Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Should government policy on secret payments be extended to him? Peter and his wife were forced to live in a shed for over two years after their builder went broke and their HIH building insurance became worthless. The Prime Minister continued to live in his mansion while they had to live in a shed. Don't Peter and thousands of other victims deserve to know what role the Prime Minister played in ruining their lives? Isn't their story still continuing with his cuts to workers and families, while sending cash to big business and millionaires? (Time expired)

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

I will not give the Prime Minister the call just yet. Members on my right will not interject. The member for Corangamite is now warned! Again, the member for Isaacs well knows, because of my previous rulings and earlier rulings that he has been listening to, that matters prior to a member becoming a member of parliament or indeed becoming a minister cannot be canvassed in question time and are out of order. The first part of that question refers to the Prime Minister's previous answer, but, from what I could hear—there were some interjections near the end and I was hoping to hear the member for Isaacs in the final few seconds—the only part that was in order was in reference to the Prime Minister's previous answer. The rest of the question was out of order. I will again say that the Prime Minister needs only to refer to the section relating to his previous answer, and I am cautioning the member for Isaacs along the lines of my ruling the other day with respect to the member for McMahon, with the bulk of the question being out of order, and if I consider it to be deliberately so I will not be allowing any part of the question. But on this occasion I will allow the first part of the question. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I wonder if the member for Isaacs could remind us whether he actually lives in his own electorate. Has he moved in. Oh, yes—another champion of the people. That is what we get from the member for Isaacs. Let's be quite clear about this. This Queen's Counsel often has the opportunity to explore his own electorate, but he certainly does not live there. He observes it objectively from a great distance, with an imperial equanimity given to someone who has no connection with the men and women and families he represents.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

The member for Lilley is warned. The member for Wills will leave under 94(a).

The member for Wills then left the chamber.

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

What we see now is the desperation the Labor Party has sunk to, because all the Leader of the Opposition has to do is tell us what that money was really for. What was that money really for? He talks about secret payments. I have made no payments, secret or otherwise—none. The fact of the matter is if the honourable member is suggesting that no litigation can ever be settled on confidential terms, they can move a private member's bill. They would do a bit of damage to the honourable member's own profession. It would never happen. I am sure the member for Isaacs has never been involved in a settlement like that—no, I suspect not; I suspect that is right. He has to keep those fees coming; he would not want to settle. The honourable member's pathetic attempt to amplify the politics-of-envy campaign by the Leader of the Opposition is as disingenuous as anything we have seen from the opposition benches. We are defending workers; you are selling them out. We did not sell out their penalty rates; Labor did. We did not take half a million dollars from an employer; that was the union the honourable member was leader of—taking money to sell members out and not telling them the truth about the money they are taking from the employers they are doing those dirty deals with. That is the difference: we want to see the light, we want to see the truth and we want to see the unions to own up to their members.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

The member for Perth and the member for Burt are warned.