Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Prime Minister's failure to be upfront and accountable with the parliament and the Australian people in relation to when he became aware of a planned mass casualty terror attack against Sydney's Jewish community as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Prime Minister's failure to be up front and accountable with the Parliament and the Australian people in relation to when he became aware of a planned mass-casualty terror attack against Sydney's Jewish community.

This is a matter of national security, and that is why it is incumbent on the Senate to suspend standing orders in order for us to debate exactly why the Prime Minister is failing in his No. 1 priority to the Australian people. The Prime Minister has been asked some very simple questions, questions that, unlike what Senator Wong says, go to 'law enforcement investigation and are prejudicial to it'. They merely go to the date—the date upon which he was notified. Now, the reason we need to suspend standing orders is because it is a first priority of a government to ensure the national security of both Australia and its people.

We have had in this country the exposure of something that could have been a mass terrorist event against the Jewish people, and the Prime Minister has failed in every regard when it comes to reassuring the Australian people and advising them. I'm starting to wonder if he, quite frankly, was ever advised of this event, a mere date. Senator Wong, when in opposition, used to frequently say to us on this side of the chamber, 'The minister has an obligation as the Minister representing the Prime Minister to be accountable to this chamber', and the coalition will not tolerate these baseless claims. Well, quite frankly, it is incumbent upon this chamber to interrogate why the Prime Minister is providing us with baseless claims.

The contrast, of course, is Premier Minns, the Labor Premier of New South Wales. He was asked when he was briefed. He didn't hide behind his ministers. He didn't hide behind the excuse of being prejudicial to any law enforcement investigation. In fact, he showed leadership, and he actually made sure the people of New South Wales understood: 'I'm in charge. I'm in control. I know what I'm doing.' And why did he do that? Because I'm assuming he understood that a matter of national security—a potential terrorist event; explosives intended for a synagogue—was something he needed to reassure the people over.

Contrast that, however, with our Prime Minister. You've got to hear the answers the Prime Minister gave in question time today. They were, again, obfuscation. They were an embarrassment. They were hidey. This is the man that was elected by the Australian people—on the preferences of the Greens, of course—to lead this nation. You have, potentially, a mass terrorist event in this country. We are not asking the Prime Minister to compromise the operational details. We would not do that. But I tell you what we are asking the Prime Minister on behalf of the Australian people—do you have any idea what is going on? Not only that; it's not just the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has an attorney-general. I want to know what the Attorney-General was doing. The Prime Minister has a Minister for Home Affairs. I'm sure the Australian people would like to know what the Minister for Home Affairs knew and when. And, if they did know, why didn't they tell the Prime Minister? All we have seen to date is a prime minister who is trying to hide behind a claim of confidentiality.

The Prime Minister needs to start thinking very carefully. He should not use a claim of confidentiality on national security as an issue when it suits him, because he was exposed today in the question that Senator Paterson put to Minister Wong, as the representative of the Prime Minister. When it suits the Prime Minister, he will tell the Australian people when he has been briefed. He will tell the Australian people when the National Security Committee of the cabinet has been briefed. But, on this, he's playing politics. He refuses to tell the Australian people the simple detail of when he or his government knew about this sickening incident.

As I said, Senator Wong, when in opposition, used to make it very clear that these types of questions needed to be answered. Guess what? Your words are now coming back to haunt you, and the Australian people will not tolerate the obfuscation and hiding by the Prime Minister. (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this suspension and this grandstanding by the new Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who is trying to prove a political point at the expense of an ongoing investigation into a serious threat. This suspension motion talks about being upfront and accountable. This Prime Minister stands up every single day and answers questions—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I remind those on my left that your leader, Senator Cash, was heard in complete silence, and that same courtesy and respect will be afforded to Senator Gallagher. If you can't give that respect, then leave the chamber.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister stands up every single day, takes questions and answers questions from any journalist that turns up to his press conferences—unlike Mr Dutton, who never does. If there is anything about leadership that I've understood, it is that a leader is a person who is principled and who stands up, answers and is accountable for every decision that they take. Every time he has been asked about this, the Prime Minister has said that there are two issues that he is focused on: (1) the safety of the Australian people and (2) not to be involved in or to provide commentary on or speculation about an ongoing investigation that is being led by the security agencies and involves combined effort between the AFP and New South Wales police, which, of course, involves some of the other national security agencies.

