Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of all answers given to the coalition's questions in questions without notice earlier today.

There was an editorial in the Australian on Thursday 13 June entitled 'Public deserves full truth on Higgins weaponisation'. They didn't get that today. They didn't get the full truth today, just as they didn't get the full truth at that now infamous Senate estimates hearing back in 2021.

What we heard from the relevant minister today and in her statement earlier today was that she did in fact mislead the Senate at that estimates hearing. There is absolutely no question about that. So, firstly, she did mislead, and, secondly, the minister refuses to provide details of the information which she had prior to that estimates hearing even though it is of great public interest. Thirdly, she continues the attack on those on this side of the chamber, including on my good friend, and I'm proud to call her my good friend, Senator Reynolds. Senator Reynolds has been put through absolute misery mercilessly by Senator Gallagher and others in relation to this matter—absolutely mercilessly—and she expects us on this side of the chamber to show her the quarter which she never gave to our colleague Senator Reynolds. It won't be given. We will hold you to the same standard that you sought to hold Senator Reynolds, but we will not go into areas which are inappropriate, unlike Senator Gallagher, who did in that Senate estimates hearing.

So the first issue is did she mislead the Senate. Let's go to the transcript, and I've actually got the transcript of that committee hearing on 4 June 2021. This is what Senator Gallagher said—and I should say this was after prolonged questioning of Senator Reynolds, as indicated in the Hansard: 'No-one had any knowledge. How dare you. It's all about protecting yourself.' That was the full quote from the transcript. I note that Senator Gallagher conveniently left out the words 'How dare you? It is all about protecting yourself,' but, in addition to the absolute denial about 'No-one had any knowledge', there was also a continuation of the personal attack on my colleague Senator Reynolds. That is the full context of this matter.

Now, by admission in her own statement, she says:

I want to be clear with this Senate … I was provided with information in the days before the allegations were first reported—

That's what the minister has said in her own statement, which is absolutely at odds with what she said at Senate estimates. She did mislead the Senate. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work that out. It's clear on the evidence that she misled the Senate. Then, when we asked legitimate questions about what she did know, what information she was provided, she refused to answer.

Let's see how she treated my good friend Senator Reynolds in estimates in relation to the issue of information, in a direct quote from page 115 of the transcript:

You are the person who, out of all of this, has avoided answering or providing information about your state of knowledge or any facts relating to this matter.

And what are we hearing today? The senator refusing to provide information. It's absolute rank hypocrisy of the first order. There was no answer with respect to whether or not she had the transcript of the project interview before it went to air, no answer to the question as to whether or not she provided any feedback with respect to that information and no answer to the question as to whether or not she put forward questions to be asked or to be prepared for. There's only this blanket claim of confidentiality. She didn't provide the same standard as Senator Reynolds, which she now seeks to invoke—no, absolutely not.

The Australian public has a right to know the information in relation to this. This is no longer a public matter. The project interview has gone to press. There has been a court trial. It's no longer confidential. It is entirely in the public domain. The people of Australia have a right to know the answers to these questions.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not that long ago that this parliament received the Human Rights Commission Set the standard report that the parliament commissioned. The Human Rights Commission was asked to make recommendations to ensure that the Commonwealth parliamentary workplace is safe and respectful, and that the nation's parliament reflects best practice in prevention and response to bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. I'm surprised that I need to say this, but I will remind this chamber that that review was supported by both sides of politics. During the course of the inquiry, the Human Rights Commission conducted interviews with current and former occupants of this building about their experiences. And if you haven't read it, it might be time to get it off the shelf again.

An interviewee to the Set the standard report said this:

This is Parliament. It should set the standard for workplace culture, not the floor of what culture should be.

It's worth reflecting on, isn't it, because we should work every day in this place to be worthy of the faith the Australian people put in us to solve issues, to lead by example and to set our shoulders to the wheel of change—and that should include changing the way our parliament works and the way that we talk here about women, about rape, about sexual assault and, most importantly, about survivors.

I acknowledge and I thank Senator Gallagher for her statement in the chamber earlier today and the frank way she responded to questions today. I note that this frankness has not been replicated by others who arguably have much, much more to explain. Senator Gallagher has given a clear and compelling explanation of the interaction she had with Senator Reynolds, including the comments that Senator Reynolds made at that time. She has given a clear explanation of the role played by the Attorney-General, including that the finance minister has no decision-making role in processes around significant legal matters. But I think what's more important, and something that people here may need to reflect upon, is she has explained her overarching approach to the way she has responded to people who have come to her as a parliamentarian for support over the years. They've come to her for support in relation to allegations of sexual assault. She has talked about the need to centre the experience and needs of victims-survivors ahead of anything else, including respecting their confidentiality, and she has explained that that is an approach she has adopted throughout her public life.

