Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer the minister to her recent interviews on Channel 7's Sunrise. Was the minister or her office aware, prior to 15 February 2021, of the allegations aired on The Project that night?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House is seeking the call.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to pages 554 and 555 of Practice. There are a number of occasions, and we've been through this a lot over the years and there are many precedents under Speaker Smith, where, if a question is asked about someone that goes to a period prior to them holding the portfolio, the first question that can only be asked is to refer to the quotation where as a minister they have reference back to it and to ask whether that is correct. Simply referring to it and then asking a different question—certainly, in our whole time in opposition, that never got it over the line. The first question always had to be providing the quotation exactly in line with that precedent, asking whether that was accurate and, then, subsequent questions could come based on the answer the minister had then given. That's the way it's worked here the whole way through.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Practice is very clear at page 555:

… where Ministers have made statements either inside or outside the House about matters that may concern their actions before becoming a Member and/or a Minister, questions have been permitted on those statements.

The question was, very specifically, in relation to quite extensive statements the minister who's received the question made about this matter on Sunrise on Monday and, indeed, prior to that.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for McEwen will not interject. I just want to be clear on this point of Practice. Questions of this nature are problematic because, as members know, standing orders are clear that ministers can only be asked about questions about which they are currently responsible for. Whilst the deputy leader did frame the question around media statements and comments that were made, I want to be clear, and the minister has indicated she's happy to take the question, moving forward, that members can only ask questions about issues, in the statement, around page 555, 'where ministers have made statements either inside or outside the House about matters that may concern their actions before becoming a member and a minister', that questions have been permitted on these statements, twice. I'm going to allow the minister to be careful with her answer to make sure she's conforming with the standing orders but also in making it relevant to the question regarding her statement, not regarding anything before she was a minister but regarding her statements as a minister. I give her the call.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

PLIBERSEK (—) (): I 100 per cent stand by what I said on Monday, and I 100 per cent stand by what I have done at every stage. I'll tell you what really shocks me and what really disappointments me about this is that, once again, we are missing the point here. A young woman who worked in this place has made a serious allegation that she was sexually assaulted in her workplace. She has made serious allegations that it was not properly investigated or dealt with—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Newcastle. The deputy leader, on a point of order?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was within the standing orders. The minister indicated her willingness to answer the question. The point of order now is on relevance. The direct question was: was the minister or her office aware prior to 15 February 2021 of the allegations aired on The Project that night? So, if she is answering the question, she needs to answer the question.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The deputy leader will resume her seat. For clarity for the deputy leader, if that were the question, it would have been ruled out of order. Moving forward, because you're asking a question about a decision or an action that was taken before she became a minister. Your question was framed around her media interview. That's why it was permitted under the standing orders. You can only ask the Prime Minister or ministers questions about what they've been responsible for since they've become Prime Minister or a minister. So, the minister is being relevant. I'm going to listen carefully to what she says to make sure she is within standing orders. So far, she is. I'll give her the call. She has two minutes remaining.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me if I stand by what I said on Monday, and I do. I'll tell you why I do. Because it shocks me that, in this place today, we have these sorts of questions when, what the issue here is, a young woman who worked in this place has made a serious allegation that she complains and has further alleged that her complaint was not dealt with appropriately by her employer. You bet I asked questions; you bet I took it seriously. Would I do the same again? I 100 per cent would. There is a reason that only 13 per cent of sexual assaults are reported to police in this country.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney, on a point of order?

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on standing order 91, which is about disorderly conduct. This is a conversation that is highly emotive, and there are questions to be answered here, but I do not think it's appropriate for any member of this House to be yelling across the chamber at another member to just simply 'shut up'. I don't think that's appropriate. If I could call the House back to order and ask that that be addressed.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the minister concluded her answer?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lalor is on her feet. The member for Lalor will resume her seat for a moment. The House will come to order. I agree there is far too much noise, particularly regarding this subject. So I'm going to ask all members to reflect on that point, and I will hear from the deputy leader on a point of order.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on your ruling, Mr Speaker. The minister's non-answer to the question relates to your ruling. I want to ask to your ruling and quote from practice: where ministers have made statements either inside or outside the House about matters that may concern their action before becoming a minister, questions have been permitted on those statements. I am not sure what in your ruling narrows the answer that the minister was entitled to give so that she could not address the question I was asking her.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has concluded her answer, but I'll hear from the Leader of the House on this matter.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to the point of order, because there's no doubt this issue will arise again at other times—it has over the last 10 years. The key point is the final two words that were just read out by the deputy leader, which is about questions having been permitted on 'those statements'. The question can only be asked about the statement that has been made while the person was a minister.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so everyone is clear if there are going to be further questions—

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It says before they were a minister.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I'm happy to go through this with her after question time if that assists as well: questions can be asked of a minister. The point of Practice is about statements that they've made as a minister regarding another issue. Whatever the minister may or may not have said on that interview, you can ask questions about.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear on this point: what the minister said in her interview on Monday went specifically to the question of who had known what prior to the episode being broadcast. I'd suggest to you that the deputy leader is entirely within the standing orders in the question she's asking.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's why it was allowed. That's correct. If it weren't, it wouldn't have been allowed. We will move forward. I give the call to the member for Lalor.