Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House why it is critical to take a consistent approach to the defence of Australia's national interest?

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

I thank the member for Boothby for her question. It is certainly true that Australia does have critical national interests. The first of those is maintaining international rules based order. It needs to maintain the capability to be a good ally to the United States and to others, and we need to have stability in our region, particularly in the South China Sea. They are three key national interests. And it is vital that both the government and the opposition adopt a consistent approach to those national interests. And until recently there has been a consistent national approach, but Senator Dastyari's statements about the South China Sea have altered that. After receiving payments from businesses associated with the Chinese government, Senator Dastyari publicly repudiated the ALP's policy on the South China Sea and took China's side rather than Australia's side for our national interests.

But what is interesting is that, at that time, Senator Dastyari suffered no consequences. At no point did the Leader of the Opposition feel that Senator Dastyari's role was untenable as a shadow minister or manager of business in the Senate. It was only when it became a public issue, when there was a controversy, that in fact Senator Dastyari resigned; it was not the Leader of the Opposition requiring him to resign. So, since the resignation of Senator Dastyari, this has become an issue for the Leader of the Opposition and his leadership, because he is yet to explain what he did when he first found out that Senator Dastyari had received personal payments for his debts and had repudiated ALP policy. Who did he consult about what action to take? What inquiries did he initiate to satisfy himself about action that should be taken about Senator Dastyari?

The truth is the Leader of the Opposition took no action at all. Right through to the resignation of Senator Dastyari, the Leader of the Opposition did not feel the need to act. Amazingly, Senator Dastyari's standards were higher than the Leader of the Opposition's. Is this what he meant when he said he would govern like a union leader? Clearly a leader would have taken action at the time that Senator Dastyari repudiated Labor's policy. Or is it more likely that the truth is that Senator Dastyari is the ignition in the New South Wales right-wing machine and therefore the Leader of the Opposition was unable to act against Senator Dastyari, because his leadership is so tenuous, in the same way as he was unable to act against Senator Kim Carr? When the Left faction dumped Senator Kim Carr from the frontbench, it was the Leader of the Opposition that saved Senator Kim Carr, because his leadership is so tenuous. This will be the continuing pattern under the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)