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 answers to questions asked by Senators Watt and Chisholm in question time today.

Colleagues, today we had a government that excelled to new heights in the parody that they have become. They are a government that are simply losing it. There is no other description for it. If you look at the performance of Mr Turnbull, Mr Pyne, Senator Brandis and, regrettably, Ms Bishop, you would say to yourself that the government have lost the plot. They have turned themselves into a parody.

Really, the central political strategy of this government at the moment is the 'Kiwis under the bed' scare campaign—hyperventilating and yelling about those dangerous Kiwis under our beds, that dangerous foreign interference. I hate to break it to them, but, you know, this is the New Zealand that is the 'NZ' in Anzac. I know we're very grumpy about the fact the we haven't won the Bledisloe Cup since 2002—

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh shush!

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

'Oh shush'—yes, I know. I ask: when did we last win at Eden Park? Apparently it was in 1986, so reflect upon how long ago that was. I know there are things which are upsetting in the bilateral relationship, but really, this 'Kiwis under the bed' daft line that this government has come up with is laughable—except that it is more than laughable; it is much worse.

I am extremely disappointed in my colleague, Ms Bishop—who, despite our differences, I do think is a credible and hardworking foreign minister—who was presumably sent out today to launch an extraordinary partisan attack on our friends across the Tasman. It really was an extraordinary attack. She managed to attack both the government, by refusing to believe the Minister of Internal Affairs when he said that this issue of Mr Joyce's citizenship had been raised at their end by the media—she refused to believe him—and then she attacked the New Zealand Labour Party. It is really an extraordinarily disappointing thing that we have an Australian foreign minister who has been prepared, and/or has been sent out—it reflects badly on either the Prime Minister or on her—to risk relations with our close friend and ally, simply to distract attention from the crisis that is facing the government.

It is an extraordinary attack, and I would ask the government—I understand that they are very upset about Mr Joyce failing to do his paperwork—to reflect on the wisdom of using the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this way, and reflect on being prepared to risk our relationship with our very close friend New Zealand, in order to distract attention from the domestic political travails of the government. It is immature, it is childish and it is not the act of a mature government. Frankly, it is not the act of a mature Prime Minister. It really demonstrates this Prime Minister's glass jaw.

Of course—news flash—the Labor Party is actually not responsible for Barnaby Joyce's dad being a New Zealander. I know that might come as a surprise to a government that likes to blame the Australian Labor Party for everything, but we're actually not responsible for the fact that his dad's a New Zealander.

It has been a most unwise strategy from the Prime Minister and his senior ministers, including Senator Brandis, today. They have been prepared to attack others overseas and to risk an important bilateral relationship, simply in order to try and distract attention from the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is a New Zealand citizen. The government would have been far better to have responded in a serious and mature fashion. Instead, we have what can only be described as a completely daft strategy of running a 'Kiwis under the bed' defence. What I say to the government on this is: grow up. I think the Australian people would look most dimly on the way in which you have sought to hyperventilate and sought to attack an important relationship because of your political problems. It is an immature and childish approach from this government, and it is one that really does no cabinet minister, no foreign minister and certainly not the Prime Minister any credit.

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

New Zealand, of course, is a very close friend and ally of Australia, and we make no attack on the New Zealand government. We make no criticism of New Zealand. We make no attack on the relationship—of course we do not. Credible and hardworking though you may consider Ms Bishop to be as foreign minister, Senator Wong, I'm afraid, after that contribution, the same compliment cannot be returned to you because, although New Zealand is a close friend and ally, of whose government and of whom we make no criticism whatever, nevertheless, it is a foreign nation, and if Senator Wong, who is supposed to be the shadow foreign minister, cannot understand that there is something extremely inappropriate about the Australian Labor Party using, in an underhand and devious way, the internal political processes of a foreign country, albeit a friendly foreign country, to subvert Australian political processes then she is not fit to be the shadow foreign minister. The view that I express is a view shared by none other than the Prime Minister of New Zealand himself, Mr Bill English, who a short while ago in answer to a question in the New Zealand parliament had this to say: 'These are serious issues, to interfere in another country's politics, and it appears that there has been a serious misjudgement by the member's fellow opposition party.' The member he was referring to, Chris Hipkins, is a close associate of members of the Australian Labor Party. The fellow opposition party to which Mr Bill English was referring was none other than the Australian Labor Party.

