Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In an article in today's Herald Sun entitled, 'Liberals told Liu was bad idea', it has been reported that the Liberal Party was warned by intelligence agencies against preselecting Ms Liu for the seat of Chisholm prior to this year's federal election. Did the Prime Minister receive any advice about the current member for Chisholm from government agencies before the 18 May election?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Wong for that question. Obviously preselection matters for all parties are matters for party organisations. I'm not aware of any such advice having been received, but, in an abundance of caution and to make sure that I'm 100 per cent accurate, I'll take that question on notice and provide an answer.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a supplementary question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the Prime Minister or his office sought any advice from government agencies today following the publication of this story? And if not, why not?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that that is a rather irresponsible question. I think that Senator Wong well knows—she's senior enough in this occupation to know—that no government ever comments on the advice that—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is on direct relevance. This is a serious matter. The question does actually not go to the content of the advice; it goes to whether the Prime Minister considered there are public reports so serious that he sought advice. I simply asked: has he sought advice? I didn't ask what the advice was.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand, Senator Wong. On the point of order, the minister has been speaking for 20 seconds. I'll allow him to continue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has full confidence in the member for Chisholm, as he has indicated publicly. This is nothing but an attempt at a Labor smear. The double standard is quite unbelievable. If you look at the Labor candidate for Chisholm in that same election, she was a member and an honorary chairwoman of the same organisation. She equally gave advice that she wasn't aware—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it really is cowardly to smear somebody who's not even in the parliament. Mr President, this goes to direct relevance and it goes to imputations as well. There are serious national security questions raised by someone on the front page of the paper. You ought to respond—not smear someone who is not here to defend herself.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Cormann, Senator Wong has reminded you of the nature of her question. In this case, I believe the appropriate aspect of the supplementary relates to the specific nature of the question rather than other people.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely reject the proposition that Senator Wong has just made. There are not serious national security issues at stake in relation to the member for Chisholm. This is a clumsy interview of a new backbencher who happens to be an Australian of Chinese descent, the same as the Labor candidate in Chisholm was an Australian of Chinese descent— (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question: has anyone in this government received any warnings in relation to Ms Liu's suitability to sit as a member of the Australian parliament?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a disgraceful question. The member for Chisholm is absolutely suitable to be a member of this parliament, and she was elected as such by the people of Chisholm where she was facing a Labor candidate who equally was an Australian of Chinese descent and who was a member of similar organisations. Indeed, none other than the then shadow Treasurer accepted hospitality from the organisation that is supposedly now this major national security risk. This is a transparent Labor smear against a Liberal member of parliament in an electorate that—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister to return to the question—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I would have thought you would have taken this seriously.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

What's the point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is on direct relevance. The front page of the papers assert that there were intelligence warnings about a person. How is it a smear to ask what you have done about that?

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I believe, with respect, that that is a debating point. I believe the minister is being directly relevant. I cannot instruct him how to answer a question nor on the content of it.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) | Link to this | Hansard source

We in this business all know how things get into newspapers. Let me just say again what I said before: the Prime Minister has full confidence in the member for Chisholm, as the people of Chisholm expressed their confidence in the member for Chisholm at the last election. All this is about is still the seven stages of grief that the Labor Party are going through after the last election. They can't accept the fact that they lost the election and that they lost the election in Chisholm too.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a brief statement to the chamber. The statement I'm about to make is not a reflection on the previous question, but I'm going to take this opportunity to remind senators of two elements in the standing orders. Standing order 73 says, 'Questions shall not contain imputations.' Standing order 1933 includes the following phrase:

… all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses—

that includes the other house of this parliament—

members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.

So, while I'm not making an observation about the previous question, I would like the senators to keep that in mind when asking questions about any matter that may involve an imputation or improper reflection upon a member of another place.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

And answering—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

That is quite right—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. If the standing orders—

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

That implies the answer—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

The imputation was in the answer, with respect.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not making an observation on either that question or that answer. I am just providing a pre-emptive warning to the Senate that the standing orders are very strict when it comes to reflections or imputations on members of either house. We have let the issue of imputation slip a little more generally, but on that issue I think it needs to be applied strictly. It can be avoided through the careful wording of questions and answers.