Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

What sort of parallel universe is this government living in at the moment! They're trying to say that the Labor Party is seeking to smear Ms Liu. Let's look at the facts. What did Andrew Probyn from the ABC—a very good journalist—report this morning? He reported:

Gladys Liu's association with Chinese figures who were deemed a security risk was the subject of an ASIO investigation even before she entered Parliament or became a Liberal Party candidate.

Mr Probyn goes on:

The ABC understands ASIO Director-General Duncan Lewis advised that then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, based on the guest list, should not attend a 'meet and greet' organised by Ms Liu in the Victorian electorate of Chisholm for Chinese New Year in February 2018.

If that doesn't ring some alarm bells in this government, what does? But there's more. The West Australian today says:

The Morrison Government is under pressure to launch a full-blown investigation into Chinese-Australian MP Gladys Liu's links to Beijing, with even its own parliamentarians voicing concerns.

This is not the Labor Party making smears against Ms Liu. This is members of the government, on the other side, making it very clear that they've got concerns about Ms Liu's connections with the Chinese government. The report goes on:

A handful of Liberal MPs last night told The West Australian they wanted a full probe into their colleague to ensure her loyalties were not divided between China and Australia.

This is not an ordinary section 44 issue. Section 44 has been used in the last parliament to knock out members of parliament who had dual citizenship. But, if you read section 44, it talks about your allegiances. What these Liberal MPs are doing is raising serious questions about the allegiance of Ms Gladys Liu.

If that wasn't enough to spark some interest or some inquiry on the part of the government, then can I refer to Ms Liu's own comments on the Bolt show the other evening. It's not a show I customarily watch, but she was asked pretty simple questions about whether or not she attended functions and was a member of a number of organisations, including China's United Front, an organisation that apparently acts on behalf of the Chinese government, a propaganda organisation for the Chinese government. And what do we see?

We see a photograph. On 14 August the ABC published photographs of Ms Gladys Liu with, amongst other people, WTUF founder Baima Aose and China's United Front coordinator. The night she does the Bolt interview she can't remember—doesn't know—whether she's a member of this organisation. She's got a photograph, a lovely photograph—I assume it's on her web page or the web page of the organisation itself—that makes it very clear that she's a participant in this organisation and that she's fully prepared to make it clear that she is a participant in that organisation.

Now, if all of those things aren't enough for this government to start questioning the issue, then I don't know what is. What do you need? You've got the director-general of ASIO saying, 'Don't preselect this candidate.' You've got Ms Liu confused about whether she is or isn't a member of these organisations. And now you've got all these Liberal Party MPs saying that there are question marks about this lady. Let's have an investigation.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of my colleague in the other place, Gladys Liu. She's my friend and colleague, and I have absolute faith in her and her ability to do her job in this place.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) | Link to this | Hansard source

ASIO doesn't.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't know that, Senator Farrell—why don't you table it? Why don't you put up or just be quiet while I'm speaking. Senator Farrell raised the point of parallel universes. Well, let's point out a few. The Labor candidate for the seat of Chisholm was a member of the same—

Senator Farrell interjecting—

Senator Farrell, I was quiet while you were speaking, despite some of the despicable things you were saying, so I ask you to be quiet.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing I've said was despicable.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe it is.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, a point of order?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, of all people, know what conduct is required of senators in this particular part of the day. I'd just ask you to call him to order.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind all senators that remarks must be made to the chair and that interjections are disorderly, and people have the right to be heard in silence. Senator Farrell?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order: I reject the suggestion that anything I said was despicable. All the things I said were issues that have been reported in reputable newspapers around this country.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, that's a debating point. I've reminded senators of the way that we conduct ourselves according to the standing orders. Please continue, Senator Van.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chisholm is an absolutely suitable person to be a member of this parliament, and she was elected by the people of Chisholm. Ms Liu is an outstanding Australian. She came here as a migrant, and I point out to the chamber that Ms Liu is a migrant from Hong Kong—what's been happening in Hong Kong recently might be lost on those on the other side. So the point that Ms Liu might be a member of the Chinese Communist Party—which I think they're trying to allege—is absolutely wrong. She came here as a migrant and has done exceptionally well. Her work as a speech pathologist is well known and well understood. The work that she's done throughout her community, and being a member of community groups—memberships that other people have—shouldn't be lost on those on the other side.

We should also ask: what are all these allegations going to do to other migrants, especially other migrant women, who are deciding whether to take up a place in public life? They may wonder, 'Should I stand for politics if I'm going to cop this sort of abuse from those from the other side?' It's absolutely disgraceful. Many Australian migrants have dedicated their lives to the betterment of their community within Australia. I believe it is offensive that someone of the standing of Gladys Liu has been unfairly questioned about her allegiance to Australia. We should not doubt the superior loyalty and commitment of migrants to Australia. Instead, we should recognise their contributions to our political system. Gladys Liu was one such migrant. She grew up in Hong Kong. Remember that. Please, senators: remember she grew up in Hong Kong and migrated from Hong Kong.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is she on the side of the democracy protesters?

