Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with Dennis Richardson, who John Howard trusted and appointed as director general of ASIO and ambassador to the United States and who said today:

… the government is seeking to create the perception of a difference between it and the opposition on a critical national security issue, that is China—seeking to create the perception of a difference when none in practice exists.

That's not in the national interest.

That only serves the interests of one country, and that is China.

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

I do, indeed, respect Mr Richardson, and I've spent a lot of time with Mr Richardson. But, this year, the Australian people will face a choice. We are facing one of the most uncertain times that we have ever faced since the Second World War, and Australians have to make a choice about who they think is strong enough to lead this country through these times.

I wish there was the level of bipartisanship on these issues. I wish there was. But, I will not set a low bar for that. Our government is setting a high bar when it comes to national security, and that high bar means that you fund your defence forces, that high bar means you fund your intelligence agencies, that high bar means that you put in place things like the foreign relations bill, which means you could get rid of state governments signing up—Labor governments signing up—to the BRI. The Victorian government signed up to the BRI. It took our bill to get the Labor Party off the BRI plan in Victoria. So the pretence at bipartisanship on these issues by the Labor Party doesn't measure up. It doesn't measure up. I wish it were true.

I wish it were true that there was stronger bipartisanship, but for that to happen the Labor Party have to lift their game on national security. They have to show the same strength and resolve that this government has faced and this government has shown in standing up to those who would seek to coerce us and bully us, not to have an each-way bet on it, to say one thing over here and one thing out of the other side of their mouth, but to have the steely resolve to stare these sorts of things down and work with our allies and partners, whether it's to put together the AUKUS agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom or to resuscitate and strengthen the Quad—and I thank our partners in India, the United States and Japan—or conclude the defence arrangements we've got with Japan.

The Labor Party in government didn't meet these marks. They cut funding to defence. They cut funding to intelligence agencies. It doesn't help intelligence agencies when you cut their funding. In government, they walked away from strong border protection. They don't measure up to the coalition, the Liberals and the Nationals, when it comes to national security. So, we have set a high bar, and this Leader of the Labor Party doesn't measure up when it comes to national security, and this Labor Party frontbench doesn't measure up. And, indeed, the member who asked the question—the Leader of the Labor Party has entrusted him with defence of our nation if he's Prime Minister and he couldn't even protect the borders when he was immigration minister. He let the boats roll in, and the people died. And he was one of the most incompetent border protection ministers in government, and it was a strong field of failed ministers when they sat on these benches. (Time expired)