The fact is that the issue of the citizenship of Mr Joyce is a legitimate matter for parliamentary debate in Australia. The government, in an extremely forthright manner, itself put this question onto the agenda. Nobody had the faintest inkling that Mr Joyce was going to rise in the House of Representatives at 10 am yesterday to indicate that he had been advised the previous Thursday by the New Zealand High Commission that they considered that he may be a citizen, by descent from his father, of New Zealand. He was under no pressure to do so, but he did, because having become aware of that matter it was his instinct as an honourable man to put the matter into the public arena and take the appropriate course, which he did. And, ever since, in the last 28 hours or so, the Australian Labor Party has done nothing but play politics with the matter.

We now know that, in pursuing their political vendetta against the Deputy Prime Minister, they have chosen not only to debate the matter here, or in the other place, or in the Australian media; they have also interfered in the processes of the New Zealand parliament by an underhand conspiracy with Mr Chris Hipkins, a New Zealand Labour member of Australia and an associate of various Australian Labor Party members of the parliament—including, by the way, Mr Perrett, the member for Moreton, our colleague Senator Catryna Bilyk from Tasmania and others.

You don't do that. You just don't do that. You don't use the processes of another country—you don't interfere in the processes of another country—to pursue a political campaign in Australia to try to bring down the Australian government. I am shocked at Senator Wong; I thought she was smarter than that. What is really revealing is that neither she nor her colleagues seem to grasp the significance of this behaviour. They seek to ridicule, they seek to belittle, but they don't grasp the significance of foreign interference in New Zealand and using New Zealand's parliamentary processes to prosecute an Australian argument. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to follow the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I will direct a number of my remarks to the incredible double standards he is displaying in his response to the situation that now confronts the Deputy Prime Minister. Both yesterday in question time and today again, we have seen an extraordinary position taken by Senator Brandis, the first law officer of this country, who you would think would go out of his way to ensure that the law of this country and our Constitution was upheld. Instead, he is doing his usual twisting and turning—evasion—to try to preserve whatever remains of his government's political honour.

I had a look back at some of the comments that Senator Brandis made in question time yesterday, which he went on to repeat today. In answer to Senator Cameron's question about what the difference was between the situation Senator Canavan found himself in before—properly—standing aside and the one the Deputy Prime Minister now faces, Senator Brandis said:

There are obvious factual and legal differences between the two cases.

He didn't want to comment about what they were. He said:

Suffice it to say that, when acquainted with the situation on 25 July and on the basis of his understanding of the facts at that time, Senator Canavan decided that he would prefer to stand down. The facts of Mr Joyce's case are much clearer to us than were the facts as known to Senator Canavan at the time he made his decision.

I was shocked when I heard Senator Brandis make those comments. In essence, his argument was and seems to remain, based on his comments today, that in Senator Canavan's case the facts and the situation were unclear and, therefore, the right thing for him to do was to stand down from his ministry, while in the Deputy Prime Minister's case the facts are very clear—that he is a dual citizen, that he is a citizen of New Zealand—but for some reason he should remain in office as Deputy Prime Minister of this country.

Surely, if anything, it would be exactly the opposite. Surely, if anything, if a minister's situation is crystal clear, as is the case with the Deputy Prime Minister, that minister should be standing down immediately. It should be the minister whose situation is unclear who might just have an argument that he should remain in his position while the situation is clarified by the court. But instead we have the first law officer of this country getting up and trying to argue exactly the opposite. All I can hope—

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

Because the facts clearly establish that.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take Senator Brandis's interjection. He's maintaining this argument that the facts are clear, in the Deputy Prime Minister's case, that he is a New Zealander. He is 100 per cent New Zealand, and yet he can continue to serve in this government. The fact that the Deputy Prime Minister remains in office, and the fact that we have the Attorney-General and every other minister defending the right of the Deputy Prime Minister to remain in that position, not only shows the great illegitimacy in their government but also shows exactly how beholden the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are to the National Party to remain in office.

