National Security

Opened the debate

Cash argued that the Prime Minister had failed to be upfront and accountable regarding the date he was notified of the terror plot. Cash contrasted the Prime Minister's refusal to answer with the transparency shown by the New South Wales Premier, who disclosed his briefing timeline. Cash contended that the government was using national security claims selectively to avoid scrutiny and that the Australian people deserved to know if the Prime Minister was aware of the threat. Cash asserted that the issue was a matter of national security priority requiring immediate parliamentary debate.

Government response

Gallagher stated that the government would not support the suspension motion, describing it as grandstanding that risked an ongoing investigation. Gallagher argued that the Prime Minister was accountable through daily press conferences and that commenting on active security agency operations would be inappropriate. Gallagher claimed the Opposition was politicising a serious national security matter and undermining the work of the AFP and NSW Police. Gallagher emphasised that the focus should remain on hunting down the criminals involved rather than engaging in political debate.

Opposition response

Paterson argued that the government's refusal to disclose the briefing date failed the 'pub test' and contradicted the Prime Minister's past practices of disclosing such information during other investigations. Paterson suggested the Prime Minister was embarrassed because either the AFP had failed to brief him or he had failed to act appropriately upon being briefed. Paterson criticised the government's record on antisemitism and called for the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for Commonwealth terrorism offences. Paterson asserted that the government had been slow to respond to the crisis and only acted under political pressure.