Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Moore today relating to the release by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (Queensland) of a domestic violence policy.

This was the first question of the day. It seems like a long time ago. The question I put to the minister was about the Liberal Party knowledge of the One Nation domestic violence plan that was only released quite recently and also whether in fact, as a result of the knowledge of that plan, she had any concerns and, as a result of those concerns, which she indicated that she had, whether she was concerned about the situation in Queensland—I won't call it a deal, as the minister seemed to take objection to the term 'deal'—which is on the public record that the Liberal National Party is preferencing One Nation in at least 49 seats in the Queensland election. In terms of the process—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not in Thuringowa, as you know.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry? I heard something across the chamber. I'm concerned about that.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I may be able to help you—just ignore the interjection.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raised those issues because the release of the One Nation domestic violence plan a couple of days ago—it's a very short plan, and anyone in the chamber would be able to read it quite clearly—has caused a number of responses in Queensland by people who work within the industry and also by people concerned about the issues of domestic violence. In particular, the previous minister in Queensland, my friend Shannon Fentiman, and the Liberal-National shadow minister for child protection and domestic violence issues in Queensland, Ros Bates, have both made very strong comments on their concerns about the impact of this particular plan. Also, my friend Angela Lynch from the Women's Legal Service went on record as well around the issues of legal process.

The plan is clear and it talks about the fact that there are concerns about a number of the policies that are part of this new plan put forward by One Nation. One of them is around the appearance in court of people involved in domestic violence and also the impact that this could have on people's feelings of safety and protection in this area. The Senate did an extensive inquiry on domestic violence a couple of years ago, and one of the key issues that came out of that was the concern about the impact of having both the alleged victim of domestic violence and the alleged perpetrator of domestic violence being together in a court process. This was raised consistently as an area which could create further damage, further harm and further fear—not just to the people involved immediately but also to the children who could be caught up in this process.

We raised this particularly because, when Mr Dickson and Ms Hanson were releasing this plan in Queensland, they said that the whole focus of the domestic violence plan before us was to look at the needs of children. We all agree with making sure that we listen to the needs of children. The minister made a strong point in her answers that she believed that everybody in this chamber would share concerns around ensuring that anyone who is caught up in the process of domestic violence should feel safe and protected. Unfortunately, Ms Hanson was not in the chamber at that time, so we don't know whether Ms Hanson feels the same way. It would be useful to get that on record sometime in the future. I say 'Ms Hanson', in her role as leader of the party, but I should say 'Senator Hanson', in the case of being in the Senate.

There was a clear reason behind my question. When there are such strong and very longstanding policies in this place about what we need to do cooperatively together at the state and federal government levels to ensure that we identify the clear concerns around domestic violence, when issues have been raised by practitioners, supporters and advocates for those in domestic violence and when we have a plan being put forward by one party and then we have the decision by the LNP government in Queensland to provide preference deals with that party that's put forward such a plan, the reason for my question was to see whether, in fact, the minister responsible here was aware of the plan and whether she had talked with the One Nation party. We found out that she had not spoken with the party, but we did get clearly on record that she was concerned by some of the issues in that plan that I'd put forward in my question.

So my question remains. If there are these concerns raised with the minister, who has taken a lead in the area of domestic violence nationally, there should be an interaction, there should be discussion and there should be discussions about whether the LNP is fully aware of this particular policy and, if so—and having their shadow minister knowing about it—what will happen next. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately—and, coming from Senator Moore, I say particularly unfortunately—this is clearly a despicable and deliberately misleading slur against my party in Queensland. Senator Moore spoke about the candidate for Thuringowa and in the next breath talked about LNP preferences for One Nation. Let me be very, very, very clear about this. In the electorate of Thuringowa, the LNP is, heaven forbid, preferencing the Labor Party before One Nation. Senator Moore knows that.

There is no deal from the LNP in Queensland with One Nation on anything—preferences or otherwise. But the ALP in Queensland is run, controlled and financed by the union movement. I was in Cairns a couple of weeks ago, and the union movement had a roadside stall with placards they were waving around that said, 'Put the LNP last!' If you put the LNP last, that means the Labor Party and their backers in Queensland are preferencing One Nation before the LNP.

