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

The Labor Party is plainly embarrassed by Senator Wong's performance yesterday. I want to begin this contribution by saying—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have told her you're doing this.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a coward.

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

May I predict that throughout this contribution there will be attempts—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you tell Senator Wong you were doing this or are you being a coward?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't even have the guts to tell her.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't tell Senator Wong you were doing this. You're a coward.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate needs to come to order.

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

I do predict that I will be shouted down throughout this contribution by Senator Collins and Senator Conroy. However, I do want to address the matters raised by Senator Collins. Senator Wong asked me a question today in which she referred to an interview that Mr Brough gave during a 60 Minutes program some time ago. There is no dispute that Mr Brough did give that interview. The subject of that interview was what has come to be called 'the James Ashby affair'. Senator Wong attributed some words to Mr Brough in her question and it was not a quote from anything Mr Brough said in that interview. It was not a quote from anything Mr Brough said in that interview, and yet Senator Wong attributed those words to him and stated a conclusion on the basis of the attribution to Mr Brough of words that he did not use. Let me say that again: she announced a conclusion about Mr Brough on the basis of attributing to him words that he did not use. The reason I approached the answer to that question in the way that I did is that Senator Wong did the same thing to me yesterday when she attributed to me words that I did not use and she attributed to Mr Michael Keenan, the Minister for Justice, words that he did not use.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President called it a confession. She told the truth and you are trying to cover up. The Attorney-General is hiding from the truth.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate needs to come to order. There is far too much interjecting.

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

What is being suggested against Mr Brough by the Australian Labor Party is serious, and we know that there is a police investigation, which means that it is even more important than it ordinarily would be that senators who wish to make allegations against him and wish to make those allegations on the basis of his words should quote those words accurately. That is what was not done on this occasion. That was not done.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 203 goes to persistently and wilfully continuing to refuse to conform to standing order 197, which you have requested the senators to observe.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that point of order, Senator Fawcett. Again, I ask senators to cease interjecting and come to order.

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

What Senator Wong put to me yesterday in the second of two questions she asked me is this, and I read from the Hansard:

I refer to the Attorney-General's previous answer to my question in which he claimed not to recall any conversation with the Minister for Justice in relation to the execution of a search warrant on Mr Brough, the Special Minister of State. Is the minister aware that, a short while ago, the Justice Minister informed the other place that he told the Attorney-General the warrant would be executed?

Both of the propositions, both of the words attributed in that question by Senator Wong to me and to Mr Michael Keenan, were wrong. The question that Senator Wong asked me in the first of her two questions was this:

Did the Minister for Justice inform his senior minister, the Attorney-General, of the AFP's intention to execute a search warrant to the home of Mr Brough?

The question was not whether I was informed in relation to the execution of a search warrant but whether or not I had been informed of the AFP's intention to execute a search warrant. Equally, Mr Keenan, when he was asked a question, replied:

After the warrants were executed, as I would normally do in a matter like this, I informed the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Attorney-General ...

'After the warrants were executed'. The difference between the past tense and the present tense may not be apparent to Senator Stephen Conroy. The difference between the present tense and the future tense and the past tense may not be apparent to Senator Stephen Conroy. The fundamental difference in meaning between the statements that were made and what Senator Wong attributed to the statements that were made is very clear to us. (Time expired)

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is clear from Senator Brandis's contribution to this debate is that it has now moved to a charade, by Senator Brandis, to argue an irrelevancy. This is, fundamentally, not the issue. What is clear from Senator Brandis's contribution is that there is not a word in support of Mr Brough, not a word to defend Mr Brough. What is clear from Senator Brandis's contribution is that he is hell-bent on doing everything to explain his circumstances—that is, Senator Brandis's circumstances—and how he may feel slighted but, in the course of doing that, he has thrown Mr Brough under the bus.

It is now abundantly clear that Mr Brough should do the right thing. Unfortunately for the PM, it does not appear that he will. The result is it now reflects very badly on the PM's judgement in both promoting Mr Brough and by continuing to stand by him, in this circumstance. The jury is not out on this matter. The court of public opinion has found against Mr Brough on this matter. Senator Brandis's poor performance in question time and during take note of answers, today, simply highlights the fact that Senator Brandis's defence of Mr Brough was left wanting. Mr Brough does need to make a full explanation of his role in the Ashby affair. However, it is now apparent that in every turn Mr Brough does not seem capable of making a full account to parliament of the circumstances of his involvement in, what is being called, the Ashby affair.

