Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Defence. Will the minister outline to the House why a strong, stable and transparent policy approach is important to ensure that we defeat our enemies abroad, so that we can be safe at home? How could alternative approaches jeopardise our national security?

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

I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. She, like this side of the House, takes national security issues very seriously.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

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

As one of my colleagues called out: it's a good question. It is a good question, because it's very important to be consistent in your approach to national security issues. On this side of the House we've always sought to do so. On many occasions the Labor Party has sought to mirror that consistent approach. So it surprised many across the political landscape when the Leader of the Opposition rehabilitated Senator Dastyari so quickly after he resigned for the first time over the issues to do with national security. I call him Senator Dastyari; some have been rude enough to call him 'Szechuan Sam', which I think is very wrong.

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

The Leader of the House will withdraw.

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

I do withdraw. I was simply pointing out how rude it is for people to attach these epithets to Senator Dastyari.

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

I say to the Leader of the House, if he points it out again, whether he's pointing at—

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

I promise I won't point it out again.

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

That's very good, because we won't be hearing from you anymore for the rest of the answer.

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

Senator Dastyari not only contradicted government policy and Labor Party policy at that time; he also, incredibly, asked the Chinese donor who is at the centre of current controversies to pay for his personal debts. This seems to have been lost on many in the Labor Party. There is a difference between political donations and the payment of personal debts.

A government member: It's like the difference between sweet and sour.

It is the difference between sweet and sour. It's a very significant difference. And then more recently, of course, we found out that Senator Dastyari—oh, they're bringing out the big guns again!

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

The member for Corio on a point of order. He will state the point of order.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. On a point of order, the question—

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

No, the member for Corio needs to state the point of order.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is relevance, Mr Speaker.

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

The member for Corio will resume his seat.

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

He's much better on Pyne & Marles than he is in the House; I can tell you that. The point about the lapses of Senator Dastyari's approach to these matters and the most recent revelations concerning his discussions with Mr Huang about his communications is that the jury is well and truly in on Senator Dastyari. What we now need to go to is the Leader of the Opposition's judgement. This goes to the Leader of the Opposition's judgement. Not only did he rehabilitate him; he's now been required to sack him again. Many people have asked why. Why would the Leader of the Opposition be so connected to Senator Dastyari? I think the answer is much more obvious than we know. In The Sydney Morning Herald, Sean Nicholls wrote on 10 April 2015:

NSW Labor assistant secretary John Graham … wants more details about the involvement of Labor Senator Sam Dastyari's office in changing the mailing addresses of scores of leadership ballots—

in the 2013 ballot that saw the Leader of the Opposition defeat the member for Grayndler. There was an investigation called for into the role of Senator Dastyari in rigging that leadership ballot. The question the Leader of the Opposition needs to answer is: what are the outcomes of that investigation? How did he satisfy himself that his ballot was legitimate? (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. On Wednesday and Thursday last week, Fairfax reported two stories containing national security information. The Attorney-General even confirmed national security information should never find its way into the hands of the media, but it has. Has the government ordered any investigation into what the Attorney-General has admitted is a leak of national security information, and who had possession of that information among ministers and their staff?

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

The honourable member omitted one important fact, which was the information that he is describing as having been referred to in the Fairfax press. Apparently it was something on Wednesday and Thursday. Were you talking about Senator Dastyari? Is that right?

Mr Burke interjecting—

No, very good. He's referred to Senator Dastyari, and my response is very simply this: that leaks of national security information should never occur, full stop. If the honourable member is alleging that a security agency was responsible for putting information into the press then he should make that allegation plainly.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

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

Yes, on direct relevance. The Prime Minister is now referring to an aspect of the question that was not stated and therefore cannot be relevant. The question quite specifically referred to ministers or their staff being responsible for the leak of information and asked whether the Prime Minister has conducted an investigation. It at no point questioned the agencies themselves.

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

To the Manager of Opposition Business I've been very generous in the point of order, allowing him to make his point, but his first point, about the Prime Minister's answer not being relevant, isn't correct. The Prime Minister needs to be relevant to the question, which he is on the policy matter that's there. If the Manager of Opposition Business is worried that the Prime Minister is answering a question in a different way or answering a question in a way not to his satisfaction, it's certainly not the first time.

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

If the honourable member wants to ask me a question about information published in the Fairfax press or anywhere else, then he should spell out what the information is, because he has, in some rather coy way, failed to actually describe it, which makes me think it might have something to do with a certain senator—the senator whose name apparently cannot be mentioned by the Labor Party. Well, let me say this to the honourable member: if you're not prepared to name him, you shouldn't be prepared to keep him in the Senate.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of strong and consistent border protection measures? Is the minister aware of any other alternative approaches?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. One of the strongest achievements of this government has been to stop the boats, and to stop drownings at sea and to get kids out of detention. We have closed 17 detention centres and we have not had a successful people-smuggling venture now for 1,226 days. We know: if we want to undo that success, we change the policies—because that's what Kevin Rudd did when he came into government, after John Howard had successfully stopped the boats. The Labor Party then changed the policy settings that saw 50,000 people come on 800 boats and, tragically, 1,200 people drown at sea.

We've seen a lot of banter from the left of the Labor Party. Many members opposite that I'm looking at at the moment are in favour, once again, of undoing those policy settings. This government is not going to fall for that trick. I'm afraid to say that it is clear now that the Labor Party is slowly dismantling the policy that they took to the last election, which, at the time, they claimed replicated our policy in stopping the boats. There are many, many members opposite who would see people come from the regional processing centres to Australia tomorrow, which would result in a recommencement of the boats, because the people-smugglers would be up there saying, 'You can go to Manus Island for a couple of years and eventually you'll move to Australia, which is the outcome that you paid for.'

Interestingly enough, the most significant contributor to this debate from the other side is a member who wants to join their ranks formally in this place shortly—that is, a Ms Kristina Keneally. Kristina Keneally has had a lot to say on the issue of border protection. In fact, in 2011, a year in which 4½ thousand people arrived on boats and people were dying at sea, Kristina Keneally told Q&A that she supported onshore processing and that Australia was big enough to bring everyone here. There are 65 million people in the world who are displaced who want to come here; not all of them can fit in Bennelong. And the fact is that Kristina Keneally along with other Labor members are very dangerous in their attempts to undo our policies that've stopped the boats. Ms Keneally wrote in The Guardianin 2015:

Let's stop kidding ourselves. People are not safer because our government stopped the boats.

Well, I'll tell you what, Mr Speaker: there were 1,200 who people lost their lives when Labor was in government, and not one on my watch. And I'm desperately keen to make sure that we keep that record secure. Kristina Keneally represents the worst of the Labor Party when she wants to undo the policies of this government.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker: in the Bennelong by-election, John Alexander, who is an Australian sporting legend, is the only candidate who will stand up to people smugglers. (Time expired)