I would like to have Senator Moore say the same words about her backers and funders, the union movement, who are there putting One Nation before the LNP. All the fine words you said, Senator Moore, about domestic violence and violence against women, you would equally say about your union mates, who are urging voters in Queensland to put the LNP last, which, by extension—and you don't have to be very bright to work this out—means that the ALP will be preferencing One Nation before the LNP.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not true. Stop lying.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's just not true.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad to have the interjections from the two Queensland senators here, because they're both products of the union movement, they are both controlled by the union movement and they are both funded by the union movement. If they will get up here and tell me that the union movement is not running a campaign in Queensland that says, 'Put the LNP last!'—in other words, preference One Nation before the LNP—then I will take that down and write it in gold every day between now and the Queensland state election.

I saw them in Cairns. I've seen them in Townsville with these placards—'Put the LNP last!'—which means Labor voters preference One Nation before the LNP. What they do is their own business, but it is hypocritical for Labor politicians to get up here and blame the LNP for preferencing One Nation when, in fact, the people that run and fund the ALP have workers out today, as we speak, on pre-poll—the CFMEU is out in droves in the electorate of Burdekin, six of them at a time, saying, 'Put the LNP last!' which means, 'We're urging you to support One Nation in a preference before the LNP'.

This is despicable. It is deliberately misleading, and it is a typical Labor rort in Queensland. The Labor Party say, 'We're not doing it,' but the Labor Party don't run the campaign in Queensland, and they don't fund the campaign in Queensland. The Labor Party do not have the men and women on the polling booths in Queensland. They're all the union thugs from the CFMEU and elsewhere, and they are the ones who are handing out how-to-vote cards saying, 'Put the LNP last!'—in other words, preference One Nation over the LNP.

I conclude where I started, again, to make it very clear that the LNP in the electorate of Thuringowa, which Senator Moore used in her questions, will be preferencing the ALP before preferencing the One Nation candidate. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers to questions posed by Senator Moore to Senator Cash today. I have to say I was shocked by Senator Cash's answers to Senator Moore's questions. I was shocked that we would have a minister for women, among whose responsibilities is the protection of women from domestic violence, who seems to have no concern whatsoever for the disgraceful comments made by Senator Hanson and her candidates regarding domestic violence. Senator Moore asked Senator Cash whether she had spoken with Senator Hanson about Senator Hanson's policy that supports violent fathers having visitation rights to their children even when there are court issued protection orders to protect children from those violent fathers. You would think that, if this minister were doing her job properly—standing up for the rights of women fleeing from domestic violence—she would actually take it seriously and she would have a word to Senator Hanson about that policy. She didn't answer that whatsoever. She clearly has not spoken to Senator Hanson about that point. Similarly, Senator Cash has done nothing about the offensive comments put forward by one of Senator Hanson's candidates for the state election regarding domestic violence which were made on his own business's social media pages. As I say, you would think that a minister who was serious about her responsibilities to protect women from domestic violence would do something about that and would take Senator Hanson aside and say, 'Look, what you're saying is unacceptable; maybe you don't understand the issues at play, but here's my perspective,' but she clearly hasn't done anything of the sort.

We know why Senator Cash never takes Senator Hanson on about these matters, and that's because she desperately needs the votes of Senator Hanson and her fellow senators in Canberra to get anything done. We've all seen Senator Cash taking Senator Hanson aside, having a good old joke and giving a pat on the back and a bit of a hug. She's constantly and desperately schmoozing Senator Hanson for her votes. That's why Senator Cash is never prepared to have a hard conversation with Senator Hanson about the grossly offensive and, in some cases, dangerous positions and comments from her party. We also know that Senator Cash has a long history with One Nation. She was one of the architects of the deal between One Nation and the Liberal Party in the Western Australia election. She doesn't want to admit that, but we know that they—she and Senator Cormann—went out for a nice private dinner and did the deal to get those preferences exchanged. So she has form in ignoring and turning a blind eye to the worst excesses of One Nation in order to get their votes here and in order to get their preferences in elections.