It is not the Prime Minister who is out trying to politicise this; it is Mr Dutton and his team over here. It is outrageous. It is a new low in Australian politics—the desperation and recklessness and arrogance of the opposition!—that they would choose to take an issue like this and run and play politics with it. That's exactly what they are doing. All the lectures that we heard from those opposite around national security and supporting the security agencies and letting them do their jobs, which is exactly what we are doing, have been forgotten by those opposite—no, no, let's do a running commentary on it; let's try and make it the Prime Minister's fault. That's not leadership.

We've got Mr Dutton, who stomps around the country creating division, who's never met a culture war that he doesn't want to jump on and who seizes an opportunity to play politics with an issue like this, the national security of Australia. You question—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did Chris Minns break national security obligations?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, you are being completely disrespectful to my request for the opposition senators to listen in silence, the same respect that was afforded to Senator Cash when she spoke. I invited senators who couldn't show that respect to leave the chamber. I'm inviting you to either sit here in silence or leave the chamber.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition hasn't even asked for a briefing on this matter. He probably doesn't want to be briefed, because that might stop him from being able to play these games. That is what is going on right now. There is an ongoing investigation. The focus needs to be on hunting down the criminals who are involved in this and allowing the security agencies to do their work. They are investigating this matter. There is no reason for this to be the subject of ongoing political debate, as chosen by those opposite. We won't be lectured by them around matters of national security—that's for sure—because of the approach that they have decided to take on this.

The government will be opposing this motion, and I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now intend to put Senator Cash's motion to suspend. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking the call, Senator Paterson?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement of no more than five minutes.

The problem that the government has today, in their second attempt today of covering up about what they knew and when they knew it—about the AFP's involvement in this investigation—is that it doesn't pass the pub test. Senator Wong's argument in question time today was that they couldn't possibly answer this question because doing so would compromise an ongoing police investigation. So is Senator Wong arguing that the Premier of New South Wales has compromised a police investigation by directly answering this question when he was asked? That is a very serious charge to be made against her fellow Labor politician, New South Wales Premier Minns. And how has Premier Minns compromised a police investigation by disclosing, when asked, when he was briefed? And how would Anthony Albanese be compromising a police investigation if he answered when he was briefed? Is it material to the police investigation about this very serious attempted terrorist attack? In what way would the investigation be in any way impeded by the Prime Minister disclosing this fact?

The other problem with this argument—apart from inadvertently blaming the New South Wales Premier for compromising a police investigation—is that it's totally contrary to the past practice of the Prime Minister himself. He never talks about national security committee meetings; he never talks about briefings—except when he does; except when it's convenient; except when it is in his political interests to do so. In fact, there were six examples printed in the Australian newspaper just today—including during active and ongoing investigations into other terror incidents, including the Adass Israel Synagogue firebombing. So how did the Prime Minister compromise the investigation into the Adass Israel Synagogue bombing when he publicly disclosed the fact that he'd been briefed by the AFP and ASIO about that? How did he compromise that investigation when he said he called a National Security Committee meeting of cabinet to response to that attack?

It's very obvious that what is really happening here is that the Prime Minister is embarrassed. He's embarrassed for one of two reasons: either the AFP didn't tell him, and we have had a catastrophic failure of our national security architecture on his watch and he doesn't want to admit to that having happened; or the AFP did tell him, and he didn't act—he didn't call an NSC meeting; he didn't surge resources to the AFP and ASIO and our other intelligence and law enforcement agencies; he didn't reach out to the Jewish community; he didn't reassure them that he had their best interests at heart and he was doing everything he could to protect them.

