Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (15:32): As Senator O'Neill has revealed in her own actions, Labor has had a very uncomfortable day. Labor senators have had a very uncomfortable day. And what we saw from Senator Murray Watt from Queensland was a brevity in answering questions from coalition senators that is usually absent. And why was Senator Watt exercising brevity in responding to coalition senators' questions today? Because the government is exposed and the government is vulnerable. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the parliament that reports that ISIS brides were being repatriated to Australia were 'not accurate'. Last night, instead, we learned that the acting chief of the New South Wales Police Force was working with federal counterparts to finalise operations relating to the return of Islamic State associates. The coalition in question time today asked the government to be clear and honest with the Australian people and confirm whether individuals associated or formerly associated with ISIS are in fact returning to Australia, or have returned to Australia in recent months—yes or no? We were curious to ask those questions at two o'clock today because earlier today Senator Gallagher, a very senior Labor senator, had confirmed in this Senate chamber that security agencies have been monitoring and continue to monitor a cohort of Australians in Syria. And so we wanted to know, quite rightly, more information about that, because this goes to the heart not just of our national security but the community of local communities across our country. So why else would Labor be embarrassed today? Why else would Labor be uncomfortable today? Why would Labor senators be red-faced today? Because today we have learnt—splashed across our national newspapers, quite rightly—that the former Victorian Labor premier accepted an invitation and took himself off to Beijing with the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the authoritarian leader of North Korea and the President of Russia. There is silence from Labor senators. You can see it in their faces; they are embarrassed. Senator O'Neill: On a point of order with regard to impugning the motivations of a senator: the senator should withdraw. He should not take the silence, which is respect for the work of the Senate, as an acceptance of any of the falsehoods he's perpetrated in his speech. Anything personal should be immediately withdrawn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think there was a personal reflection in what Senator Smith said. I will listen very carefully. Senator O'Neill: Point of order— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have taken advice on this. Senator O'Neill: I ask you to look at the statement from Senator Smith that indicated that silence was acceptance of his position and that we were shamed by that. Our silence is simply respect for the Senate, and it's been completely mischaracterised. I believe he should withdraw because of that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will take this under advisement. However, in my hearing of what Senator Smith said, I do not believe at this stage that he has breached standing orders. I will give Senator Smith the call but I will consider the matter, and, if appropriate, I will come back to you directly or via the President to the chamber. Point of order, Senator Polley? Senator Polley: I, too, would like you to take that under advisement and to report back to the Senate. When you abide by the standing orders, that should not be taken as a reflection. I ask that he withdraw those comments. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have already said I have taken the matter under advisement. That was an unnecessary point of order. I'd already taken advice from the Clerk on the issue that Senator O'Neill had raised. However, because it has been raised by Senator O'Neill I said I would take it under advisement. Senator DEAN SMITH: Those interjections demonstrate with great clarity the level of uncomfortableness that Labor senators experienced today. I'd like to applaud former Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister? Senator McAllister: Senator Smith again asserts that Labor senators, who are appropriately seeking advice from you on the way the standing orders interact with the comments he is making—Senator Smith's comments just now suggest that that, again, in some way communicates a view about his speech. That is obviously not the case but it also seems to invoke the same problem that Senator O'Neill and Senator Polley have drawn your attention to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will clarify the matter again with the clerks, but, honestly, in my hearing of what Senator Smith said, I do not believe he impugned anyone's motives. I will take further advice. I stand by my previous ruling. Senator DEAN SMITH: I applaud the courage that's been demonstrated by former Queensland Labor premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, former federal Labor member Michael Danby, former prominent Labor senator and minister Graham Richardson and former prominent New South Wales state Labor parliamentarian Michael Costa, who have all agreed that the decision by Dan Andrews, the former Labor premier of Victoria, to go to Beijing to participate in the celebrations for the 80th anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II—and that is an interpretation that the Chinese Communist Party seeks to make over those events which is very, very wrong. Those Labor former premiers and federal parliamentarians have demonstrated great courage and, in fact, protected Australia's national interest by calling out the poor judgement that Mr Andrews has made in choosing to go to China. We have to be very conscious that we are dealing with a significantly changed geopolitical environment. The most recent Defence strategic review document makes it very clear. It says that Australia's interests are now more challenging and that we are dealing with a competition with China that is being framed by an intense contest of narratives and values. (Time expired)