general about their electorates, about projects in their electorates, about the infrastructure of the 21st century and about dams that we plan to build in northern Australia to fix the mess that Labor left us with. They are going to talk about the roads of the 21st century, like the North-South Corridor, and how we are generating growth and generating income for the Australian public, creating jobs so that they can feed their families.

That is not what Labor is interested in. Labor is not interested in any positive development for Australia. All they want to do is cheer bad news. But I do not hear them cheering when the ANZ job ads are up for the eighth month in a row. The eighth month in a row! ANZ job ads are up, retail trade has been up every month for the last seven months and there were more new company registrations last year than at any time on record. More company registrations! There was an increase in the loans for new housing starts in Australia last year. Confidence is returning to the Australian economy and to the Australian people. And Labor wants to snuff that out because Labor thinks that if they can flatten the mood of the Australian public, then the Australian public will look elsewhere than to this government.

But the Australian public know that this government is getting on with the job to make their lives easier, because that is why we are elected. We are not elected to be involved in beltway discussions about what happened in Senate estimates yesterday. That is what the Labor Party wants to do. We are elected to put the Australian public first on every single day of our jobs, and that is what we have been doing for 18 months. We have been a good government and, my, we have had a lot to clean up from the mess left behind by the Labor Party.

We also need to make the important point that it is the height of hypocrisy for the Leader of the Opposition to come into this House and lecture us about trust and integrity. To lecture us! This is the man who took out two prime ministers! It was not enough for 'Backstabber Bill' to get rid of one prime minister; it was not enough to get his way to the top and to be sitting in that chair but to get rid of two—so he did! Francis Urquhart would be proud of him!

So, first he gets rid of Kevin Rudd—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order: as was previously raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, the member is not referring to members by their titles. If I could hear it from here I am sure you—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat. The Leader of the House has the call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the Frank Underwood of Australian politics to be lecturing us about trust and integrity is really the height of hypocrisy.

Government members interjecting—

I will not say what some of my colleagues are trying to encourage me to say, but the simple fact of the matter is that he not only got rid of Kevin Rudd he also got rid of Julia Gillard, and now he sits in a seat that he always wanted and he thinks he is going to jump over the table and get to this seat, but he is not going to do so.

This is what his own colleagues think of him. Paul Kelly wrote about it in his book—and he is with us today in the House. I quote—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There were a number of points of order taken by the earlier speakers about the fact that it is a suspension motion and that they need to be relevant to the motion.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House has to explain why it should not be suspended and he is putting that case.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition ranged very widely over the debate, and we did not take that point of order. But, unlike the Maritime Union of Australia, I think we should always treat the journalists of The Australian well; so they should be recognised properly when they are in the House, rather than how Andrew Burrell was treated by the Maritime Union of Australia yesterday. But to be lectured by the Labor Party about trust and integrity is really quite laughable. If it were not so serious it would be laughable.

This is the political party of Eddie Obeid, Joe Tripodi and Ian Macdonald. This is the party that supported Craig Thomson for every step of the way, and continues to do so.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be silence on my left and my right!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the political party that decided that a good Speaker, in Harry Jenkins, needed to be axed on the last day of sittings and that Peter Slipper, the former member for Fisher, should be inserted in his place. And that did not end well! This is the political party of the New South Wales Labor Party that has been mired in corruption and discussions about corruption for decades—not just recently. Goodness knows what they got away with before the ICAC! It beggars belief to be lectured by the Labor Party when for six years of chaotic government they got rid of two prime ministers, they axed the Speaker in favour of Peter Slipper, the former member for Fisher and they supported Craig Thomson all the way through. And this is the man here who supported Craig Thomson; he supported him right through the process.

And Peter Slipper—it was written in the Daily Telegraph on 27 April:

On Tuesday, Ms Gillard said she supported Mr Slipper's planned return if a criminal investigation into misuse of entitlements cleared him first.

Mr Shorten was then on Sky News. Mr Shorten was asked about this support of Peter Slipper by Julia Gillard and he said:

BILL SHORTEN: I haven't seen what she said, but let me say I support what it is that she said.

DAVID SPEERS: Hang on, you haven't seen what she said...

BILL SHORTEN: But I support what my Prime Minister said, so.

DAVID SPEERS: Well what's your view?

BILL SHORTEN: Well my view is the Prime Minister's view is ...

…   …   …

DAVID SPEERS: But you don't know what that is.

BILL SHORTEN: Well, I'm sure she's right.

'I'm sure she is right'! Then he stabbed during her in the back! Now, with friends like Bill who needs enemies? And everybody in his caucus knows it to be true.

So the government will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. We will be getting on with good government as soon as we have dispatched this particular motion.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But first there will be silence on both sides of the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Standing orders should be suspended to allow this censure motion to be moved. There should be a censure of the Attorney-General for launching an unprecedented attack on the Human Rights Commission, for treating an independent statutory officer with contempt and for directing the Secretary of the Department of the Attorney-General to offer an inducement to the President of the Human Rights Commission in return for her resignation.

This Attorney-General has behaved in a disgraceful and shameful manner and that is why standing orders should be suspended. It is a shameful and disgraceful attack on a statutory officer to do what this Attorney-General did, which was to send the secretary of his department off to Sydney to demand the resignation of an independent statutory office holder.

This statutory office holder has tenure. She has a five-year tenure by the act that establishes the Human Rights Commission. And the reason that this sort of statutory office holder is given five years tenure is to protect her from governments like this one, it is to protect her from prime ministers like this one, it is to protect her from attorneys-general like the one we presently have, who think that the appropriate response to a statutory office holder carrying out to the letter her duties under the statute under which she was appointed is to attack her personally in the lowest form of personal attack. All this government can think of is to attack her personally rather than respond to the important matters that this President of the Human Rights Commission was raising in her report.

Just to remind you all, it is about the children. You all seem to have forgotten that it is about the children. It is not about Professor Triggs and, in particular, it is not about the timing of this report; it is about the children. This government has forgotten the rule of law. That is why standing orders should be suspended. It has forgotten that the role of the Attorney-General is to defend statutory office holders, not to attack them. This Attorney-General deserves censure, not just by this House but by the Australian people and that is why standing orders should be suspended.

The evidence in Senate estimates yesterday could not have been clearer. It went for hours with the Attorney-General himself giving evidence; Mr Moraitis, the secretary of the department, giving evidence; and Professor Triggs herself giving evidence. The picture that emerged was clear: the secretary was sent on the instructions of the Attorney-General to Sydney to demand the resignation of Professor Triggs and a job was offered to her, not the nonsense that we have had from the Prime Minister today denying that there was any request for resignation, not the nonsense that we have had from the Prime Minister today denying that there was an inducement. Mr Moraitis said yesterday:

The Attorney-General wished me to point out that the government was prepared to consider a specific senior role which was mentioned to me and which I conveyed for Professor Triggs.

That is what the secretary of the department said in his evidence yesterday, none of this denial that we have had from the government today. That is why this censure should be debated in this House and that is why standing orders should be suspended.

What happened to good government? Or was this from the period before good government started because it was on 3 February? Is good government starting tomorrow perhaps? This does concern the people of Australia, not as was suggested by the Leader of the House, not as was suggested by the Prime Minister—that the people of Australia will not be concerned with these issues. The people of Australia are concerned with these issues because they want a government that respects the rule of law. They want a government that looks after independent statutory office holders. They want a government that does not attack independent statutory office holders. They want a government that does not attack members—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate of 25 minutes has expired. The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.