George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Evans, representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the leak to the Australian of the conversation between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. I note that, if the conversation was leaked by a public servant without the authority of the Prime Minister, this would constitute a crime under section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act; if by a ministerial staffer, a crime under section 79 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Why have the Australian Federal Police not been asked to investigate this leak? Is it because in truth the Prime Minister was the leaker?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. I am not sure what the focus of the opposition Senate tactics committee is today, when you get the first question on a subject and they follow up with the last question on the subject! I assume that Senator Carr so effectively dealt with them on the cars issue that they were not prepared to go back to that again. While Senator Brandis—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans, resume your seat. Those on my right: Senator Evans is entitled to be heard.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. While Senator Brandis’s forensic legal question is obviously of great interest, it is based on the premise that there was a leak. Both the US government, the US ambassador and the Prime Minister have denied that the press report is correct. They have made it clear that the reported comment was never made and is inaccurate and that the matter, as far as they are concerned, is closed. Therefore, as the premise of the senator’s question is inaccurate, I cannot help him with the line of questioning he wishes to pursue. Clearly, if the report is inaccurate, there is no question about staff members’ activities or the AFP.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There needs to be quiet in the chamber on both sides.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out, through you, Mr President, to Senator Evans that what was denied was the assertion that the President of the United States was unaware of the G20. What was not denied, and what the Prime Minister has studiously avoided denying, was the proposition put to him—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you need to ask a question, Senator Brandis.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Prime Minister was not the leaker, why has there not been a reference to the Australian Federal Police in relation to the undenied portions of this story?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sherry, I would ask you to stop interjecting so I can call Senator Evans to finish question time.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While Senator Brandis I think made a speech rather than asked a question, I refer him to my original answer, which was that the reports have been described as inaccurate by all parties involved and the matter has been declared as closed—and I do not quite understand the opposition’s preoccupation with this question. Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.