Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 280, standing in my name, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

I have an amendment to the motion, which relates to the establishment of a select committee on the integrity of the Prime Minister’s office. I need to circulate that now, if I can. The amendment would change item No. 8. I ask that a copy of it be given to the other parties. The amendment is to item No. 8, in which the words are to be inserted: ‘but that no journalist shall be asked to reveal their source’. Item No. 8 would then read:

That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, but that no journalist shall be asked to reveal their source …

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

Is there any objection to the motion, as amended, being taken as formal?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of clarification: Senator Fielding was amending item No. 8. We believe it is item No. 9. Could we have clarification?

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

I am advised by the Clerk that the amendment is in No. 8. Is there any objection to the motion, as amended, being taken as formal? There being no objection, I call Senator Fielding.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I foreshadow that I will move the following motion standing in my name:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Integrity of the Prime Minister’s Office, be established to inquire into and report by 3 December 2008 on:

(a) the reported leak of the telephone conversation between the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of the United States of America on 10 October 2008—

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

Senator, it is not normal procedure to read the motion. It is already on the Notice Paper.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I seek leave to clarify. The motion has been amended—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: I cannot hear what the honourable senator is saying.

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

That is a fair point of order. I would ask senators in the chamber, particularly those around Senator Brown, to be quiet so that Senator Brown can hear.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we are clear on what we are voting for, item 8 in Senator Fielding’s notice of motion on today’s Notice Paper, page 11, relates to the committee quorum. I believe item 9 is the item that should be amended, not item 8.

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

Senator Parry, I am informed by the Clerk that in the version that Senator Fielding has circulated, which you obviously do not have a copy of, it is paragraph 8. That is as he has amended his motion in the Notice Paper, by leave. Leave was granted to amend the notice as per the Notice Paper.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: I appreciate that the Clerk has advised that what Senator Fielding sought to amend is his document but, in the printed notice of motion, paragraph 9 is the one that needs to be amended. Unless what is being circulated is totally different—

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

Senator Coonan, I can help you out. Senator Fielding, from what I understand, has circulated an amended notice of motion, and in this amended notice of motion, which he has circulated, it is No. 8. You are quite correct as per the Notice Paper, but leave was granted for Senator Fielding to amend that motion.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. In that case, I think we need to have that motion in front of us. I do not have a copy.

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

That is a reasonable point. I think you are entitled to have a copy of the motion before you. I certainly have not seen the motion. It has been tabled with the Clerk. I would suggest that if a copy can be handed—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest that we defer this formal motion until we have dealt with all other formal motions. People might then have had a chance to read the amended motion.

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

This is the last formal motion.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can maybe help. Could we make sure that everybody has the amendment in front of them. On the Notice Paper my notice of motion is on page 11. If senators look at page 11, they will see that the amendment I have circulated would change item 9. That is as per what was negotiated behind the scenes. So it is item 9, as I have circulated in the chamber.

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

Is everyone clear on that? All right. Is there any objection to the motion as amended being taken as formal? Senator Fielding, will you move the motion as amended, now that we have clarified everything.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just check that the coalition are happy with that?

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

No, Senator Fielding, will you move your motion, as amended.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the motion, as amended:

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Integrity of the Prime Minister’s Office, be established to inquire into and report by 3 December 2008 on:

(a)

the reported leak of the telephone conversation between the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of the United States of America on 10 October 2008;

(b)

the role and any involvement of the Prime Minister’s office in relation to the leak;

(c)

the role and any involvement of the ‘Note Taker’, who was with the Prime Minister listening in on the telephone conversation, and any other person present or listening (if any) in regards to the leak;

(d)

the role and any involvement of any of the persons, present at the location where and when the telephone conversation was made, in regards to the leak;

(e)

the role of any ministerial staffer or public servant in regards to the leak;

(f)

the role of any member of the media in regards to the leak;

(g)

why the Australian Federal Police have not been asked to investigate the leak, especially if it is the view the conversation was leaked by either a ministerial staffer or public servant without the authority of the Prime Minister;

(h)

the reported complaint by the United States Ambassador about the leak;

(i)

the impact of the leak on undermining Australia’s reputation and trustworthiness of the Prime Minister’s office; and

(j)

the ongoing consequences of the leak for relationships between Australia and the United States and any other country.

(2)

That the committee consist of 8 members, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 nominated by the Leader of Family First in the Senate and 1 nominated by any other minority party or independent senator.

(a)

On the nominations of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and any minority party and independent senators, participating members may be appointed to the committee;

(b)

participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c)

a participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(3)

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(4)

That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.

(5)

That the chair of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chair of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chair of the committee at any time when there is no chair or the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee.

(6)

That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(7)

That the quorum of the committee be 5 members.

(8)

That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, but that no journalist shall be asked to reveal their source, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and interim recommendations.

