Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, am rising to take note of the answers given today by Senator Nash to the questions outlined by Senator Moore. Watching question time today and listening to the answers that were provided by the minister, which didn't satisfy the opposition, I think those opposite are all about insider politics, all about the Canberra bubble—and we heard it from Senator Moore just then. I recall that in one of her answers Senator Nash pointed out that if you go down the main street of Burnie in Tasmania or any other regional community people aren't asking one another about what's going on with section 44. Indeed, they're talking about things like power prices and jobs—about whether their kids are going to have a job. That was a point made by Senator Nash, but Senator Moore just then said, well, this section 44 issue is so important because—get this—the papers are running it. That's the test that's applied here for the issues the Australian Labor Party, the opposition, want to pursue in question time—not the issues their constituents raise, not the issues that are actually burning in the minds of people who can't afford to pay their power bills, who are worried about their kids getting jobs and about their futures in the communities in which they live.

I sense, though, that a lot of the answers frustrated the opposition and didn't accord with what they wanted to hear. They wanted that gotcha moment—again, all about getting a headline tomorrow. That's how things operate inside the Canberra bubble. A number of things have already been put on the record, and I refer again to a statement which I know has been pointed to in this debate a number of times by the Attorney and by Senator Nash. Last sitting Thursday Senator Nash clearly outlined quite significantly and in some detail the steps she went to in coming to the conclusion that she did before she informed the Senate of the situation she found herself in. That detail is all there. The following day, 18 August, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee examined this matter in quite some detail. I note that under questioning from Senator Watt, who isn't here at the moment, even more detail was put on the record about precise times that correspondence on this issue was received and when action was taken, clearly demonstrating exactly why the action was taken when it was—blowing a massive hole in this argument that people were sitting around hoping that no-one would notice and clearly demonstrating that we did things when we needed to based on the advice that we were provided with.

What this demonstrates above all else, though, is that the opposition are out of touch. It's all about trying to score a few political points while they're up here in Canberra, rather than working with government or the crossbenchers on improving legislation. There was not a question on that sort of stuff today. There was a little bit of serious stuff at the beginning, when we were talking about the grave situation our nation faces with regard to the Korean peninsula. But straight after that, any seriousness went out the window, and it was on to this insider political behaviour, which is exceptionally disappointing.

In another question from Senator Moore, she referred to a quote from Senator Nash's statement, trying to assert that she said the Prime Minister had made the decision. But missing from Senate Moore's question was the fact that Senator Nash indicated to the Senate that the Prime Minister's indication was on the basis of the Solicitor-General's advice—a fairly salient fact in how the Prime Minister reached the conclusion that he did and took the action that he did. In terms of tabling legal advice, as far as I am aware, legal advice often has attached to it legal professional privilege. It's one of those things that people don't table; they don't wave it around while things are yet to go before the courts. That is an age-old practice and convention. I'm not sure why it'd be different today, just to suit people's curiosity.

But the other thing we have to think about here is: what about those on the other side, who refuse to provide clear evidence that they are not falling foul of the Constitution, such as the member for Braddon, Ms Justine Keay? I've called, on public record, time and time again for her to produce her documentation. I commend Tasmanian Labor Senator Lisa Singh, who did just that. I don't know why people like Ms Keay, the member for Braddon, can't do the same thing. We've got to apply a consistent standard here. (Time expired)