I will address the broad issue, again, which was raised yesterday and also raised by Mr Dreyfus this morning. His note went on to say that as a consequence of the minister clearly misleading the House of Representatives during question time yesterday, and not taking the opportunity of correcting the record in parliament, despite the House of Representatives sitting until 9.30 pm last night, the minister has failed in his obligation—under clause 5.1 of the Statement of Ministerial Standardsto correct the record as soon as practicable. I know everyone in this place takes that role very seriously. At the first available opportunity, if you think you have misled parliament you should immediately take that opportunity to correct the record. We now have a clear indication from Mr Brough that he had to be—literally, it seems—pushed back into the chamber to make another poor explanation of what his circumstances were.

The Sydney Morning Herald belled the cat in this respect. It states Mr Brough said:

"Yesterday during question time I said: 'In relation to the 60 Minutes interview, what was put to air was not the full question.'

"Mr Speaker, my recollection of the interview was that the question was put to me in a somewhat disjointed manner, and I answered the question without clarifying precisely what part of the question I was responding to.

"This is confirmed by the tape provided by 60 Minutes and that was the reason for my answer yesterday.

"Mr Speaker, I have taken the opportunity to review the tape and transcript, and apologise to the House if my statement yesterday unwittingly added to the confusion rather than clarifying the matter."

It went on to say that this in itself created the confusion.

Mr Brough should make a full explanation rather than use those words. What is really telling in all of this that transpired this morning is that the government's Leader of the House, Mr Christopher Pyne, did not try to defend Mr Brough. Instead, they gagged the debate rather than let it run through. This government has a lot to hide and they ought to encourage Mr Brough to do the right thing—more importantly, do the right thing by this parliament—and make a full explanation. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers provided to the questions by Senator Collins and Senator Wong—but I also come to the questions themselves. The Senate is a great place as a legislative chamber for the Australian people. It is a place where we see things questioned and often, through the committee process, legislation improved.

Increasingly, though, and I guess it has always been thus, it seems there is a very political motive for a lot of things that occur, including questioning, in this place. Having seen the response of members opposite during the Ashby affair, the quiet that has continued up to this point, it comes as no surprise that there is a renewed focus, on this, at a time when the Leader of the Opposition has an approval rating of 15 per cent. He seeks to leave the parliament, to go to France, to try to get some media around his rather unbudgeted approach to climate change that would cost our economy, dearly.

One has to question what the true motivation is behind the questions from the Leader of the Opposition, in this place, around this issue. It appears, very much, that they are seeking a distraction. The Australian people are far more concerned about where this country is going, about the growth of the economy, the security of the nation, jobs for their children, the health system, the education system, a whole range of things, as opposed to the internal within-the-beltway discussions, here, amongst the political people—staffers, media, members of parliament and the Senate. This whole debate appears to be yet another of these distractions. It appears to be no coincidence that it occurs at a time when Mr Shorten has an approval rating of—merely—15 per cent

There was a deal of discussion during this about Senator Brandis's answer—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mal Brough. His name is Mal Brough.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I do come back to the point that, when the question was asked about Mr Brough—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

when the question was asked about Mr Brough—and I hope members opposite are listening to that; that is three times now, or four times—what Senator Wong asked was a question about a pre-emptive statement by Mr Keenan, or advice. And the Attorney-General correctly answered. So the political nature of this comes up when Senator Wong then thinks, on the basis of Mr Keenan's answer, that she has a 'gotcha' moment and, rather than either studying carefully what he actually said or, worse, perhaps admitting the context of what he said, seeks to then embarrass or show up Senator Brandis in this place, who correctly points out that what Mr Keenan had said was about his reporting post the event—two quite distinct events. So Senator Brandis quite correctly reported that.

Subsequently in the question Senator Brandis said that he did not agree with the premise of the question. There was great consternation among those opposite, including Senator Wong complaining that he was not being relevant to the question. Mr Deputy President, can I take you back to 21 August when Senator Wong, in answering a question, said: 'I don't agree with the premise of the question.' And she goes on. There was another time, on 13 September 2012, and in fact it was, funnily enough, an interaction between Senator Brandis and Senator Wong. Senator Wong says: 'Mr President, on the point of order: once again Senator Brandis is rephrasing the question. The question commenced with a false premise. It is very difficult for the minister to be directly relevant to a false premise.'