(9)

In exercising its power in accordance with paragraph (8), for the avoidance of doubt, the committee is empowered to send for:

(a)

ministers and ministerial advisers; and

(b)

officers of the security and police services.

(10)

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(11)

That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

Question put.

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

I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the division that has just taken place.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is it about?

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

It is about the motion, I understand. He is seeking leave to make a statement about the motion.

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

In relation to the division.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it is confined to the division, not the substance of the matter.

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

In relation to the matter on which the Senate has lately divided.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

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

I can seek leave to make a statement on anything.

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

Senator Brandis is entitled to seek leave. People in the chamber, regardless of where they sit on the floor, are entitled to either give leave or not give leave. That is the choice of others. I have done the right thing and called Senator Brandis. He has done the right thing and sought leave. I am asking the question: is leave granted for Senator Brandis to make a statement?

Leave not granted.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Senator Brandis actually jumped to his feet just prior to the notice of motion coming forward. Because of the business of the amendment, Senator Brandis was not recognised. I understand, Mr President, that you did see that. Senator Brandis did not seek the call a second time because we had some issues about the amendment, which was not circulated to us and which was confusing because of the renumbering. I feel that, under this circumstance, Senator Brandis should be heard—because he sought a genuine attempt at the right moment and, in the confusion of the debate with the amendment, restricted that. So I would ask the government to reconsider granting leave.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I also think it would be good if leave could be given—and maybe a two-minute time limit placed on it—so that Senator Brandis can—

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

Senator Bob Brown, thank you for your comment. That is not for me to determine. I hear what you are saying.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I take the opposition’s point. I was not aware that Senator Brandis had stood up at the time of the motion. If he did so and the President recognised that—or failed to recognise that—I would ordinarily have granted leave at that point. It is a little unusual to grant it post the point and normally I would not but, under the understanding that it was a matter that was missed because of the chamber hubbub, if we can call it that, I grant leave for a short statement.

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

Before I call Senator Brandis, I will make it clear for the sake of the record that Senator Brandis was seeking the call during the hubbub—as I think it was described—the confusion, and I was seeking to clarify something with someone who was already on their feet. Senator Brandis did sit down and then the matter proceeded to the vote. That will, I hope, set straight the record of what took place.

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

I seek leave to make a statement in relation to Senator Fielding’s motion.

Leave granted.

I thank Senator Ludwig for the indulgence. Without reflecting on the vote of the Senate which has just taken place, the issue framed by Senator Fielding’s motion which the Australian Labor Party has just used its numbers to stifle is an extraordinary breach of faith with the commitments that were made to the Australian people by Mr Kevin Rudd and by the Australian Labor Party over recent years. The effect of what has happened—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Brandis cannot say that he is not reflecting on the vote and then proceed to reflect on the vote. I gave leave for a short statement to be made in respect of the division. I was then interested to ensure that it was not going to be a rehash of the vote that was just taken. What we are now hearing is a reflection on the vote, quite frankly.

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

Senator Brandis, I believe that you are now debating the motion. If you want to comment on the procedure that was taking place, I think that that is fair, but—

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

Mr President, I sought leave to make a statement in relation to Senator Fielding’s motion and the division that has just taken place. Those were the terms in which I sought leave. Those were the terms in which leave was given. Leave having been given, it cannot now, as I understand it, be rescinded.

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

Yes, but also, without getting into a debate on this—and I will not—it should not reflect on the vote of the Senate.

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

It will not reflect on the vote of the Senate. I expressly stated that I was not reflecting on the vote of the Senate. What I do intend to reflect upon is some prior statements made by certain government—then opposition—politicians. I will not be dealing with the vote in the Senate again.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order in respect of this matter. We are now debating the issue. That is what we are doing now, but it is not appropriate to do that. The vote has been taken and we have moved past this point. I would ask Senator Brandis, through you, Mr President, to refrain from debating the motion, to refrain from reflecting on the vote and, quite frankly, to move on.

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

I will not be reflecting on the division because under standing orders I am not at liberty to. Leave was granted for me to make this statement for the reasons you explained, on the basis outlined by Senator Parry and acknowledged, in granting leave, by Senator Ludwig. Because of the circumstances in which this issue has arisen, there is nothing, other than reflecting on the vote of the Senate, that I should be restricted from saying now and that I could not have said in advance of a division.

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

Senator Brandis, proceed with your statement. I will continue to listen closely to what is being said, as well as take the advice of the Clerk.

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

Thank you, Mr President. Had Senator Fielding’s motion been carried then a Senate inquiry would have been established to examine a matter which has become notorious, and that is the leak by an unknown, unspecified person of the details of the Prime Minister’s conversation with President Bush on 10 October.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Abetz, if Senator Brandis is making the statement, I am quite prepared to listen to Senator Brandis but it is very hard having two people operating at once.

