Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Questions today dealt with three of the Attorney-General's most recent blunders. There was Senator Brandis's notorious foray into foreign policy, where he suddenly invented new government policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict—which has jeopardised Australia's interests in this strategically sensitive region of the Middle East. There was also his rush to judgement on the impact of the High Court decision in the Williams No. 2 case, where there was no need for the Solicitor-General to provide advice—because Senator Brandis QC was on the case, delivering his verdict on the judgement before the ink was dry. Finally, there was his greatest triumph of all, where this cabinet minister has succeeded in uniting Australians across the political divide, uniting Australians from all religious, ethnic, political and social backgrounds against his plans to remove legal protection against speech that offends, insults or humiliates on the basis of race.

In fact, this Attorney-General has a rare distinction. He is one of the few cabinet ministers who has single-handedly created an enormous grassroots movement against him and his own government. It is quite a political feat. Those on the other side must constantly be asking rhetorically, 'I wonder who it is that George has offended this week?'

Senator Brandis's responses to these questions today were—in part—what we have come to expect. What we generally expect from Senator Brandis is smug and self-important rhetoric and deliberate obfuscation—and we know we always get pomposity. We know that George is always pompous. But interestingly, and I will come back to this, we also saw a new side of George—

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

Senator Wong, you should refer to senators by their correct title.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Mr Deputy President.

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

Thank you.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We saw a new side of Senator Brandis, who has magically discovered the benefits of reticence. He is all of a sudden—a man who generally you cannot shut up—talking very little. One can surmise why that is. You need only look at some of the commentary about what Minister Bishop has had to promise and implement with respect to Senator Brandis's injudicious comments in Senate estimates.

On the ABC website this morning I was interested to read some character assessments of Senator Brandis from his own colleagues. They covered a range of areas, including: 'I think Senator Brandis would not know a live animal if he fell over one,' and various other things. One can surmise where that came from. But the most interesting character description was one of his own Liberal colleagues describing him to the ABC this morning as 'intellectually arrogant'. I do not fully agree with that character assessment. 'Arrogant'—true; that goes without saying. But 'intellectual'? I do not really think so. Senator Brandis might have installed a $15,000 taxpayer funded wall-to-ceiling bookcase in his office—complete with stepladder—not once but twice, but that does not make him an intellectual. He is meant to be the first law officer of the land, not an assistant law librarian.

Would a true intellectual defend the Racial Discrimination Act amendments that he was putting forward by arguing:

People do have a right to be bigots, you know.

Is that the response of a true intellectual? Would a true intellectual take his riding orders on the Racial Discrimination Act from a single newspaper columnist and ignore every community organisation in the land? Would a true intellectual rush so ignorantly into foreign policy by claiming that no Australian government has ever accepted the term 'occupied' in relation to Palestinian territories? Senator Brandis's last blunder has triggered a rolling foreign policy fiasco for the government and has damaged Australia's interests. This is not the act of an intellectual. It is the act of someone who is reckless and arrogant.

Senator Brandis is meant to be the first law officer of the land, not a freelance foreign minister. So it is no wonder that the actual Minister for Foreign Affairs has instructed the Attorney-General to stick to his day job. The position of Attorney-General is an important one in our system of government. It is a position which requires integrity, intelligence and sound judgement. It is not a position for someone who acts like he is in student politics. It is not a position for someone who has been described as a bull who brings his own china shop. It is certainly not a position for someone who displays the arrogance and poor judgment— (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't you have to feel sorry for them? As I sat here in question time I was reminded of a mob of bleating poddy calves. I was reminded of a yard full of orphaned lambs, as they struggled and bleated and carried on. It is amazing that, with references to animals, only now did Senator Wong talk about bulls. Senator Cameron and Senator Wong led this parade of 'what about the budget', as we asked intelligent questions and got intelligent answers.

Today, six opposition senators got an opportunity to ask a question. You would have thought they might have asked one on the budget. Did any of the six do that? Only in the final supplementary question from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, did they manage to get in a little bit of a question between the four pillars, to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. We had Senator Dastyari and Senator Tillem going on about FOFA and Senator Sing asking the Attorney-General about Williams and chaplaincy. We had Senator Wong about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. We had Senator Furner, and through you, Deputy President, I have to say, Senator Furner, you are a man I admire but I do not really admire the way your voice inflection attempted to make a fool of a colleague. I mean that in all seriousness, because you are a person I value highly. But you got well away from it, too, on 18C. We then had Senator Tillem having a crack at FOFA. And because time allowed we then had Senator Wong.

So here we are in question time, and with the budget out there the Labor Party would love to be out there saying Australians hate the budget, they hate the higher education elements, they do not like the health elements and they do not like the other aspects of education and they do not seem to like the seniors policy. Where were the questions, Senator Wong, Senator Furner and Senator Cameron? Even Senator Conroy managed to get in on the animal analogy when he leapt up and the funniest thing he could say was that Senator Fifield was attempting to get rid of Peppa Pig, a program that we know costs the Australian taxpayer a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, through the ABC.

