Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's really interesting, isn't it? I came into this place and discovered that I was taking over Senator Leyonhjelm's office. I did the appropriate smoking ceremony to try to cleanse it a little bit—actually, I did it more than once. I'm not sure how it went, but one thing that did impact on me was that he thought this proposal that's been put up by the government wasn't worth voting for, because this government previously put up a very similar bill.

We've got a situation here where the government are not really about dealing with problems on our waterfront or problems on our border, because there are quite clearly a whole series of significant weaknesses in our border security when it comes to drugs. What they are about is sounding like they're doing something. And what do you do when you want to sound like you're doing something? You take somebody's right off them. You no longer presume they're innocent before being proven guilty—or proven innocent—because of some intelligence, intelligence given in vengeance because someone's active in their union, intelligence which doesn't appropriately hold the people making those accusations to account.

There are a whole series of systems that can hold to account people that make false accusations. But, guess what? You don't get told what they are. When you don't get your MSIC or your ASIC, you no longer have a job. You're terminated. That's the presumption of innocence when it comes to this government. Wait a sec—there's not always just that presumption of innocence. In actual fact, the government has a very different view about the presumption of innocence. When it comes to the rule of law, the minister representing the Attorney-General says, 'We'll do anything we can,' but, when it comes to Christian Porter, it isn't the rule of law, is it? You have to have the presumption of innocence. Heaven forbid—he's an attorney-general, and, God, they're only port workers. So let's just go on the intelligence and get them sacked. Let's just turn around and treat them differently, because it's not Christian Porter. Why shouldn't we treat them differently? Quite clearly, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General like to go on about the rule of law, just like you, Senator Stoker, earlier today on the ABC. You said that, under the rule of law, people should be presumed to be innocent. But what you're doing here is taking away the presumption of innocence. People don't get their work. They get terminated. They get held over. They are not able to work. That's taking away the presumption of innocence. That's the worst thing you can do to a working person who's supporting their family—destroy their livelihood. But don't worry; it's the rule of law here.

What did Christian Porter say about the rule of law? He said:

My guess is if I were to resign and that set a new standard there wouldn't be much need for an Attorney-General anyway because there would be no rule of law left to protect in this country, so I will not be part of letting that happen …

Don't worry—it goes larger than Christian Porter. Scott Morrison said:

There is not some other process. There is not the mob process. There is not the tribe-has-spoken process. That's not how we run the rule of law in Australia.

No, the way you run the rule of law is you make accusations which can't be tested, for which this government can't appropriately be held to account. People lose their livelihood—except when it comes to Christian Porter, when it's a very different scenario. My question is this: will you apply the rule of law to these workers and give them the presumption of innocence?

Progress reported.