But what is going on here at the moment is about a different preference deal. It's not about Western Australian preference deals; it's about Queensland preference deals.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Senator O'Sullivan probably knows about them as well. The state LNP in Queensland have repeatedly said, 'Oh, no, there's no preference deal between us and One Nation—none at all.' Senator Cash stood up here today and said it again—'No, no, I don't know anything about a preference deal'—just like she didn't know anything about a preference deal in Western Australia, even though she did the deal over a dinner with One Nation. How else do you explain that, in the Queensland state election, the LNP gave its preferences to One Nation in 49 seats—over half of the seats that are being contested? And that's ignoring the large number of seats in which One Nation isn't even standing a candidate.

The Gold Coast is one of the areas that I've been spending most of my time campaigning in and doing most of my activity. We all know that is a key battleground in this election, where there are a number of highly vulnerable LNP seats that are at risk of falling to Labor. Rather than cutting a preference deal with One Nation there, what the LNP and One Nation have done is come to an arrangement where One Nation won't even stand a candidate. That's their way of propping up vulnerable LNP members on the Gold Coast, as they are in so many other places. So Senator Cash and the state LNP back in Queensland are saying: 'No, believe us: there's no deal here whatsoever, just like there's never been a deal anywhere else. It just so happens that, in 49 seats, we're giving One Nation our preferences and, in a number of other seats, including our most vulnerable seats, One Nation isn't even standing a candidate.' If that's not a deal, I don't know what is. How could the Queensland LNP be doing a deal with One Nation? That is a party that makes offensive statements and has offensive positions, policy-wise, on domestic violence. They have a senator who walks in here dressed in a burqa and shames some of our multicultural communities. They're out there—and forgive the language, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle—saying teachers are teaching kids to strap on dildos. And there is the chaos from the anti-vaxxers about autism. Why does the LNP keep doing deals with One Nation? (Time expired)

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must be getting used to this place. It's been 15 months since I was elected and I think this is the first day that I have felt truly jaded. I am so sick of us talking about ourselves. We are constantly talking about ourselves. Don't you think that the public is sick to death of hearing us talking about ourselves?

We have so many bigger issues to deal with, and yet we're talking about preference deals. We're talking about what was said in estimates. We're talking about citizenship over and over again. This is madness. We are here to govern. The parliament is supposed to be a solemn place. It is supposed to be a place of considered deliberation. It is supposed to be a contest of ideas, and we are talking about ourselves again—this time, under the shroud of domestic violence. The argument we're having here today in the motion to take note of answers is not about domestic violence, and yet domestic violence is such an important issue. It's an issue that we desperately need to take seriously, and yet you are using it as political opportunism. I find it totally shameful.

There are so many things that we could be talking about. We could be talking about tax policy. We could be talking about tax reform. We could be talking about the $150 million of extra taxes that the Labor Party intend to impose on an unsuspecting public, but they won't talk about that. What they want to talk about is themselves again. We could be talking about energy policy—a transformative energy policy that has been proposed in this place. We have discussed over and over again how important affordable and reliable energy is, and yet the Labor Party—who are completely tied up in knots over their ridiculous and irrational ideological obsession with their Renewable Energy Target—don't want to talk about energy policy. I can understand why, because it is so politically unpopular for you. You don't want to talk about that. What you want to talk about is yourselves, again. Don't you see how frustrated the public are with us talking about ourselves?

If you want to talk about domestic violence, fine, let's talk about domestic violence. The Turnbull government's first cabinet decision was to dedicate $100 million to domestic violence. There is nothing that this government should hang its head in shame for on the issue of domestic violence. In fact, we should stand proud for all that we've done. Please, let me enlighten you to some extent about what has been done by this government in the area of domestic violence. We have dedicated $100 million to technology and to police and healthcare training. Prime Minister Turnbull has taken the lead on this cultural change and, indeed, so has the Attorney-General. In fact, he was speaking just the other day about new specialist domestic violence units—$3.4 million in funding committed to establish six new domestic violence units and support for the expansion of an existing one, ensuring more women can receive the vital legal and social support they need. Family violence is truly devastating. It devastates the lives of tens of thousands of Australians. It affects women and children of all demographics and leaves scars that may last a lifetime on the children who suffer and witness it. Yet what you have done today is shameful. What you have done is pure political opportunism. Rather than talking about what's important in this place, which is debating and contesting ideas—rather than talking about tax reform, energy reform, the new trade agreement with Peru or banking and superannuation reforms—you have taken a truly important issue that affects so many, that has devastated so many lives, and you have created a political hobbyhorse.