Let me stay with the animal analogy for a few minutes, because Senator Wong was inviting the Attorney-General, and criticising him, on what she was saying was an attack on Australia's agriculture, particularly Australia's exports of live animals. I would have thought that if there was one topic the Labor Party wanted to stay away from in this place it might be exports of live animals, when we reflect on the events of 8 June 2011, when they simply cut Indonesia off at its knees, and when they denied 69 million low-socioeconomic villagers in Indonesia the opportunity to get animal protein. Forget what they did for a moment to Australian producers and all those who support them.

I tell you that the full story of the conspiracies that went on has not yet been told in this place. I hasten to say that I do not believe that the Prime Minister at the time, Ms Gillard, nor the agriculture minister at the time were part of a conspiracy, but there was one, and they played into the hands of those conspirators. I am referring to the very countries in the Middle East that Senator Wong referred to in relation to Senator Brandis's apparent comments—countries that have long supported our exporters of both live animals and meat. Were they upset by some of those words? I remind the chamber of the answers given by Senator Brandis to the questions. Those were in Senate estimates, and his statement was entirely consistent with that of the foreign minister.

But I am fairly close to the industry, as you know. Was there some concern? Yes. Was it addressed? Yes. Do we still have the confidence of those markets? Yes, we do. It was the actions of the then Labor government that caused all of the problems we see in the Middle East now—the fact that we do not have trade with Saudi Arabia, the fact that we can only now re-open trade to Egypt, and the fact that we have only just announced the re-opening of trade to Iran. Let us be very sure about who put all of that trade at risk. It was not the coalition or Senator Brandis. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, my colleague Senator Wong, outlined, it has not been a good nine months for the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. The three blunders that have been highlighted today through questioning by the opposition make that very clear. It has not been a good time at all. Yet this reckless, arrogant attempt by Senator Brandis to meddle in other minister's portfolios, and to meddle in his own portfolio and not have any success, continues to go from bad to worse. He would try to make the public and us believe that everything is fine, that the remarks he has made are supported. We know clearly that they are not supported, and now he is finding himself in the position of having to backtrack on almost every single blunder he has made, whether it be in relation to trying to repeal or change, or whatever it is he is trying to do, sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, or whether it be in relation to his comments regarding the Williams No. 2 case, where he regarded it being erroneous and ignorant to suggest that case had implications for Commonwealth programs other than the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program, or whether it is his meddling now in Minister Julie Bishop's portfolio in relation to his comments regarding East Jerusalem.

Just last week we saw the head of the Palestinian delegation to Australia, Mr Izzat Abdulhadi, who relayed to the ABC that the meeting they had with Minister Bishop did not resolve the confusion. That is why the question was put to Senator Brandis again today. It was to give him yet another opportunity to explain what he was on about during Senate estimates when he made his remarks. On one hand we have Minister Bishop making it very clear that the government's position has not changed, that the government supports UN Security Council Resolution 242 and various other UN resolutions. But then all of those resolutions, as we know, do use the term 'occupied'. So is Senator Brandis out of step with Minister Bishop? What is going on in the government when it comes to this? What clearly seems to be going on is that those in the executive are having to gag Senator Brandis for his remarks. Indeed, he has made quite a blunder that now has affected our trade relations with the Arab nations.

And it seems that Senator Brandis is losing more and more support by the day when it comes to other areas within his own portfolio. I refer, of course, to the Racial Discrimination Act. The question clearly put by Senator Furner was about Project 18C and the rise of local government. Local government, of course, is the level of government that is at the grassroots, the coalface, of the community. It has seen the outpouring of condemnation for the changes that Senator Brandis wants to put forward—or is proposing or whatever it may be. They do not want to change. A number of these local government councils are in Liberal-held electorates. When will this government listen to the people? When will it start to recognise that there is no support for Senator Brandis's changes? I mean, some of Senator Brandis's own backbench are willing to cross the floor on the proposed changes that he has out there for comment. And there are some 5,500 submissions. Is he just going to ignore them? We know he will not release them, because he does not want us to be made aware of the outcry of condemnation for the changes that he is proposing to put in place. He is a libertarian, he believes in free speech, but he will not release those submissions. We have not had any legislation brought forward, clearly because Senator Brandis does not have the support of the executive and the backbench. It has been nearly six months now, and still there is no legislation. It shows clearly that Senator Brandis is out of touch not only with the Australian community but with his own Liberal Party. (Time expired)

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have seen today is a dreadful deterioration and disintegration of what the Senate is all about. Those on the opposite side are playing the man. When they were in government and we were strongly prosecuting the case against the shambolic policies that they were introducing—their policies on the run—we were accused of playing the man or, in the case of former Prime Minister Gillard, playing the woman. And how they cried! They cried foul because they were suggesting that we were playing the woman, when in actual fact we were playing the policy. We were against the policy of the day that they were creating and dreaming up overnight on the run. I have to say what an absolute hypocrite the leader on the other side of this chamber was to come in here today and play the man. I think it is a disgrace and damning of—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: we know full well that the use of that language towards a person in this chamber is unallowable and should be withdrawn.