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

I want to take the Senate back to a number of statements that were made by or on behalf of—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order in respect of this matter, for which there was a formal motion. It was granted formality and the motion was moved. It was moved without debate. Granting leave does not alter that position, but the debate is now ensuing in respect of the motion. This was a motion moved without debate. Leave was granted to provide a short statement in respect of the matter but not to debate the matter. We know what short statements are for: they are to clarify something, to expand on something that happened during the division, or for some other matter that is unrelated, but they are not a debate on the motion. If the Liberals are now going to use this device to debate the motion, they should reflect very carefully on whether leave will be granted by the government in respect of these matters.

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

Mr President, I was granted leave to make a statement of the kind I indicated, and that is what I am doing. I have been given leave; the leave cannot now be rescinded.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I ask that you rule on whether we are now debating the motion.

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

But you do not know because I have not said anything yet.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have already spoken and you have indicated that you are going to go over the debate itself.

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

No, I have not. I never said that.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: the matter could best be resolved if we were to have an agreement that Senator Brandis have two or three minutes, which is usual for a statement being made by leave. In other words, if Senator Brandis were to agree to such a time limit, I would be happy to hear him out, whatever he has to say.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order that Senator Ludwig made: it is my understanding—and I would ask you to rule on this—that when a person seeks leave to make a statement there are no restrictions on what he may say in that statement; there is only a time limit that is sometimes put on it. So, you can give leave for a certain time but, as I understand it, if a senator stands and says, ‘I seek leave to make a short statement,’ you cannot restrict the content of that statement; you can only ever put a time constraint on it.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is touchy.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You lost the vote. That’s it. Move on.

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

Senator Sterle and Senator Cormann, it does not assist the conduct of this for people to interject. Senator Brandis, did you wish to speak further on the point of order or do you want me to rule?

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

On the point of order, Mr President: leave was given; it cannot now be rescinded.

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

Senator Brandis, I am quite aware that leave was given. Leave was sought and leave was given. To answer Senator Ferguson’s comments on Senator Ludwig’s point of order: it is quite correct that I cannot instruct a person or deny them the right to say anything when they have sought and been granted leave, other than that they cannot reflect on a decision of the Senate. Provided you do not reflect on the decision of the Senate then my position is clear and you will continue to make your statement. It will be up to others, if they disagree with the way in which you proceed, to take points of order.

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

I want to begin with the speech of the Governor-General. In this chamber, at the opening of the 42nd Parliament, on 12 February 2008, when His Excellency, in announcing the historic occasion of the formation of and the priorities of a newly elected government, said this, under the heading ‘Governance and transparency’. He committed his government, the Rudd government, to this proposition:

Laws relating to government information will be enhanced by promoting a culture of disclosure and transparency.

Several weeks later, the Special Minister of State, Senator Faulkner, who has made a famous public reputation as an advocate of honest, open and accountable government, gave a speech to the 2020 Summit. I was there. This is what he said on 19 April 2008 in relation to the Rudd government’s attitude to parliamentary scrutiny, disclosure and transparency—

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

Senator Brandis, are you now debating the motion?

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

No, I am reading certain statements made by ministers of the government.

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

Please continue.

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

Attacking the attitude of the previous government, Senator Faulkner said this:

We have also seen the integrity of governance in Australia compromised.

We have seen a period when the apolitical nature of the public service has been tested and public servants’ role in policy development constrained. We have seen increased emphasis on security and secrecy undermining openness and transparency.

The opposition, of course, does not accept those accusations against the previous government, but that was the mischief that Senator Faulkner identified. To correct that mischief—that is the criterion, that is the benchmark which he set himself. This is how he announced the new government’s priorities.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: clearly, we are hearing a peroration, not an explanation or a short contribution to the Senate. I ask the senator to say how long he will be in making this delivery to the Senate. There was—and there is—the opportunity for a full debate on this matter if the opposition had wanted that. It obviously did not. If each of the senators who have a point of view on this were to follow this course of action, we would be having a de facto debate on the matter. I simply ask Senator Brandis to say if he is containing this to three, four or five minutes.

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

Senator Brown, on your point of order, there was a debate earlier this year at the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure on leave given for short statements. As a matter of fact, it was raised by those to my left, who were complaining about the length of statements made by leave. There was, I thought, a consensus that short statements would be limited to two minutes or a specific time when leave was granted for those statements to be made. I think that, within the spirit of what I believe was raised at that time, it would be appropriate for Senator Brandis to bring his statement to a conclusion. I am firming in the view, as I listen to more of what Senator Brandis says, that the issue is now being debated. I do not believe that that is the purpose of seeking leave to make a statement. There are other avenues for statements to be made in this place. Senator Brandis, I ask you to draw your remarks to a conclusion if you possibly can.

