SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: Thanks very much for coming. I want to make some comments about this ongoing saga in relation to the Man Monis letter, the misleading of the Parliament on a matter of national security.
What we already know is this: we know that the Parliament was misled on a matter of national security for four days. We know that despite the Prime Ministers Office being told that the evidence Julie Bishop had given in the week previous was incorrect on the Monday, they waited four days before the Parliament was told of that fact. These are things we already know. We know that the Prime Minister was provided with a new question time brief on the Monday as well. Thats whats emerged today, that the Prime Minister, his office, was provided with a new brief for question time on Monday 1 June.
Now its time for the Prime Minister to stop the cover up. He needs to come clean. He needs to answer some very simple questions. First, when did he know that the Parliament had been misled? Was he advised through the provision of a new parliamentary question time brief? If so, why did he and his office sit there for four days, why did he sit in the Federal Parliament, in the House of Representatives, for four days knowing that the evidence his Foreign Minister gave on behalf of the Attorney-General on a matter of national security was false, was incorrect?
Its also very clear from the emails which have been released today that there was a delay. The delay in the investigation appears to have been nothing more than providing a reason for the delay in correcting the record. There was no reason for a delay through an investigation. The Prime Ministers Office had already been told that the evidence was wrong.
The Secretary of the Prime Ministers own Department had already said the evidence needed to be corrected. The only reason the Prime Ministers Office required an investigation over four days was to delay the correcting of the record until the end of the parliamentary week. The only reason was to delay. Now that is not an acceptable standard of ministerial representation.
Happy to take questions.
JOURNALIST: Is this then a smoking gun in terms of the performance of the Prime Ministers Office?
WONG: The Prime Minister needs to stop ducking questions. I see that his spokespeople are refusing to answer questions, well the Prime Minister needs to step up. He needs to tell people: when was he aware that the Parliament had been misled on a matter of national security? And when was he aware that his Government was delaying correcting the record? And why did they delay? Those three questions the Prime Minister must answer.
JOURNALIST: So the substance of the brief, have you actually seen it?
WONG: I havent seen the brief, but Ive seen the emails which confirm what it relates to, which is obviously that the Attorney-Generals Department, despite saying that they had provided the letter to the Siege Review, hadnt done so.
The Prime Minister, if that brief told him, if that parliamentary brief told him that the evidence was incorrect, he sat in the Prime Ministers chair on the floor of the House of Representatives for four question times and allowed the record to remain uncorrected. He allowed the House to be misled. He needs to answer questions about that.
JOURNALIST: Theres no way he could not know?
WONG: You ask him that question. His office knew, his department knew and he got a brief. If he didnt know, let him explain how.
JOURNALIST: Just on the Q&A Program, do you think Malcolm Turnbull should defy the Prime Ministers boycott and go on the program?
WONG: I have to say Ive been on the program a number of times with Malcolm and hes a very good guest and a very good combatant. He always performs very well. Obviously its a matter for him, ultimately.
JOURNALIST: What do you take of Paul Keatings advice that you need a can of mace to go on the program?
WONG: Need a?
JOURNALIST: Can of mace to appear on the program.
WONG: I hadnt heard that advice previously, but it sounds like Paul, it sounds like Paul. Well, I enjoy it and I think its a program that a lot of Australians engage with.
JOURNALIST: On the brief once more, just in your view, whatever the brief contains, whatever was known or not known, would it have altered the course of events?
WONG: I dont think Australians regard it as acceptable for a minister to mislead the Parliament and for a Prime Minister, or his office, to sit on that fact for four days. I dont think thats an acceptable level of accountability to anybody.
JOURNALIST: But it would have altered history, surely?
WONG: We have a system of governance in Australia, which relies, amongst other things, on ministerial accountability to the Parliament. Thats why ministers have had to resign if they deliberately misled the Parliament. What we have here is a deliberate delay of the correcting of the record, so the Parliament remains misled for a full parliamentary week.
JOURNALIST: Just to clarify, is it your contention that its a deliberate delay, or is it just blatantly obvious?
WONG: I think if you look at the records which have been released today, you have to say it looks like there was a deliberate delay, absolutely. The Prime Ministers Secretary, Mr Thawley didnt think there was a four day investigation required. He sent an email saying the record had to be corrected on the Monday, it wasnt corrected until the Thursday.
Thanks very much.