This is a place of dignity. It is a place of solemn and thorough consideration of issues. There will always be political argy-bargy, but your insinuations and accusations today are completely out of line, and you know it. The integrity of senators here has never been in doubt. It's never been in doubt by the leadership. It's never been in doubt in my mind and, let's face it, it's never been in doubt in your mind either. What you have done today is political opportunism. It is opportunistic deflection at best; it is shameless and immoral disingenuousness at worst. I hope you hang your heads in shame, because this is not what this place is for.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think what's become clear is that the acting lessons that Senator Cash has had are compulsory on the other side, because we've just seen another performance. There is a serious element to this, and Senator Moore explained this. Election campaigns often put a spotlight on policy. That's what's happened in Queensland with the One Nation policy on domestic violence. Basically what this means is that One Nation's domestic violence policy supports violent fathers having visitation rights despite court issued protection orders. That is what their policy is. That is what is on the One Nation website. The reality is that the fact that the Liberals are preferencing One Nation in 49 seats means that, if One Nation wins seats in Queensland, it is going to be because of their preferences. That is the reality; that is why this is a serious issue.

I just wanted to take up the point that Senator Macdonald raised, because I can't let that sit. No party in Australia has done more than the Queensland branch of the Labor Party to defeat One Nation. In every election since One Nation have been on the scene, we have put them last. We will do that in this election campaign and we will continue to do it for as long as One Nation exists.

Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you'd be aware of this: if there's one thing you'd say about Senator Cash it is that she is a vigilant minister. She is so vigilant that we know that on occasion her office tips off journos to get down to see a raid that's going on. But you'd have to say on this issue that she's been less than vigilant. We raised this serious issue. Senator Cash had the opportunity to condemn it, but Senator Cash did not. I think that speaks volumes for the relationship between One Nation and the Liberal-National Party in this chamber and indeed across Australia. Since I got elected, I've seen the way that they've operated in this place. We know that One Nation vote with the LNP 85 per cent of the time in the Senate. We know how important those votes are and the damage that it does to Queenslanders and Australians. We know they voted for anti-work laws. We know they voted to cut pensions. We know they voted for education cuts as well, and there's been a pattern around Australia. We know what they did in WA for the state election. Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you know that particularly well, given that's your home state. We also know what is going on in Queensland, where the LNP are preferencing One Nation in 49 seats. This will have consequences.

Senator Macdonald mentioned Thuringowa. He didn't mention the how-to-vote card his home seat of Burdekin. I've got it here in front of me, and the LNP will be preferencing, No. 2, Sam Cox, One Nation candidate, ahead of the Labor Party. In the seat where he actually lives, they're preferencing One Nation ahead of Labor. You might say something different in Thuringowa, but we know what they're doing in Burdekin and we know what they are doing in 49 seats across the state. This will be the key point between now and the election; indeed, this will go to the next federal election as well.

Tim Nicholls likes to say he will provide stability, but you can't provide stability when you're preferencing One Nation in 49 seats. You are the ones who are going to be responsible for electing more of them to parliament at the state level, and it is something that you will wear around your necks. The voting record that we're seeing is something that will be an issue in the state campaign, and it will also be an issue in the lead-up to the next federal campaign. We know that former Senator Roberts made the quick switch across to run in Ipswich. It's already becoming a dominant issue in Ipswich. We know the record of Senator Roberts. We know that he was a former Liberal. We know that he will be someone who would potentially be a Treasurer in a Nicholls LNP government. This is what it has become. It's become a coalition—a Liberal-National Party-One Nation coalition operating in the Senate—and it will be coming to Queensland soon enough as well.

If stability is going to be the focus of this election campaign, whilst the LNP are doing what they are with preferences, whilst they are preferencing One Nation in 49 seats, they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to stability. They will be the ones responsible for electing more One Nation members to parliament. They will be the ones who will do a deal with them to form government. And we know what the consequences will be—we've seen it played out across Australia, and it will be something that will be coming to Queensland—cuts to basic services, cuts to health and a focus on whacky conspiracy theories, when what Queensland needs is a stable Labor government, and it's only Annastacia Palaszczuk who can provide that. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.