The truth is how we talk about this matters, how we talk about the victims who come forward and how we talk about those who don't matters. Eighty-seven per cent of Australians who have experienced sexual assault don't report it, and parliament should be doing everything we can to lower this number. And I worry about what's unfolding here in this chamber, and outside of it. I worry about people who are considering disclosing their experience, and I worry about what they would think while watching this debate unfold. Victims already know that one-quarter of Australians believe women exaggerate the problem of male violence. Does the conduct of the debate today assist with shifting that narrative? And if it doesn't, people might reflect on why not and why that isn't a higher priority of those opposite in what they've been up to today.

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner has said:

… the current system for addressing workplace sexual harassment in Australia is complex and confusing for victims and employers to understand and navigate. It also places a heavy burden on individuals to make a complaint.

Well, the opposition seems to be doing everything in its power—everything!—to demonstrate just how heavy that burden can be. We came together as a parliament as recently as 1 December last year to commit ourselves to doing better. Let's just see if that's possible.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that I feel physically ill. The absolute hypocrisy shown by those opposite today is quite simply breathtaking. In fact, it's beyond that. It's actually disgusting. From a group who, before the election, were all about integrity and transparency, those in government—those that sit opposite—are now treating not only this chamber but the Australian people as if we're all mugs. Shame on you, and shame on all of you that are running a protection racket around this disgusting politicisation and absolutely disgusting weaponisation of an allegation.

It is absolutely disgusting, and it is a protection racket being run for Senator Gallagher—and, quite frankly, who else? We've been patronised today as Senator Gallagher has lectured us on her supposed integrity. She must be joking. Seriously, that must be almost clinically diagnosable as delusional, because that is unbelievable. We heard Senator Wong say that we don't know the half of it. Perhaps, Senator Wong, you should fill us in on what the other half is. What is the other half that we don't know? Maybe the chamber should hear.

I was in the estimates. I'd never seen Senators Wong or Gallagher attend Community Affairs ever. But, as soon as Senator Reynolds appeared in the chair, in they came to bully and badger like I have never seen. I cannot help but sit here today and think about my friend Kimberley Kitching and what she must have gone through in the final weeks and months of her life—what absolute bullying she must have been subjected to by those who were determined to weaponise rape allegations, which were apparently so private that, rather than going to the police, they were aired through an orchestrated media campaign. It would appear now, and increasingly so, that that was orchestrated with the help of those sitting on the front bench in the then opposition in this chamber. It is absolutely disgraceful.

This isn't just an opinion coming from me and those of us who sat through it over the last few years, who saw our colleague absolutely bullied to the point of hospitalisation all because of the questions they were asking: 'Why didn't Senator Reynolds go to the police herself?' 'Why didn't Senator Reynolds trot down to the PMO to let the Prime Minister know as soon as she found out?' It's because, at the time—and as has been acknowledged—Ms Higgins didn't want that. Ms Higgins didn't want to go to police. She didn't want anybody else to know. She asked Senator Reynolds and Ms Brown to keep it confidential.

Yet, when those opposite were in opposition, that wasn't good enough. Senator Reynolds was badgered and bullied to the point of hospitalisation, without a blink from those opposite. So it's interesting, and I just want to take a moment, maybe for the sake of those in the gallery, to say that the Australian has run two editorials five days apart—and you really don't usually see them run multiple editorials on the same issue. I'm not going to go through them all, but they are very much worth a read. They are from 8 June and 13 June. I quote:

The extent of what appears to be collusion between Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz and political figures demands that a proper investigation be launched into a decision to award more than $2m in compensation to Ms Higgins with what could be considered a questionable regard for proper process.

Well, 'questionable regard'—it took less than one day, and there was no ability for anyone to contest the allegations that were made.

A proper inquiry must be held into the extent of what appears to be political collusion on the Higgins rape allegations. Taxpayers—that's you, me and everybody else in this country—deserve to know how the decision was made to award Ms Higgins millions of dollars in compensation and exactly who was involved. It is absolutely beyond the pale for Minister Gallagher to come in here and say to the Australian Senate and the Australian people that she did not mislead them when she very clearly did—we all heard it—and to pretend that there is nothing to see here.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honestly, what kind of parallel universe are we operating in here? We had a Liberal staffer report an alleged rape by another Liberal staffer in a Liberal minister's office in a Liberal government, where question after question at that time was left unanswered, and you're trying to put Senator Gallagher on trial: a minister who at the first opportunity to walk into this place and provide further information did so—the very first opportunity. It is the audacity of an opposition who dodged question after question to then walk in here today and put questions to a minister that they never dared to put to themselves, never prioritising or upholding transparency.

I would say to everyone in this chamber to think very carefully about the path they are treading here, because the events leading up to the Jenkins report led to a cultural reckoning—a reckoning built on the courage and bravery of a young woman who came forward to say that her workplace wasn't safe for her, that her workplace failed her. The recommendations of that report sought to reward not just her courage but also the courage of 1,000 other submitters, including me and including people in this chamber, with ambitious action that would transform the culture of this place to set a standard, not betray one.

