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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to an explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) moving a motion relating to consideration of matter, namely a motion relating to an explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister.

This is a motion which, if passed, will require Senator Cormann, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to come in on Monday at 12.20 to provide an assurance to the Senate that he refused on multiple occasions to give today, and that is the assurance from the government and the Prime Minister that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to remain a member of the Australian parliament. This government is failing in its most important duty, and that is to assure Australians that it is properly, sensibly and apolitically managing Australia's national security. For weeks now, questions have been raised over whether the member for Chisholm's connections mean that she may not be a fit and proper person to be in our parliament. In an effort to address the questions, she gave a television interview, a very famous television interview, but the problem is that her answers simply raised more questions.

In an attempt to deal with those new questions, the Prime Minister's office wrote a press release that was issued in the member for Chisholm's name. When that in turn raised new questions about why the member for Chisholm's statements are so wildly inconsistent, the Prime Minister then gave a press conference where he claimed that the only thing that has happened is that the member for Chisholm has given a somewhat clumsy interview. He's claimed that there is no credible suggestion of any inappropriate behaviour in relation to the member for Chisholm. Well, patently that is untrue, because this morning Australia awoke to an extraordinary report in a number of newspapers that senior Liberals were warned by security agencies that concerns about the member for Chisholm's links to the Chinese Communist Party made it unwise to preselect her. This is not the Labor Party asserting this; this is a public report in a newspaper, and it needs to be responded to by the government. It needs to have a response by the government—a response that is more than hyperbole, more than bluster and more than aggression and actually deals with a very serious accusation that has been publicly made about a member of this parliament: the assertion that security agencies warned senior Liberals that concerns about Ms Liu's links to the Communist Party of China made it unwise to preselect her. It has nothing to do with her interview; it is about whether the Prime Minister is prepared to put winning marginal seats ahead of national security and whether he is now putting his one-seat majority ahead of national security. One of the government's own MPs is quoted in the papers as saying:

… there should have been concerns when she was being chosen to stand … and I believe those concerns were ignored.

The Prime Minister should provide an honest answer. But, instead of the Prime Minister and his ministers who have responsibility for national security and who sit on the NSC providing an honest answer, this government and this Prime Minister are playing clever tricks on race.

I will say this: there is only one person who is making these specific and serious concerns about the member for Chisholm an issue about race, and that is Scott Morrison. There is only one person who is linking these specific, serious concerns about the member for Chisholm to the entire Chinese Australian population, and that is Mr Morrison. It is the Prime Minister who is using this issue as a shield from accountability to the parliament and the Australian people. The Prime Minister is hiding behind the entire Chinese Australian community to avoid saying why he has ignored warnings from our national security agencies. Can I say that is one of the lowest acts I have seen in all my time in this place—that you would use Chinese Australians in order to avoid answering questions about why you are ignoring advice from national security agencies.

Because of what the Prime Minister has done, it is more important than ever for Chinese Australians and our inclusive democracy for these specific concerns to be addressed, because all of us in this place must be able to provide a public assurance that we have no conflict of interest in serving the Australian people. That is a basic democratic requirement. I would say to the minister: if you avoid this motion, if you avoid coming in to give a statement that provides the assurance that you and Senator Payne have repeatedly declined to give—that Ms Liu is a fit and proper person to sit in this parliament—it really says that you do not understand the role you have in this democracy. (Time expired)

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

This is just a complete stunt. I'll tell you why it's a stunt. What I'm being asked to do at 12.20 pm on Monday is what I do every day in question time—every single day. The answer I'd be providing at 12.20 pm on Monday, if this motion were to get up, would be the same answer I would be giving to any question asked in question time. It's a stunt that is part of a political strategy. Senator Wong let the cat out of the bag when she said that this is about a one-seat majority. She let the cat out of the bag. This is all about Labor somehow thinking that, despite the verdict of the Australian people at the last election, they can somehow find a way to sneak themselves back into contention for getting into government. That is what this is all about.

What do you do when you pursue a smear? You refer to media reports. We know how media reports can happen. As it happens, the ABC published an article titled 'Australian Liberal MP Gladys Liu's links to secretive United Front Chinese influence arm'. But, as it turns out, Ms Liu's Labor opponent at the last election, Jennifer Yang, was a member of the same organisation. Now, do you think Senator Wong would be asking me the same question if the Labor candidate had been successful and if Senator Wong was the foreign minister of Australia right now? No, she would not. This is hypocrisy writ large. This is political opportunism and hypocrisy writ large, and it will not do you any favours whatsoever.

