|
senate vote 2025-02-05#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2025-02-28 14:03:02
|
Title
Motions — National Security- Motions - National Security - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>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.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2025-02-05.109.8):
- > *That the question be now put.*
- In other words, they voted to end the debate and instead vote on the [question under discussion](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2025-02-05/2) straight away.
<p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Senators</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Hollie Hughes</p><p>Did Chris Minns break national security obligations?</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>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.</p><p>The government will be opposing this motion, and I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|