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

Senator Kroger, it would assist if you did withdraw.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I take the advice. But I do find it absolutely disgraceful. During estimates and over the last few months, the Prime Minister has been engaging at the very highest levels of office in a number of countries. And what did we see during that time? In my six years here in the Senate, I have never witnessed any behaviour like it. When the Prime Minister of Australia was visiting and engaging with presidents and prime ministers of different countries, we saw disgraceful criticism of him in order to diminish his credibility and his integrity. Whether it be former Foreign Minister Carr or former Prime Ministers Gillard or Rudd, at no stage did the coalition ever seek to criticise their engagement when they were in those countries. What we have seen during the last few months is extraordinary criticism of Prime Minister Abbott—notwithstanding the terrific way in which he represented our country. We saw absolutely appalling criticism. For instance, when he was meeting with the President of China and leading a very high-powered delegation to increase trade and understanding and agreements between our two countries, those on the opposite side were trying to bring down his effectiveness. It was the first time I have seen that, and I thought it was a disgrace.

If I can come back to question time today: I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate getting up and playing the man. Senator Brandis is a man of superior intellectual capacity. He is a senior counsel from Queensland. He has an extraordinary intellect which we see presented here every day of the week when we are sitting. And yet here they are, trying to diminish the standing of the Attorney-General by coming in here today and saying what they have said. It reflects really poorly on the opposition. It is not inconsistent with what they were like in government, so we should not be surprised, but it is a very poor reflection on them. Those who are listening today and who were listening in question time will be able to determine that for themselves. (Time expired)

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers provided by the Attorney-General today in question time. On the subject of listening, one merely needs to go out there and listen to the ethnic communities that certainly our side of politics represents and believes in. The Attorney-General claims that he is aware of a variety of views in the community about this exposure draft for the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which currently makes it illegal publicly 'to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people'. It would be advantageous for the Attorney-General and those opposite to go and listen to a variety of views in the community on this subject.

I and a number of senators on this side of the chamber have been involved in that. Senator Dastyari has been involved in protests in Sydney by people in the ethnic communities, the multicultural communities—that we represent and know quite well­—who are outraged. Just last Friday, I was extremely privileged to be with my Senate colleague and good friend Senator Peris up in Brisbane, on the north-western side, conducting a forum, as some senators on this side have done. In that forum, we replayed that part of question time that Senator Brandis is now infamous for, where he claimed that people have a right to be bigots. The people in the audience at that forum who had not seen that particular part of question time were horrified to see someone in one of the highest positions in this country claim that people have a right to be bigots in this country.

Does the government really want to bring back cases like the Cronulla riots of 2005? Do they really want to bring back a group of people like those we saw around the election and the installation of Pauline Hanson, when xenophobia was overflowing in this country and people attacked other people for being of different origin, for having different coloured skin, for having different language? Certainly we on this side do not want to see that. I am yet to hear from those in government whether that is the case with them or what the agenda is behind these changes to 18C of the RDA.

You need only listen to the people in these communities. The Chinese, Arabic, Indigenous, Greek and Jewish communities have been urging the government to abandon the proposal. In fact, the peak lobby group, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, has warned the government that these changes would leave Australia with no protection against racial vilification. Closer to home, I would suggest that I have one of the most multicultural offices in parliament. I employ a woman from a Filipino background. She is Australian-born but she goes out in public and she is vilified and harassed with comments that are absolutely disgraceful, referring to her ethnicity and her mother's origin. I employ also an African woman. I am certain that she as well has had circumstances in the past where she has been vilified in public. I also employ a Muslim Lebanese gentleman as a staffer, and I know for a fact that he has been crucified at times merely for his religion.

The ethnic communities out there are supporting our opposition to this amendment. We on this side believe that, if the repeal of 18C is successful, we will see more and more attacks in our communities by people that have no right to make those sorts of comments, who should not be in these communities and should not have a standing where they can go around making comments about people who are all Australians, people who have come to this country with a view to making it a better place. If we allow this amendment to go through, we will be in dire straits. In summing up, I repeat a reflection by William Maley:

And perhaps it is time for Prime Minister Abbott to think about whether in his own interest he might be able to find another Attorney-General, with smaller bookcases but more common sense.

That is a matter to reflect on. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.