Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In 2019 when answering a question on women and the reporting of rape, Mr Morrison said:

One of the things that often happens with that is they're not believed, and their stories are not believed and it's important that their stories are believed and that they know that if they come forward their stories will be believed.

When deciding whether the Attorney-General was a fit and proper person to remain in his role, why did the Prime Minister listen to the Attorney-General but not bother to read the alleged victim's own words?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in response to Senator Waters's questions earlier, we have in Australia, with sound legal and other establishments in place, practices and processes that are well-established for the handling of allegations. The Prime Minister and his office acted in accordance with advice from law enforcement agencies that allegations of a criminal nature ought be provided, where possible, to police at the earliest opportunity, and that is what the Prime Minister's office did.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson has said that the allegations against the Attorney-General should have been referred to the Solicitor-General. Given John Howard had no issue with twice asking the Solicitor-General for advice on allegations against his workplace relations minister, why has the Prime Minister failed to listen to advice and refer the allegations against his Attorney-General to the Solicitor-General?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The allegations in question are related to an alleged criminal event dating back to 1988. The Solicitor-General—or, indeed, any other individual office holder outside of a court and its legal process—is not in a position to be able to determine the veracity of those allegations. That's what we have courts for.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why won't the Prime Minister establish an independent inquiry into the sexual assault allegations against his Attorney-General which would listen to the complaint and consider the alleged victim's own words and the testimony of James Hooke and others?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said in a few answers now, we have established legal processes to handle such allegations. As I also said in response to Senator Waters's question, the Attorney-General has exercised the same rights as any other Australian in relation to the initiation of defamation proceedings. I have no doubt that such matters will be heard in a court of law in accordance with all of the normal rules of that court of law at some point in the future.