It is true that Gladys Liu has been very active in the Chinese community in Australia, as many other Chinese Australians have been—indeed, as the Labor candidate in Chisholm at the last election appears to have been. That is no reason to do to a newly elected member of parliament what the Labor Party is doing now. There's only one reason you're doing what you're doing, and that is that you think it could somehow get you one seat closer to the prize that you thought you had already won but turned out not to be available for you, because the Australian people made a judgement that they preferred our plan to build a stronger economy to your politics-of-envy socialist agenda that would have made Australia poorer and Australians poorer and weaker. We will not be supporting this suspension.

I might also say that Gladys Liu and Jennifer Yang were made honorary chairwomen of the United Chinese Commerce Association of Australia at the same time. Indeed, the Labor candidate, Ms Yang, attended the same World Trade United Foundation sponsored event in Melbourne in August 2017, appearing on stage, seated in the back row, along with Bruce Atkinson and Gladys Liu. Labor's candidate in Chisholm, Jennifer Yang, said she did not recall being formally appointed an honorary chairwoman of the United Chinese Commerce Association of Australia. Incidentally, is that the association that took the then shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, to China? Is it the same association?

This is the lowest of the low. The Labor Party should hang their heads in shame, in terms of how they are pursuing this. You should absolutely hang your heads in shame. I could go through more parallels to demonstrate the absolute hypocrisy in Labor pursuing this. This is confected interest about somehow having national security related concerns. You don't have national security related concerns in relation to the member for Chisholm. You know that it is completely inappropriate for you to pursue this the way you're pursuing it.

Again, I think everyone in this chamber knows what this is about. This is about the Labor Party having lost a seat that they thought they already had in their pocket. You were so confident in the lead-up to the last election. Not only had you already measured for carpet and curtains in The Lodge but you had the removalist vans ready to go, to move in. And now, here you are. You didn't get there because a majority of the people of Chisholm preferred our candidate and preferred our agenda for a stronger economy, for more jobs and to keep Australians safe and secure to the alternative, and you can't get over it. If you want to be competitive at the next election, you've got to get yourself to stage 7 of the seven stages of grief, and that is acceptance. Acceptance of the verdict of the Australian people is going to be a prerequisite for you to be able to be competitive in the lead-up to the next election. This is a disgraceful stunt. Whether I'm appearing at 12.20 pm on Monday or 2 pm on Monday, the answers will be the same.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the motion to suspend standing orders. What we have seen this week is extraordinary. There have been numerous reports this week about the member for Chisholm: her political affiliations, her contacts and her fundraising. There have even been reports that ASIO was so concerned by the member for Chisholm's conduct that it warned the Prime Minister's office and others in the Liberal Party against preselecting her. Yet the Liberal Party allowed her to be preselected and ultimately elected to this parliament. In fact, according to one source, a source in the intelligence community apparently told a senior party official, 'We can't tell you what to do, but we don't think it would be a good idea.' Unbelievable!

These reports occurred today in the media. The opposition does what an opposition should rightly do and questions whether those reports are true, and puts those questions to the elected government. And what do they do? They hide behind smears and accusations of racism. They hide behind statements that she was elected. Yes, she was elected, but did the people of Chisholm know what the Liberal Party is reported to have known or what the Prime Minister of the day was reported to have known—that is, that our national security agencies had serious concerns about the member for Chisholm's links to the Chinese Communist Party, concerns that they found so alarming that they felt the need to bring them to the attention of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister?

I have to say that the only thing that is more extraordinary than the alleged behaviour of the member for Chisholm is the current behaviour of this Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the leader of the government in this chamber, and their colleagues. It is beyond shameful to hear the Prime Minister and others claim that fair scrutiny of the member for Chisholm, much of it by hardworking members of our national intelligence community, is somehow an act of racism. What an astonishing statement from this Liberal government! Let's not forget that these are the same Liberals who voted in this chamber for the 'It's okay to be white' motion. Let's not forget these are the same Liberals who rushed to shake the hand of Fraser Anning after he cited the final solution in his first speech. Let's not forget this is the same Liberal government whose home affairs minister claims that Melburnians are too scared to go out at night due to African gang violence and that the Fraser government made mistakes bringing in people from a Lebanese Muslim background in the 1970s. For this lot to get up and hurl accusations of racism at the opposition for simply raising legitimate questions about whether or not it is true that national security agencies raised concerns about the member for Chisholm and that they were ignored by this Liberal government just goes to show that this is all about their ducking and weaving.

They were given opportunities—Senator Payne was asked by Senator Kitching and Senator Cormann was asked twice, once by Senator Wong and once by Senator Farrell—to utter four simple words: that the member for Chisholm is a 'fit and proper person' to serve in this parliament. They did not do it. The foreign minister, Senator Payne, got up and pretended she had said those words. What she actually said is, 'It is offensive to raise the suggestion.' She never uttered those words. Minister Cormann never uttered those words. And that is what is most telling here: the fact that they know they cannot stand in this chamber and assert beyond a reasonable doubt, with confidence, and give assurance to the Australian people that the member for Chisholm is in fact a fit and proper person to serve in this parliament. Had they done that today in question time we wouldn't have needed to move this suspension of standing orders—we wouldn't have needed to move this motion—but they failed to do that.