That work was never going to be easy; it was never going to be set-and-forget. It was always going to require a fight, because systems of power that exploit, discriminate and abuse don't ever dismantle themselves. Many of us contributed to that work. Senator Gallagher made tireless contributions to that work, as did woman after woman who has shared their own story of abuse, of harassment at work. There were people in this place, indeed in workplaces around our country, who felt secure in the shade of that reckoning, who felt brave because of the bravery of others, who thought they could speak because others spoke. It was a reckoning that was overdue not just in this workplace but in workplaces and spaces around our country.

We should all think very carefully about who in our country stands to benefit from the unravelling of that work. Who stands to gain? And we should reflect about when the books are written about the women and men who fought to make this parliament, this institution, more respectful, more equal, more accessible and more safe for those who made tremendous sacrifices to do and contribute to that work. Were we the ones who fought with them to uphold that standard, or were we the ones who lit the match and let the standard burn to the ground? I know the place I want to hold in that chapter. I know the place Senator Gallagher will hold in that chapter of our history and deserves to hold—a woman who has always been guided and motivated, not just in this place but in every other place she has walked, by wanting to make the world a better, a more respectful and a safer place for the women in it. She is a woman who, in the role of Minister for Women for just one year, has already made her mark as a major reformer, already matched the women who have held that role before her, who is a powerful force for change within the government, within the Labor Party and outside of it, and a woman who has never pulled a ladder up behind her, never accepted that the work was done. When they write the history books of the reckoning here and of the response, when they write the history books of this government and what it delivered for women, there will be a chapter with Senator Gallagher's name on it, and it's a chapter I will proudly read to my daughter. We all need to think about the chapter we want to be in as this history is written.

I do want to say something quickly about the nature of the public debate at the moment. Let's not skirt around the subtext. One in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence perpetrated by a man they know. Let us not allow a chilling effect to hinder those women coming forward. We have a role in keeping them safe. In stopping this, we get to choose our place in history.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Integrity and transparency are incredibly important in this chamber. Indeed, integrity and transparency are incredibly important in our democracy. Without them, we in this place cannot expect the public to have faith in this very institution—the federal parliament—and the vital role that it plays within our democracy.

Question time—the hour every day that we spend here when the opposition asks questions of the government and the government provides answers to those—plays a really vital role in enhancing that same faith. There can be no doubt, given some of the media reporting over the last week or so that has shed new light on the events that have played out in this very parliament in recent years, that there are still many, many more questions that government ministers have to answer, particularly in terms of what members of the now government knew and when they knew that in regard to allegations of a sexual assault in Parliament House and what they subsequently did with that information. Indeed, the Australian newspaper published two editorials in recent days urging greater transparency from the government. I note that my colleague Senator Scarr referenced some of those comments in his contribution to this debate earlier today.

Having sat here over the last hour and a half listening to the questions that were being asked by the opposition and listening to the answers that were being provided by the government, I am unconvinced that anybody at home listening along to what was happening in question time would have had much confidence in the government's will to be open, transparent and accountable regarding these issues. Indeed, it seems like, every time the opposition comes into this chamber asking questions of the government, the government is incredibly reticent to provide any answers. I must say, that's a recurring theme from this government. I know I've spoken about this many times before when I've been in this chamber taking note of answers provided in question time. Whether it's in question time, in Senate estimates, in questions on notice through this chamber or even in government responses to committee reports, we in the opposition, and I think many Australians, are left wanting for fulsome answers.

After more than a year of a Labor federal government, people, I think, are starting to get tired of it. This is a government that promised during the election campaign that they would be a government of accountability and transparency. They promised a number of things: to tackle the cost-of-living pressures, to make housing more affordable and to cut power bills by $275. Twelve months on, they either refuse to reference these commitments or obfuscate at the estimates table when they're asked how these policies are being progressed. Australians deserve to know what their government is doing to make life easier for them. They deserve to know that their government is delivering on its election commitments, and they deserve to know when their government is failing on its own commitment—a commitment that it made to the Australian people in the lead-up to May last year to be an accountable and transparent government.

Frankly, after listening to the responses provided by government ministers to opposition questions here today, once again I am left wondering when the government will even entertain the idea of satisfying that important test. I mean that both in general terms and in terms of the specifics of the questions that were being asked to the finance minister, Senator Gallagher, here today. How can Australians have confidence in this government when the Prime Minister and ministers are saying one thing but are doing the complete opposite? It is incumbent on this government and the relevant ministers in this place to set the record straight and provide Australians with the answers they deserve about this important issue, because it is one of public interest and it has become highly politicised. We need clarity, and the Australian public is waiting for answers.

Question agreed to.