Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith—That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

Whether in misquoting the Director-General of ASIO while answering a question without notice from the Leader of the Opposition on 15 August 2024, the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the House, such as would constitute a contempt of the House.

Mr Speaker, I am disappointed and, I must say, somewhat surprised at the decision that you have just announced, and it leaves me with no alternative but to take the step I now take. I note that just last week when a Labor member of parliament raised an issue of privilege you did agree to refer it to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. It is very important that there be scrupulous impartiality in the way that these matters are dealt with, but, in view of the decision you have taken, there is no alternative but for me to move this suspension.

I note, for the information of the House, that there is a precedent for the House agreeing to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee in circumstances where the Speaker has declined to grant precedence. On 21 May 2012 this House agreed to refer the case of the then member for Dobell to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, over his deliberate misleading of the House.

Therefore, the step that I am now taking puts the House in the position to take a decision, should it choose, to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In view of the gravity of what occurred on 15 August in question time, I submit that it is entirely appropriate that the House should make that decision, and it's certainly appropriate that standing orders should be suspended so that the House can consider this matter and so that a motion to refer could be put and voted on, because, I say to this House, this issue is a very important one for the operation of this House and for the question of whether the Australian people can trust this Prime Minister and take what he says at face value. It's deeply unfortunate that it's necessary to move this suspension. It's deeply unfortunate that it was necessary to raise this as a matter of privilege. But it should surely be the case that the Australian people can expect that, when the Prime Minister says something in this chamber, they can have confidence that it is both truthful and accurate.

Of course, mistakes do occur on the fly in the heated and fast-moving environment in which we operate. But, where a mistake has been made, it has been the long-accepted practice of this House that a minister, including a prime minister, who has made a statement which in all the circumstances is misleading will come into this House at the earliest possible opportunity to correct the record. Since the opposition has raised this matter, the Prime Minister, by contrast, has taken every possible opportunity to avoid doing what he would rightly be expected to do.

Let me remind the House of what happened. The Prime Minister, in the course of question time on 15 August 2024, stated that the director-general of ASIO had said in an interview on Insiders on 11 August 2024:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

But, in fact, what Mr Burgess actually said was:

If they've been issued a visa they've gone through the process. Part of the process is where criteria are hit they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

The Prime Minister left out the crucial words from what the director-general of ASIO actually said. The director-general of ASIO actually used the words 'where criteria are hit'. The Prime Minister deliberately omitted the words so that it would appear that what Mr Burgess was saying was that everyone who gets a visa has had a security assessment by ASIO, but that is not true. It is a matter of public record that not everyone who has received a visa to travel from the Gaza war zone to Australia has had a security assessment by ASIO. The Prime Minister's deliberate misquoting gave a false impression to anyone listening to him in the House or on the official broadcast of proceedings.

Since the Prime Minister made the statement containing this misleading quote, this inaccurate quote, this quote that omitted the critical words and, as a result, what he said to the House was a fundamental mischaracterisation of what Mr Burgess had in fact said and was a characterisation which gave the opposite impression of what Mr Burgess had actually said, the opposition have repeatedly called on the Prime Minister to do two simple things: to correct the record and to provide an explanation as to the government's handling of the security assessment process that is applied when individuals have sought visas to come to Australia from the Gaza war zone. We have moved motions to deal with this matter and, in each case, the government has simply adjourned the debate before allowing it to come to a vote. On each occasion the Prime Minister has declined to appear in this chamber and explain to this chamber what happened and to do as he ought to do. As is the convention in this place when you've said something that is wrong, inaccurate or incorrect, you come in and correct the record. Any prime minister of integrity or of good character would do that. On this side of the House we recognise that errors get made. We recognise things that get said in the heat of the moment. But the fact that this Prime Minister has consistently over a number of sitting days refused to come into this place and correct the record is powerful evidence that this was intentional from the outset. This was a deliberate misleading of the House.

That is why this matter urgently needs to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. The Prime Minister on Monday tabled a transcript as presumably an attempt to get through this issue without having to do what is required in the circumstances, without having to admit that in fact he misled the House. He tabled a transcript of Mr Burgess on Insiders and that transcript does contain the phrase which he deliberately omitted when he spoke in this place—'part of that visa process is where criteria are hit'. That is included in the transcript that the Prime Minister tabled on Monday, and yet the quote that he used on the previous Thursday deliberately omitted those words with the consequence that the opposite impression was given to those listening in this chamber or on the broadcast as to whether it is the automatic process that whenever an application is made there is a security assessment by ASIO. In fact, it is clear from the full and accurate quote that that is not what happens, but we know that it suits the Prime Minister's political interests to give the impression that that is what happens. That is why he engaged in this deliberate misquoting.

The committee of privileges has significant powers. It can call for documents from individuals connected to the matter. It is, we submit, an entirely appropriate circumstance in which those powers should be used. I conclude by reading a quote:

If successful I am determined to restore a greater sense of responsibility to the Office of Prime Minister.

A deeper respect for the Australian people and for the integrity of our democracy.

Real accountability—and delivery.