These are legitimate questions. Serious allegations are being raised in the nation's media. The Prime Minister of this country and Minister Cormann as his representative in this chamber owe it to this parliament and to the Australian people to explain the member for Chisholm's conduct, to answer the allegation that national security agencies have raised concerns about her connections and to assure us that she is indeed fit and proper to represent her constituents.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

We still don't have an answer from those opposite—we have no answer from those opposite—about what they are actually saying. What they are claiming is to have seen media reports, which they are citing. They have quoted them at length. They are asking questions about, apparently, security agency advice. I would suggest, though, that they might want to refer to the words of the former Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, I think, where he, as the then Attorney-General, refused to confirm or deny the report or reports in relation to an ASIO matter, citing a longstanding government policy of declining to comment on security matters. That's apparently described by those opposite now as some sort of shield but, in fact, it is an appropriate and well-recognised way for governments to address security and intelligence matters. He went on in another article at the same time, in 2013, to say:

I'm not going to comment on operational matters involving the Australian Security Intelligence Organization or any security matters.

So when they say that government should publicly debate these issues, they are completely walking away from their own 'standards', and I use that word advisedly in relation to the Labor Party.

The member for Chisholm has made a clear public statement of multiple paragraphs, which the Prime Minister indicated this morning that we would be pleased to place on the parliamentary record. Three of those paragraphs apparently relate to associations in Australia with which the member for Chisholm was previously involved. But she is not the only person to have been engaged in recent political activity to have been associated with those groups. In fact, the Labor candidate for Chisholm, as others have said in this chamber today, was also an office holder and a member of those organisations—two in particular. As the Attorney-General has pointed out in the House of Representatives today, the member for McMahon has accepted hospitality and travel from those organisations. Does that make him what they are claiming the member for Chisholm is? I actually think not, but we would not seek to smear the member for McMahon in the way that those opposite are endeavouring to smear a member of parliament with their behaviours.

Yesterday, Senator Wong attempted to draw some degree of moral equivalence between the member for Chisholm and former Labor Senator Dastyari—but there is none. In fact, it is extraordinary to suggest that there would be, and let's be clear about why that is the case. Everybody knows that the former Labor senator for New South Wales accepted funds for his own accounts and payments from other people who paid his bills when he went over his parliamentary travel budget and who settled a private legal matter for him. They know that he stood next to the individual concerned at a press conference in Commonwealth parliamentary offices in support of the Chinese government's refusal to abide by international court rulings on disputed territory in the South China Sea. And those opposite seek to equate a moral equivalence between that sort of behaviour and the member for Chisholm. It is absolutely extraordinary.

But I'll tell you what's really extraordinary: to have to sit in this chamber and listen to a member of the New South Wales Labor Party lecture anyone else about political associations, about contact and about fundraising. I don't know where those opposite get their Aldi bags but we know what they do with them. I don't know how those opposite can claim to be on some high moral ground about political associations and contacts when members of their former government are serving prison sentences for their behaviour. It is absolutely extraordinary. And I don't know how those opposite can claim any moral virtue on this subject and around racism when their own leaders—

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

Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Wong has risen on a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr President. Rather than interrupt debate, I wonder if you could look at the minister's contribution, make a decision subsequently as to whether there were aspects of that which are clearly the sorts of imputations which the standing orders prohibit, and consider the appropriateness of us and the minister subsequently.

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

I'll do so.

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

I don't want to get into an argument now. I just would ask you to consider that.

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

On the point of order, Senator Payne?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: if you choose to take the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate on considering the Hansard in relation to imputations, could I please ask that you also consider the Hansard in relation to all of the imputations those opposite have endeavoured to make about the member for Chisholm?

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

On the point of order—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! If I could rule on the point of order—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Reynolds, Senator Wong, Senator Payne—order, please! On the issue of imputations, this chamber has slipped a very long way over my decade here during question time, where imputations and improper motives are assigned to people in the asking of some questions. When it comes to a member in another place or another parliament or a member of the judiciary, we have traditionally applied much stricter standards. I will always take a request from any senator to review the Hansard of a debate to see if there was something that was inappropriate. If there is, I will approach senators and deal with it that way before I bring it back to the chamber.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me conclude by saying I will not be lectured and we will not be lectured by those on the other side, particularly those from the New South Wales Labor Party, the party of Luke Foley and white flight and the party of Michael Daley, who claimed Asians with PhDs are taking the jobs of young Sydneysiders—young Australians. That is hypocrisy in the extreme and not entirely surprising.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that Centre Alliance will support the substantive motion but not the suspension of standing orders.

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

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.