Senator Brandis's other comments yesterday, in answer to a question from Senator Wong, were even more absurd. Senator Wong asked Senator Brandis:

Can the minister advise the Senate which of these 'factual and legal differences' requires one minister to stand aside but permits another to continue?

Senator Brandis responded:

With respect, Senator Wong, it's not which factual and legal differences that is the point. The point is that there are factual and legal differences …

This is absurd. He is smiling. Even Senator Brandis acknowledges the humour in the remarks that he's making by smiling about the comments he's made.

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

Point of order, Deputy President.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Brandis, please wait for the call. And that is not a point of order.

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

May I have the call?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

I was laughing at Senator Watt's stupidity.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, Senator Brandis, it's always good to be in the chamber with you. All I can say is that I really hope that Senator Canavan and Mr Joyce have both made sure they have better counsel who can make better arguments before the High Court than the arguments that Senator Brandis has put forward today. I would be happy to put around the can and take up a bit of a collection to make sure they can get themselves better lawyers and better counsel than Senator Brandis, should he be intending to appear for them.

And today we've had it go even further. I thought that Julie Bishop, the foreign minister, was having a bad day today already, but her day got a lot worse when she turned to her robust ally Senator Brandis to defend her position. You know as a minister you are in deep, deep, deep trouble when it's Senator Brandis who has to come out here and defend your position, and that's what we saw from Senator Brandis today. I'm waiting for Senator Brandis to declare war on New Zealand. This ridiculous rhetoric that is coming out of his mouth, and every other minister's mouth, should stop immediately.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's with some sadness that I see and note and have to say that the Labor Party clearly have no idea of foreign matters and seek to trivialise very, very serious matters. It's like Senator Dastyari, when talking about the prospective major terrorist attack on an airline travelling out of Australia, equating it to his book being of halal standard. This is the Labor Party all over. They don't understand foreign affairs, and clearly none of the speakers who have spoken today, including, regrettably, the person who on a change of government would be foreign minister—and God forgive us that that may ever happen—understand what it's all about when an Australian parliamentarian like Mr Shorten can't prosecute his attacks or his vendettas within the Australian political scene but chooses to go to a foreign country to try to make a political point.

We are indeed fortunate in this country to have someone of the calibre of Julie Bishop as our foreign minister. She is universally recognised as a great foreign minister, and she continues to do that day by day. We're also extremely fortunate in Australia to have an Attorney-General of the capability and learning of Senator Brandis. In spite of the Labor Party's strange vendetta against Senator Brandis, continuing to bring up Senate inquiries into matters involving Senator Brandis, each one of those inquiries has clearly demonstrated that Senator Brandis has at all occasions discharged his duties in accordance with the law and extremely capably.

This is a sad day for the Australian parliament when an Australian political leader resorts to a foreign country to mount a political attack within Australia. As was said in question time, we know Mr Shorten has loyalty to very few—certainly not to the union members, $100,000 of whose money it appears he stole to give to a political party. Certainly not—

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: I have been listening to Senator Macdonald's contribution. I believe that the imputation that he just made about Mr Shorten is in contradiction of the standing orders, which forbid senators from reflecting on people in the other place.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard the comment. Senator Macdonald, I would ask you to withdraw, please, and please continue your remarks.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever it is you want me to withdraw, I will. But, Madam Deputy President, I'm always encouraged that, whenever I speak and particularly when I start exposing some truths about the Australian Labor Party, one of their members will take a point of order. I'm gratified by that, because it always shows to me and anyone listening to this broadcast that you're on the right track.

It's clearly been exposed in question time today that Mr Shorten refuses to answer whether he had authority to give $100,000 of his union members' money to a political party. We know Mr Shorten lacks any sense of loyalty to anyone—anyone close to him, anyone far from him, anyone in the political sense or anyone in Australian life generally. That is of course why Mr Shorten's standing in the opinion polls continues to plummet, and it's why we all know as experienced politicians that it won't be long before Mr Albanese makes the challenge to Mr Shorten's leadership. I hope he doesn't, because, from a political point of view, we would much rather have Mr Shorten as our opponent at the next election. But clearly those in the Labor Party are petrified at Mr Shorten leading them to the next election. We only await, with bated breath, Mr Shorten coming clean and answering some of the questions that have been raised about his use—or misuse, might I say—of the money that he had control over as the leader of the Australian Workers' Union.