From start to finish in the handling of this antisemitism terrorism crisis, the Prime Minister has been a day late and a dollar short. He has been too little and too late. It is so often that he finally agrees to something only after the opposition puts pressure on him to do so—like when we called for the introduction of a federal taskforce on antisemitism; like when we called for the holding of a National Cabinet meeting to talk about antisemitism. He was dragged kicking and screaming into holding those meetings, into doing those actions, because he only responds to political pressure; he never leads. He shown weakness and equivocation, every step of the way, when it comes to this crisis of antisemitism which has festered and grown out of control on his watch.

I hope that the Prime Minister doesn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming, yet again, to taking more action on antisemitism. I hope he is able to take up the opposition's suggestion from two weeks ago that there be federal mandatory minimum sentences for Commonwealth terrorism offences. On 21 January we said that the government should introduce mandatory minimum sentences to protect Australians and send a strong message to the perpetrators of these offences that there'll be serious consequences for their behaviour. The Prime Minister dismissed the need for mandatory minimum sentences when he was asked about that throughout January. He said that the government had no plans to introduce mandatory minimum sentences. When we moved a motion in this place on Tuesday afternoon calling on the government to introduce mandatory minimum sentences, the Labor Party voted against it. They voted against the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences. They have to explain why they think it would be appropriate for someone convicted of a terrorism offence to be sentenced for less than six years—to be sentenced to, perhaps, a few days or a few weeks or a few months—in response to a successful Commonwealth prosecution for a terrorism offence, or they can be dragged kicking and screaming again into finally doing what the opposition has called on them to do: to show leadership, to introduce tough laws, to put in place tough deterrence, to finally get this antisemitism terror crisis that has festered on their watch under control, so Jewish Australians and all Australians are safe again.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what an extraordinary performance! It really sits on top of a series of days of overreach, with the Liberals and Nationals establishing that they are not up to the job in national security terms. They are not up to the job, out of their depth and unable to conduct themselves like adults. They have lost the sense of perspective of putting the country's interests first, rather than trying to go straight to TikTok, which is exactly what Senator Paterson was there trying to do, with his pretend, faux seriousness, looking straight into the camera, trying to confect this idea. This group over here say that they are big on national security, but they performed so poorly as a government that they isolated Australia on the national stage and made us weaker. The Morrison government made us weaker, less secure and less safe, particularly in the Pacific—but no more so than Mr Dutton, who insulted Pacific states and Pacific leaders when the veil was taken off, when he wasn't performing and he thought he wasn't on camera. He promised Ms Queenie or whatever her name was, the immigration star, that we would be back to the $5 million visas, which were rorted systematically by criminals and money launderers when he was the immigration minister.

So what do we have? This show, all blowhard and noise, here on 'overreach Wednesday', when they were talking about social cohesion and protecting the interests of the Australian Jewish community, although just a few years ago Senator Cash and some of these other characters were cheering Senator Brandis on when he said, 'People do have a right to be bigots, you know.' They are utterly inconsistent, utterly juvenile and unfit to play a serious role in national security terms.

What sits underneath that? Why are there all these questions about who knew what when, when they know that is a matter for the security agencies and no government worth its salt would do anything different? What sits underneath that assertion, apart from a venal sense of partisan self-interest? It's a smug sense of entitlement. They can't imagine that their own sense of entitlement is the only thing that drives them forward on these questions.

This is a hopeless stunt. It shows why they are not fit for the job or up to the task and why they are out of their depth on national security questions. It will happen again. It will happen over and over again this week—the confected outrage, the blowhard activity and all of the carry-on. We'd rather get on to listening to what you geniuses have to say in the debate on motions to take note of answers, but we'll see how we go.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Paterson be agreed to.