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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I again refer to reports the government is preparing to strip a dual national of Australian citizenship for the first time and that it expects the legislation to be challenged in the High Court. Given this is the same legislation where a letter the Attorney-General provided to the intelligence committee incorrectly represented advice from the Solicitor-General, what are the risks to national security in the event of a successful legal challenge? What is the reason for the government misrepresenting the advice of the Solicitor-General?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow Attorney-General is a member of the committee. The shadow Attorney-General was party to a unanimous, bipartisan, set of recommended amendments to the legislation to which he presumably gave his very best attention. He makes assertions about legal advice not being given. The government, as he knows, does not comment on its legal advice, but the allegations that he has made have been rejected, as he knows, elsewhere by the Attorney.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs is warned!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply make this point to the honourable member. We are dealing with very serious security issues. The risk and threat of terrorism that we face is greater than ever. Daesh is being defeated in the field. We are at risk of foreign fighters and people closely associated with them returning, and it is vital that my ministers and my government have the legislative tools to ensure that they can keep us safe.

We have the shadow Attorney-General raising constitutional questions, apparently, about this legislation, which he recently signed off on. If he has those concerns, I would suggest he holds his nose and does the unspeakable thing of talking to the Attorney. I would suggest that he puts his animosity aside and speaks to the Attorney-General. If he has real concerns, he has to get over these petty personal animosities and get on our team, get on Australia's team, to ensure that we have the right legislation.

Opposition members interjecting—

You can mock, but his job, I would say, Leader of the Opposition, is to work to keep these laws secure. He now raises the issue, overnight, about the post-sentence detention legislation, which has been agreed to by all the states and is of vital importance to ensure that we can keep our citizens safe. If he believes, in his legal eminence, that there are flaws or constitutional problems, he should raise them in the committee. We have to work together on this legislation. The member opposite believes he has a great legal brain—let him bring it to the committee and ensure that we get the right legislation; not these questions that are designed simply to derive political advantage for Labor. (Time expired)

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

I seek leave to table the letter of the Attorney-General dated 27 August 2015, in which he misrepresented the advice of the Solicitor-General.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the letter is already a parliamentary paper.