This is a sad day for the Australian parliament. It's again demonstrated by the alternative foreign minister that they have no idea of foreign affairs or propriety. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chisholm.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Hinch?

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand, Madam Deputy President, to say that the government has had 10 minutes of this period and the Labor Party opposite has had 10 minutes of this period. I'm standing here representing at least 12 crossbenchers. I'm the only crossbencher who has sat here through any of this; they've all disappeared. For you to go back to the Labor Party to give them another five minutes is unfair.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hinch, I'm sure you are aware there are informal arrangements around—Senator Hinch, please resume your seat. There are informal arrangements operating in the debate on taking note of answers to questions without notice. It is a matter you need to raise outside of this place at the whips meetings, not here.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One more quick point is that I am—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hinch, please resume your seat. Senator Chisholm.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, wish to speak about the dysfunction we're seeing from the government on section 44 of the Constitution. I think that Senator Wong outlined the ridiculousness of the arguments the government have been putting around the Kiwis under the bed. My colleague Senator Watt highlighted the inconsistencies from the legal arguments we have seen from those opposite, particularly from the Attorney-General, George Brandis. We have seen Senator Canavan stand aside, but Barnaby Joyce, in the other house, refuses to do the same thing.

I think the important thing here is the dysfunction that the government have and the impact it is having on Australian families. That is something no-one has touched on yet; certainly, Senator Macdonald went nowhere near this. Let me talk about some of the issues that the government aren't dealing with because they are consumed about their own survival and increasingly desperate, as we have seen with their attacks today.

Let's talk about power prices. We hear a lot of those opposite come in and say that this is the most important issue, but what are they actually doing on it? We have seen no progress on this important issue, particularly when it comes to the clean energy target, in recent weeks. It is not even up for discussion from them in their caucus so far. We know that there is a war between the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister around the clean energy target. We want to see who is declared the winner. But in the meantime Australian families are paying more for power because of their inaction. The Labor Party are on the record saying we're willing to talk. We're willing to meet and compromise to bring in a clean energy target to provide certainty, but we see dysfunction and chaos on the other side. They are incapable of solving the issue.

Another issue close to my heart is the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. That is the fund that has not funded one single project. We know that the previous minister for this, Senator Canavan, has stood aside. The current minister responsible is the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, who is now also under a cloud. The people of northern Australia are crying out for jobs, as Senator Macdonald well knows, but because of the dysfunction of this government not one project has been funded. There will probably be more delays because of the change in ministers we've had, and we will probably end up with another change in the ministry soon.

I spoke last night about the National Broadband Network. There is a growing crisis in the community with regard to people switching onto the NBN, with slow speeds and frustration around resolving problems. All we get from this lacklustre government and the lacklustre minister is lip-service about these problems. The Australian people have had enough, and increasingly they're blaming this government for the dysfunction of the NBN.

Another issue which is really important, particularly in Queensland, is the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements following Tropical Cyclone Debbie. Again, we see the dysfunction of the government. They are not making the adequate contribution to match the state government's funding of the important recovery projects that we see in Mackay, the Whitsundays and Rockhampton. The mayors are all on side with this. They are the ones calling for the government to come to the party to match the state government funding to ensure these communities can rebuild effectively, but the government have abandoned those communities. Minister Keenan will not even go back and visit those places. It is an absolutely shameful period, where George Christensen, the member for Dawson, has not put his shoulder to the wheel to solve this problem.

Again, there is an issue that was just discussed at question time today: the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The Leader of the Government in the Senate didn't even have a brief. This is an important issue that was highlighted in the media—the theft of water with regard to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—and the Leader of the Government in the Senate didn't even have a brief. That's how seriously they're treating the issue. They're happy to abandon the people who rely on the Murray-Darling Basin as well. But the opposition are going to put a focus on this, hopefully through a Senate inquiry, to get to the bottom of what is going on. At least one party in here will take this seriously.