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, she has come out saying that, I believe. Gladys immigrated to Australia and has worked tirelessly to forward the integration of Chinese migrants into Australian society, and there is no doubt in my mind that Gladys is an exceptional individual and an exceptional Australian.

In my maiden speech I discussed the value of Australia's democracy, and I must say the attitude of some towards our first-ever elected female Chinese member of the House of Representatives is incongruous with the democracy I know and love. Gladys Liu has faced extreme criticism, including ongoing criticism from Senator Farrell at this point in time, for associations with two organisations in particular. However, I ask: should those organisations be different to any other organisation that non-Chinese current and former parliamentarians have also been a part of? Have these non-Chinese Australians faced similar rebuke? There is a double standard here that needs to be highlighted. From my home state of Victoria, earlier this year the Labor Premier, Dan Andrews, was in China attending the Belt and Road forum. We can assume that Dan accepted hospitality at this event and throughout his travels from a foreign government, and this is to be expected. This is natural. But would the perception of Dan's tour be under challenge if he were a Chinese Australian? Unfortunately, after what we've seen today, I don't think it would be. As we heard earlier, the member for McMahon accepted travel from the Australian Guangdong Chamber of Commerce over his five-day trip to Hong Kong and China. If he were a Chinese Australian, would he get the same treatment that Ms Liu has? I believe Ms Liu is a very solid Australian and is a very proper person to be in this place.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Serving as a senator, or indeed as a member of the other place, is quite an undertaking and requires us to make decisions on the basis of what is in the best interests of our community. In doing so, it is incumbent upon us to make those decisions without conflict or undue influence from any party—least of all from overseas interests.

Over the course of many weeks now, we have heard successive reports in the media regarding the member for Chisholm—story after story. It was all piling up, and questions about her suitability to sit as a member of this parliament became more and more pressing. In an effort to release the mounting pressure, the honourable member in the other place decided to join Andrew Bolt on Sky to clear the air. I can only assume that in doing so the member for Chisholm was advised, probably by the Prime Minister's office, that Bolt would give her an easy run—a quick 15-minute appearance, some softball questions and all would be well. How wrong were they? How wrong they were indeed! Three times she was asked, and failed, to commit to Australia's bipartisan position on China's behaviour in the South China Sea. Over and over again she failed to explain her associations with numerous organisations, all of serious concern. The next day she issued a statement which featured a spectacular about-face. Suddenly the story changed. The questionable organisations were all remembered and the chairmanships suddenly recorded.

We've since learned, through diligent reporting, of some senior Liberals being warned by our nation's own security agencies—it's been alleged by them—about the member for Chisholm's links with the Chinese Communist Party. Were those warnings that were given to senior Liberals heeded?

Did a Liberal put the alleged advice of our security agencies ahead of their own ambitions to win the seat of Chisholm at the last federal election? Well, in the words of one government MP, as quoted in the article today, 'I believe those concerns were ignored.'

Now the question becomes: why don't the Prime Minister and members of his government stand before the House of Representatives, or stand before this chamber, and declare that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to sit in this parliament? What are those opposite afraid of? What do they know that we don't know?

I'll tell you what we do know, Madam Deputy President: we know that there are reports that the member for Chisholm is a member of organisations that are of serious concern because of their links to the Chinese Communist Party. We know that it has been alleged in the papers yesterday and today that senior Liberals were advised that it would be 'unwise' to preselect her. We also know that the Prime Minister proudly declared, back in April of this year, 'How good is Gladys!' And, after today, I can say that we know one more thing: we know that there are a lot of folks on the other side who would probably want to have their time again in preselecting the member for Chisholm.

All parliamentarians must be able to provide an assurance that they have no conflict of interest in serving the Australian people, whether here in the Senate or in the other place. It is up to the Prime Minister to demonstrate to the parliament, and to the Australian people and the people in the electorate of Chisholm in my home state of Victoria, that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising today to take note of the responses that we've had from government ministers to questions from the opposition during question time, I must say: this is just another example of this Labor opposition demonstrating that they have no plan and no policy agenda which they can talk about. They've taken up hours of this chamber's time today talking about something that is not part of any positive or even consistent, coherent plan for what they might do for Australia. After all, isn't that what we are here for in this place—to debate policy and enact a plan which delivers for Australians on the things that matter to them? But that's not what Labor do in this parliament, because they don't have a plan and they can't agree on their policy agenda. That's certainly the evidence that we have seen here today.

