Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. A year ago the Prime Minister told the House he'd asked his former chief of staff to investigate what his office knew and when about the reported assault of Ms Higgins, just metres from his office. How is it possible that he still doesn't know who in his office knew what and when?

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before I call the Prime Minister, I do want to make a statement about this, and I'd ask all members for their very careful attention. Members know that sometimes during proceedings they might refer to specific or more general legal matters. From time to time, Speakers find it necessary to remind members about the powerful privilege of freedom of speech which attaches to those contributions. With this privilege comes the responsibility for us all to choose our words very carefully, with due regard to potential consequences. This is especially so in relation to remarks about a specific criminal matter where charges have been laid. The sub judice convention of the House is one guide to us in exercising the free speech privilege responsibly.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind members that, while the House has an inherent right to inquire into and debate matters of public importance, at the same time the Speaker has discretion to ensure that the House does not set itself up as an alternative forum to the courts or that proceedings of the House do not interfere with the course of justice. It's natural that members might take a special interest in a criminal matter which relates to the parliament or the parliamentary precincts. Nevertheless, such an aspect does not relieve us of our responsibilities. I therefore remind all members to exercise the rights they have as members responsibly in order not to risk prejudicing any court proceedings.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Secretary Gaetjens advised in August 2021 that he had suspended his inquiry until the criminal proceedings had been finalised. This was based—

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

More cover-up!

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs is warned.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This was based on legal advice following the ACT DPP's position that any further action on the Gaetjens inquiry could be highly prejudicial to those proceedings. I take the interjection from the member for Isaacs. If he believes that we should act contrary to the advice we have received on that matter as the alternative senior law officer—

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because of previous questions, I can understand the Prime Minister might have thought this was something different, but in terms of direct relevance this is not a question about the Gaetjens report. This is a question about whether or not it's possible that the Prime Minister still does not himself know the answer to this.

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question does go to the investigation that was engaged by the Prime Minister with his chief of staff in relation to the delay that's been spoken of in the question. I'll ask the Prime Minister to return to the question. I don't think you're far off it, Prime Minister, as far as relevance is concerned, but I would ask you to deal with the delay issue, please.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both the point of order and the question assert conclusions that have not been found. Secondly, the DPP's position is that any further action on the Gaetjens inquiry could be highly prejudicial to those proceedings. The member for Isaacs, as the alternative senior law officer of this country, who would so willingly ask the government to disregard such advice, reflects appallingly on his own legal judgement and why he'd be ever unfit to hold that office.

Opposition members interjecting—

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left, the interjections are far too high. If I can't hear the Prime Minister when points of order are taken, it makes my life very difficult as the Speaker.