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh dear! His name is Mal Brough.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So that is Senator Wong's own position—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got 45 seconds to mention Mal Brough.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and you can go through time after time where Senator Wong and other ministers have disputed the premise of the question and have continued to provide an answer—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

35 seconds. Mal Brough.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the President has upheld their right to do so. So all I would ask is that they be consistent.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

30 seconds. Mal Brough.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And for Senator Conroy, who is interjecting yet again, in contravention of standing order 197, I bring him to the point—because he questioned the president about the standing order under which the President can make a decision, and standing order 197(5) says:

The President may hear argument on the question, and may determine it forthwith, or at a later time, at the President’s discretion.

That is the standing order he applied. I would encourage you to abide by it. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it were not such a serious issue, this would be extremely funny. Not only today but yesterday we had people on that side in the debate on the motion to take note of answers not even attempting to defend Mr Brough. Today we had Senator Brandis in taking note, and what did he do? He defended himself! What a joke! Yesterday we had Senator Bernardi—he could not defend Minister Brough. And today we have had Senator Fawcett who, after a lot of heckling—and I will admit: it was heckling—finally said the name, but did not go on and defend Mr Brough.

The government know they have a huge problem with Mr Brough. I do not think their memories on that side are so short that they do not remember what happened to their last leader when he failed to take action on Mrs Bishop in regard to her $5,000, 80-kilometre helicopter ride from Melbourne to Geelong. I do not think their memories are so short that they have forgotten that. So we know what happened to Mr Turnbull's predecessor, and I think that, if he was a half-smart man, he would actually be doing something to make sure either that Mr Brough sets himself aside or that he be sacked.

We all know that, with the Bronwyn Bishop helicopter affair, you on that side were all running around scratching your heads wondering why it took so long to make the decision. So why don't a few of you go and talk to Mr Turnbull, now that he is back, and get him to make the decision about Mr Brough, rather than just letting the ministerial code of conduct go out the door. We all know that the ministerial code of conduct gives the Prime Minister the power to make the decision to step Mr Brough aside, just on the basis of the investigation.

This member of the House of Representatives, Mr Brough, had his home raided by the AFP. That in itself should be a warning to those on that side that this is a big issue. This is a big deal. Warrants do not get given out willy-nilly.

I am not sure how long the government is prepared to let this issue drag on. Previously, Senator Sinodinos in this place stood aside, and it was for much less. But it seems Mr Brough is in some sort of protection scheme—I don't know; it is nearly a witness protection scheme.

The Prime Minister needs to start making some decisions based on what is right, because, in the court of public opinion, can I tell you: people do not think it is right that Mr Brough has not had to step aside. We know that the Prime Minister has made a lot of decisions based on possible promises that he made to people to get to the leadership and on who he has to appease. We know that. But he really needs to make a decision.

I am happy to say that Mr Turnbull is a good salesman. I will admit that. But he has got to actually deliver the goods, and if he cannot deliver the goods on the ministerial code of conduct for someone who has so obviously done something wrong—as I said, you do not get a warrant to have your house searched for no reason—and if he has not got what it takes to get Minister Brough to move aside then he should not be the leader.

When the statement was put on 60 Minutes, Mr Brough's comments were unequivocal. But then he got up and he misled the House of Representatives by blaming an editing job. That backfired on them no end, because what is going to happen when you do that? If you have a go at the media, they are going to go back and get out their footage.

I did hear Senator Conroy interjecting earlier and suggesting that maybe Minister Brandis would like to go on Laurie Oakes and try and explain his position. I do not think that is going to happen, Senator Conroy, because I do not think that Minister Brandis will be able to defend Mr Brough any more if Laurie Oakes were to ask him than he could today in question time.

It is interesting to wonder about how the court of public opinion would see this. And can I say that, in the court of public opinion, people are out there thinking, 'It took a few weeks for Tony Abbott to do something about Bronwyn Bishop. Is Malcolm Turnbull making that same mistake?' Yes, he is. He needs to—as I say—sharpen his pencil. He needs to get in there, he needs to be a leader and he need to pull Mr Brough up. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.