That soaring rhetoric came from the now Prime Minister when he delivered remarks on 4 March 2022 at the Lowy Institute. We are asking that the Prime Minister live up to the accepted standards of this place and to his own soaring rhetoric. That is why this matter is urgent.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do second the motion and reiterate the importance of this motion and what the Manager of Opposition Business has said about what is really now a debacle. For Hansard and for people listening, I'm going to go through the quote that was said by the ASIO chief, Mr Burgess, and again say what the Prime Minister said when, we believe, he misled this House. The direct quote on 11 August on Insiders was:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process. Part of that visa process is, where criteria are hit—

I've got that circled; you'll know the importance of that in a moment—

they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

The Prime Minister said Mr Burgess said in his interview:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

You could give him some credit if the bit about where it says where the criteria was hit was at the start or at the end. You could say, 'Well, okay; he didn't misquote.' But he's taken a quote, kept the start of the quote and the end of the quote and left out nine words that completely change the essence of what Mr Burgess said. This is why this is such an important issue and why the Manager of Opposition Business has moved this.

Let's take the Prime Minister, be generous and say that he was unaware of that, that it was an honest mistake. It was very easily resolved, and we would have moved on a long time ago and not be doing this motion now. If he'd come in and said, 'I'll correct the record. This was the record. I said this. This was the full quote,' and read out in parliament what had actually occurred that was different from what he said, we all would have moved on. But again, this Prime Minister can't do that. He can't come in and say, 'Yes, I made'—he could say it was an honest mistake. We'd accept that if that's what he believed it was. But he can't even say that, and that's why this is so important.

Obviously, he should have corrected the record and come to explain that to the chamber as soon as that was called out. We'd also obviously want an explanation on the government's handling of security arrangements for visas for individuals from the Gaza war. In fact, every time we've done something in the chamber—we've moved motions, we're doing this now and there are three or four other things that have happened in this chamber—the Prime Minister has never come in to defend himself on this. He's never come in and said, 'Well, I see what you're saying,' and tried to correct that.'

I'm certainly aware of the seriousness of this, but we believe that only the powerful Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests has the power to truly hold the Prime Minister accountable for this. I think it's unfortunate that I feel this way and feel the need to say this, but this is a bit of a pattern with the Prime Minister. He says Makarrata to one crowd means this, to another crowd he says that. He says one thing to the Muslim community and another thing to the Jewish community. Now we've got him taking a quote from Mr Burgess from ASIO and. Because of where it is in the quote, it looks really deliberate, like he was deliberately misquoting him to change the essence of what he actually said.

Now, you might say, 'Well, why are you making a big deal of this? So what?' but let's look at what the thing behind this is. What's behind this? We all saw the horrific things that happened on October 7. The people that did those horrific acts—not only were they horrific; they actually felt it was okay to film them. They actually filmed themselves doing barbaric acts and thought it was okay to film themselves and celebrate those horrible things. And there are obviously people within Gaza who don't support that and don't like that, and Hamas, the terrorist organisation, hides behind them in tunnels and in schools and hospitals. We don't want those people coming here. The Prime Minister should correct the record. He should say that he misquoted the security checks that were happening.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't delay the House for long. You can tell from the speakers we just heard when their heart is in an issue, and you know when they think, 'Okay, we have to move this.' Can I just say you don't have to move a motion like this. For the entire time we were in opposition, when we made privileges references, if they were given precedence by the Speaker—who obviously was never a Speaker from our party during our time in opposition—we accepted the call of the Speaker. If they weren't given precedence, we viewed that as unfortunate, but we'd had our go. If they were given precedence, then you would have immediately moved the resolution. That was the respect that we had for the office of Speaker when we were in opposition.

I might add that at least they are consistent in opposition with how they were in government! There was an occasion when Speaker Smith gave precedence to a reference—from memory—about Christian Porter, notwithstanding that he'd given precedence, and the motion was moved. The government of the day, including the members who just spoke, voted against their own Speaker and the whole process in terms—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

of precedence being given. These issues and the process here are something that have existed for a long time. Effectively, this group that ran the last government and is now running the current opposition, no matter what they say about process and precedent, actually have no respect for it at all. That's exactly what we're seeing now. I've had lots of arguments with lots of Speakers over the years, but I've never seen a situation where a reference to privileges has been inappropriately dealt with by any Speaker. They always rely heavily on the professional advice available from the clerks. It's still their decision; I respect that. But it has always been done in the completely appropriate fashion. I've probably made more privileges references and tried my hand at this more than most people in the place. Some of them got over the line, and some didn't. But what I haven't done is then said, 'Well, if the umpire didn't call my way, then I'm going to kick up a bit of a stink about it.' That's all this resolution is.

With that in mind, I would also simply add this on the substance of what they're wanting to take issue with. All the words quoted were accurate, and they're saying the issue was that an abridged quote was used. Every single day in question time, these same people take points of order on relevance, and they can't even fully quote their own questions. They use an abridged quotation roughly two or three times every single day in question time. That's what they do, and they claim that, therefore, it can't be relevant, even though it might be relevant to something else that we're doing. Maybe that's why their hearts are not in this motion.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Well, it's hard to get worked up over wet lettuce!

Opposition members interjecting—

I accept there are many different forms of parliamentary tactics, but the Manager of Opposition Business is a master at the phrase 'killing someone with boredom'. So, yes—we take that hit! But, other than that, this is a pretty lame attempt, and we'll be voting against it.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.