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

I have been given leave to make a statement.

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

Yes, I understand.

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

There is no limitation of time placed upon me, though I will be brief. That leave was unconditional. So long as I am not in breach of any standing orders—and you have not ruled that I am—the leave cannot be rescinded. I am at liberty to continue, as I propose to, subject to your rulings, of course.

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

I have indicated that you should continue. I do not think, though, that the path that you are now going down is within the spirit of the discussions that took place—that were raised not by government members but by opposition members—in respect of leave being granted for statements. I just say that, for what it is worth.

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

Thank you. I will not be very long. In a speech to which I have referred, which sets out the Rudd government’s purported public position in relation to disclosure, Senator Faulkner went on to say:

Some of these symptoms of failing structures can be, and are being, reversed…

A ‘pro-disclosure culture in government’ is one of the five ambitions, or declarations of intent, that Senator Faulkner made for the Rudd government. He went on to say, rhetorically:

…do we really want our democracy to be one in which accountability and good governance ultimately depend on the goodwill, on the whim, of the government of the day?

We have seen how thin those words are. We have also seen how thin the announcement by Mr Rudd was, four days before the federal election last year, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, that ministerial staffers involved in government decision making would lose their ability to avoid giving evidence to inquiries by parliamentary committees under a Labor government. The article in the Australian by the journalist Matthew Franklin went on to report that Mr Rudd also foreshadowed the release of a new code of ministerial conduct. He said:

If we have ministerial staff who themselves are directly engaged in effective decision-making within government, then of course they should be accountable before parliamentary committees.

Those are the very words of the Prime Minister on 20 November last year: of course, ministerial staff should be accountable before parliamentary committees. That was Mr Rudd’s position when he was in opposition. That was the new government’s position, as announced in the speech of the Governor-General in opening the parliament. That was the position of the minister responsible for these matters, Senator Faulkner, in his speech to the 2020 Summit last April. Yet what we are seeing today and what we have seen in the approach of the Rudd government to this entire issue of the leaking of one of the most important—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: Senator Brandis has now been on his feet for at least 2½ minutes. Could you give us some advice as to when a short statement is a short statement—and how long that ought to be—and when a short statement is just a heap of diatribe that goes on forever?

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

Senator Crossin, leave was granted for a short statement. I think that the Hansard record will show that. Senator Brandis, I would draw your attention to a statement that I made a few moments ago. You said you were wrapping. I think that a little bit of good faith now needs to be shown. I cannot sit you down—you know that. You have leave, as you have rightly pointed out, to continue, but I think it would be in good faith if you could wrap up your statement.

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

Mr President, I would have been disposed of the matter well before now had there not been points of order taken by the government, who are obviously very scared of this issue—every one of which has failed; every one of which you have properly overruled.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, get on with it. You are full of it.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get over it. You had the chance to give us this diatribe before the vote.

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

Order on my right! Senator Brandis, I have asked in good faith if you can wrap up your statement.

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

Mr President, the point the opposition seeks to make is this: by the conduct of the government, by the conduct of the Prime Minister, in refusing to respond to proper questions in the House of Representatives on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, by the conduct of spokesmen and senior ministers of the government in addressing this issue and in the conduct of the Australian Labor Party in this chamber this morning, the hypocrisy of the Labor Party’s commitment to a pro-disclosure culture—Senator Faulkner’s words—to a culture of transparency, the words used in the Governor-General’s speech, and to exposing ministerial staff to scrutiny by parliamentary and Senate committees, which would have been the effect of Senator Fielding’s motion, which was squashed by the Labor Party this morning, has been exposed once and for all. Had Senator Fielding’s motion not been squashed by the Australian Labor Party, which have so much to hide on this issue—as they protect a Prime Minister who has been responsible for one of the most significant national security breaches in recent times—the Senate processes could have worked.

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

Order! Senator Brandis, I asked if you would finish in good faith. Based on what I have previously experienced at the request of your party in a Procedures Committee, I think it is reasonable. I think you are now clearly debating the issue. I cannot stop you from debating the issue, but I draw your attention to the fact that I think that it would be good if you could draw your comments to a conclusion.

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

Thank you, Mr President. The result is that the Australian people, through the most appropriate parliamentary mechanism, a Senate select committee, have, as a result of the behaviour of the government, been denied the opportunity—which the previous government on occasions like the ‘children overboard’ inquiry gave the then opposition—to examine a matter of serious public interest. Nothing could be more serious than a breach of the security of a conversation between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America, particularly when there is credible reason to believe that the source of the disclosure was the Prime Minister himself. As a result of the Labor Party’s opportunistic and hypocritical conduct, the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny has been denied, and the Australian people should draw their own conclusions.