Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister say yesterday that decisions about prosecuting journalists should not be made by politicians when the Attorney-General has given himself the final say on whether journalists are prosecuted? Why can't the Prime Minister give straight answers to simple questions?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. If he'd paid attention to the entire response I gave yesterday, he would have understood that the point about the prosecution of journalists is not that the A-G is required to give consent but that the ALP is asking us to rule out consent even before any advice is received from any of the relevant agencies, which would be unprecedented and most likely unlawful. There is an established process for the investigative authorities to look at these matters and hand that over to prosecution authorities, and then there is the process for the Attorney-General. What the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is throw that all the way. He wants to make the decision, if he were Prime Minister, about who gets prosecuted or who doesn't before those agencies have even considered the matter. What I said yesterday is exactly what I mean, and that is that no-one should be prosecuted on the basis of what occupation they hold. The only basis upon which they should be prosecuted is if they have broken the law. I'll ask the Attorney-General to add to the answer.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to the question as to what would be the difference between a prosecution on the whim of a politician and a prosecution under, in this case, the Smethurst manner, section 79 of the Crimes Act actually embeds the requirement to come to the Attorney-General for consent. What might a prosecution at the whim of a politician look like? It might look like this; this might be the worst case scenario: an opposition leader who said yesterday that the government should shut down a prosecution, breaching the fundamental convention that you do not, as a government, tell the AFP to drop an investigation. If that is not remarkable enough, what is remarkable is who the politician who actually called for the investigation in the first place was. The shadow Attorney-General was the politician. A letter to the Prime Minister on 29 April 2019 said: 'I write with extreme concern. I am sure I do not need to emphasise with you the gravity of such a security breach. It is therefore—

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

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

The member for Sydney is warned.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

incumbent on you to establish an investigation. I am deeply concerned that this national security leak is potentially the result of political tensions.' He sees a political advantage and so pressures the AFP to start an investigation. He sees a political advantage in having it shutdown. They called for the same investigation that they're asking to be shut down, in breach of the fundamental convention that the AFP remains independent. They want to know what a prosecution at the whim of a politician might look like; it'd look like what would happen if you ever got into government.

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

I just remind the Attorney-General that he refer to members by their correct titles.

An honourable member interjecting—

He's accusing me of all sorts of things—unintentionally, I'm sure!