Matter of Public Importance

International Relations: Australia and Japan

Senate · Wednesday 12 August 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

Senator Dave Sharma moved a matter of public importance criticising the Prime Minister for mocking a diplomatic gift from Japan and refusing to apologise. Opposition senators argued the comments were sexist, disrespectful, and damaging to Australia's strategic and trade relationship with Japan. Government senators defended the Prime Minister, dismissing the issue as a manufactured controversy and highlighting the strength of the bilateral partnership. The debate concluded without a vote, as is standard for matters of public importance.

Outcome

The matter of public importance was debated without a vote being taken.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Dave Sharma (NSW) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Sharma argued that the Prime Minister's podcast comments regarding crown melons were a major diplomatic blunder that demeaned a key ally. Sharma stated that the refusal to apologise damaged Australia's vital trade and security relationship with Japan, which has been a top trading partner for decades. Sharma claimed that government ministers were engaging in a cover-up by denying the offensive nature of the remarks. Sharma urged the Prime Minister to issue an apology to repair the relationship and restore national dignity.

Opposition response

Anne Ruston (SA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Ruston argued that the Prime Minister's actions set a deplorable standard for the treatment of women in public life. Ruston cited the Prime Minister's past statements on accountability and respect for women to highlight the inconsistency in his current refusal to apologise. Ruston claimed that senior Labor ministers were defending indefensible behaviour, contradicting their previous stances on misogyny. Ruston called for an unequivocal apology to the Japanese Prime Minister and Australian women.

Dorinda Cox (WA) (Australian Labor Party) ALP oppose

Cox argued that the motion was a manufactured political controversy distracting from urgent national issues like cost of living and housing. Cox emphasised the long-standing strength of the Australia-Japan partnership, noting decades of trade, investment, and strategic cooperation. Cox claimed the opposition was attempting to drag a strong diplomatic relationship into a scandal over a podcast comment. Cox stated that the government would continue to strengthen regional partnerships rather than engage in outrage politics.
Pauline Hanson (QLD) (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) One Nation oppose

Hanson described the Prime Minister as unaccountable and unfit for office, citing the podcast remarks as evidence of poor judgement. Hanson argued that the comments were sexist, offensive, and embarrassing for Australia on the international stage. Hanson claimed that the Prime Minister's refusal to apologise demonstrated a lack of transparency and broken promises. Hanson stated that the incident reinforced her party's campaign against the current government.
Kerrynne Liddle (SA) (Liberal Party) Liberal oppose

Liddle argued that the Prime Minister's comments were beneath the office and warranted a direct apology to the Japanese leader. Liddle criticised the government's pattern of denying and deflecting criticism rather than accepting responsibility. Liddle noted that the former Japanese ambassador had described the remarks as insulting, which should have prompted an apology. Liddle called for an explanation from the Labor caucus regarding their silence on the issue.
Susan McDonald (QLD) (National Party) Nationals oppose

McDonald argued that the Prime Minister's remarks threatened Australia's prosperity and jobs by damaging relations with a key gas trading partner. McDonald claimed that Japan was already considering alternative suppliers due to government gas policy, and the comments exacerbated this risk. McDonald criticised senior Labor women for failing to call out the behaviour, contrasting it with their past actions against conservative leaders. McDonald insisted that the Prime Minister must apologise to uphold the standards of the office.

Opened by

Dave Sharma (NSW) (Liberal Party)

Liberal

Speeches

7 speeches, 4 other contributors

Topics

China & Indo-Pacific Foreign Affairs Trade

Debate International Relations: Australia and Israel Take Note Debate, 10 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Foreign Affairs, Trade
Debate International Relations: Australia and Israel Take Note Debate, 9 Sep 2026 · Shared topics: Foreign Affairs, Trade
Question Time House Question Time 11 Aug 2026 · Shared topics: China & Indo-Pacific, Foreign Affairs
Question Time Senate Question Time 13 Aug 2026 · Shared topics: China & Indo-Pacific, Foreign Affairs

About Senate debates

The Senate debates bills, motions, matters of public importance and the answers given in Question Time. Senators from all parties and the crossbench take part, and a minister or the minister representing them usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.