So what we have highlighted here is the ongoing dysfunction of this government over section 44, but, more importantly, the negative impact that dysfunction is having on Australian families when it comes to issues like power prices, the NBN and jobs in regional Queensland. It is a disgraceful period for this government. The Australian people deserve so much better than this dysfunctional, self-absorbed government, and the Liberal National Party have a lot to answer for. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the comments of the Attorney-General when representing the Prime Minister this afternoon.

Earlier today the Attorney-General was on Sky News, speaking to Peter van Onselen and defending the Prime Minister's comment that the High Court 'will' make a judgement in favour of Barnaby Joyce. The Prime Minister said in the House yesterday:

The Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Prime Minister, is qualified to sit in this House, and the High Court will so hold.

'Will so hold.' It was not 'in my opinion, the High Court will do this'—not anything like that—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hinch, please resume your seat. Senator Brandis?

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

I'm loath to interrupt Senator Hinch, because he has something interesting to say, I'm sure, but you can't move to take note of questions asked by Peter van Onselen. You can only move to take note of questions asked in this chamber during question time. I'm forced to point out I wasn't asked by any senator a question on this topic in this chamber today, although I was, I must say, asked some penetrating questions by Peter van Onselen.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Di Natale, about the member for New England, and I will keep my remarks to that area.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, Senator Hinch, you're talking about questions from Senator Di Natale to the Attorney-General. Please continue.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How could the Attorney-General appear here and defend the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said, 'The High Court will rule in favour,' not, 'As a former successful Skycatcher lawyer, I make that opinion,' as the Prime Minister would be entitled to say. He said 'the High Court will'. Where the heck is separation of church and state when the Prime Minister, on a very sensitive issue which could determine the future of this government, can get up in the House and say 'the High Court will'? As I say, there is separation of church and state. What he said was a disgrace.

The fact is that the member for New England is still there. The Attorney-General stood alongside Matt Canavan as he resigned from the ministry, resigned from the cabinet and said he wouldn't vote until after the High Court, and at the same time we've got the Attorney-General trying to fiddle the books and claim that Barnaby Joyce can stay as Deputy Prime Minister until the High Court decides, which may be three months away.

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

Senator Hinch, I respond by making two observations. First of all, Mr Joyce is perfectly entitled to remain where he is until the High Court decides otherwise. He has been declared elected as the member for New England. He has been sworn in as a minister. An issue has arisen because he himself disclosed it in a very forthright way yesterday morning. It is an issue about which over the weekend the government took advice from the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue, and on the basis of that advice the government is confident of Mr Joyce's position. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why he should stand down.

In relation to the Prime Minister's observations in the House of Representatives at question time yesterday, Senator Hinch, you rightly and fairly point out that Mr Turnbull himself is a lawyer. He's a lawyer of some accomplishment. He's one of the—to the best of my knowledge—three members of this parliament who have actually argued cases before the High Court; his cases include the celebrated Spycatcher case, which he won against a bevy of the greatest legal talent that the British and Australian bars were able to assemble when he was still in his 20s. So Mr Turnbull is no mean lawyer. He has studied—I know, because he and I have discussed it with some care—the Solicitor-General's opinion. He has studied the precedents, including Sykes v Cleary, the case that bears most immediately upon the point. He's discussed the matter at length with me. He has very well-informed and well-developed views about section 44 and the jurisprudence surrounding it, and he has formed a view of his own, as I have formed a view of my own. In his case, as in mine, those views have been influenced by the clear advice of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General.

So it misinterprets the Prime Minister to say that, when he spoke yesterday in the House of Representatives, he was in any way impinging on the role of the High Court or telling the High Court what to do. He was merely expressing his own view about the law—which, as an accomplished lawyer, well acquainted with this area of the law and fortified by the opinion of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, he was perfectly at liberty to do—and making a prediction as to which way he thought the case would go. That is all he was doing, and to suggest he was doing anything more than that is a misinterpretation of what he had to say and, with respect, quite unfair to him.

Question agreed to.