In relation to this issue that Labor is trying to push regarding the member for Chisholm, it has been pointed out today that Labor's own shadow health minister has travelled to China on a delegation paid for by the Chinese Communist Party. If Labor thinks that it is worth the Senate's time to make these sorts of assertions, then why not focus on the member for McMahon? I'm not saying necessarily that we should; I think that there are far more important things for this place to be debating. All I'm saying is that perhaps our friends on the other side should consider a little bit of consistency and consider whether they have been consistent in raising this issue today—or even focus on their own candidate for the seat of Chisholm. Again, it's an issue of consistency that we are talking about here. Their own candidate for Chisholm, I understand, was a member of at least two of the organisations that the current member for Chisholm has been a member of. So, again, we see absolute inconsistency from the opposition on this point.

I think there are many better things that the Senate could be discussing today, like the Morrison coalition government's plan to create jobs and grow the economy. In fact, I could settle for something less than that. I could settle for Labor putting forward their own alternative to that—because at least we could then have an appropriate contest of ideas in this place about how we think this country should be run. The Morrison government has our plan. The opposition, unfortunately, are yet to come up with any consistent or coherent narrative about how they see this country progressing. As Minister Cormann said today, it's because they are spiralling through the many stages of grief as a result of their loss at the election on 18 May, an election they thought they were going to win. In contrast, this government took to the election a plan that was resoundingly endorsed by the Australian people on 18 May and is steadfastly getting on with the job of implementing that plan. That's why I'm so disappointed that we have spent today not focused on these issues that matter to the people of Australia and to the people in my own state of Tasmania, who might be listening in today and wondering what on earth the Senate is doing with its time.

The best thing you can say about the Labor Party at the moment is that, if you don't agree with their position on one issue today, they might change their mind tomorrow. Tomorrow they might have something to say in complete contradiction to what they have been saying today. So perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that there are inconsistencies around their rhetoric today in terms of the member for Chisholm in comparison with members of their own party. If they can't be consistent on this issue, we can't trust them to come up with any sort of consistent agenda for how they think this country should progress. It is more of the 'same old, same old' from the opposition.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of questions and answers in today's question time. These are very serious questions indeed and raise very serious issues, not just for the member for Chisholm but also for the Prime Minister and the government, about the political judgement of the Liberal Party in Victoria. The questions surrounding the member for Chisholm's suitability to sit in the parliament go to the heart of the electorate's distrust, disillusionment and despair at the state of contemporary politics. In case anybody hasn't been listening, Australians have started to lose confidence in their elected representatives and are wondering whether they are acting in their interests. Is it any wonder? The efforts in today's question time to not answer questions, or to obscure the real questions, to try and give rise to an apprehension that the Labor Party's questions today were directed at the capacity of all of the people of a particular community in Australia, is a misrepresentation of the position and, more seriously, a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of those opposite and the responsibilities of government to act in the best interests of national security.

For weeks, questions have been asked about the member for Chisholm's suitability to sit in the Australian parliament. Every answer from the member for Chisholm to these questions begs more questions. A careless reference to national security is a smokescreen—the last refuge. What is required here is precision and an understanding of people's responsibilities. Was Ms Liu, the member for Chisholm, a member and honorary office-bearer of organisations that are part of the foreign influence activities of the Chinese government? Is this true? Did she declare her membership of these organisations or did she obscure her membership of these organisations? Did the Prime Minister know? Was he warned about it by the security agencies or other agencies?

If the Prime Minister knew, what did he do about it?

In an effort to clear her name, the member for Chisholm agreed to an interview with Andrew Bolt on Sky on Tuesday night. That's not necessarily where I'd go in an effort to clarify things, but that's where she went. The interview was a train wreck. It wasn't the clumsy effort of a first-time backbencher. We could all make those mistakes. The member for Chisholm couldn't explain her membership of numerous organisations of concern. She could recall during the election every other aspect of her CV but she couldn't recall or explain those memberships. She failed on three occasions to commit herself to the bipartisan Australian national position on the South China Sea.

Yesterday she issued a statement in an effort to clear her name. The reports are that the statement was prepared by the Prime Minister's office. On Tuesday night she couldn't recall her associations; less than 24 hours later, she was completely clear. What has changed? I think people are entitled to know. And, in a more serious sense, they're entitled to ask: what did the Prime Minister know? What did the Victorian Liberal Party know about Ms Liu's previous associations? What did they do to satisfy themselves about whether or not she was a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament?

In question time today, Minister Cormann refused to assure Australians or the Senate that Ms Liu was a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. In question time yesterday, Senator Payne refused to assure Australians that Ms Liu was a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. It's time the Senate got some answers to these questions. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.