Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. The former member for New England, Tony Windsor, said yesterday:

Why is Barnaby Joyce different to anybody that has stood aside during this particular issue?

Why won't the Prime Minister direct the Deputy Prime Minister to resign from the cabinet? Is it because the Prime Minister relies on his single vote to cling to power?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House, on a point of order? Members will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin is warned.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, this question was asked yesterday and fully answered by the Prime Minister, and, under the standing orders, a question fully answered cannot be renewed.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst there was a question that was very similar, the requirement is that it's identical and—whilst I try to carry as much Hansard around in my head as I can!—I don't believe it's identical. That's how the standing orders are framed, so I am going to allow the question.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the honourable member for Hunter did was not ask me a question; he quoted a rhetorical question from Tony Windsor which was apparently addressed to the world at large. But I won't put him to the trouble of reformulating his question. The member for New England is entitled to sit in this parliament. He's a member of the House of Representatives, he's the Deputy Prime Minister, he's a minister in my cabinet and he's entitled to be so. That's the case. We've referred the matter to the High Court not because we lack any confidence in his eligibility to sit here but because the High Court can take the opportunity to provide some clarification on this section of the Constitution, which has limitations, clearly, as the High Court has described. It's not unlimited; it's not to be read literally. That's very, very clear, and at least one member opposite is taking advantage of case law in that regard. So it's a good opportunity for the High Court to provide some further clarification. As I've said before, based on the advice of the Solicitor-General, the government is very, very confident that the member for New England's eligibility to sit in this House will be confirmed.