Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Last week, media reports revealed security agencies had advised former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull not to attend a meet and greet function in February 2018 due to the associations of guests invited by Ms Liu. According to leaked preselection documents, Ms Liu claims to have raised in excess of $1 million for the Liberal Party. What steps has the Prime Minister taken to assure himself that funds raised by Ms Liu are from appropriate sources and have been properly disclosed?

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

As I indicated to the chamber last week, the Prime Minister has full confidence in the member for Chisholm. Obviously, questions in relation to declarations of political donations are a matter for party organisations. We also note that the member for Chisholm has stated very clearly that at all times she has complied with relevant state and federal disclosure laws, and the Victorian division of the Liberal Party have also advised that all requirements have been complied with.

This is just a continuation of Labor's smear campaign from last week. Guess what? The member for Chisholm, who is a long-time Liberal, has a history of supporting the Liberal Party. That's great news. Let's stop the front pages. Breaking news: the member for Chisholm, a long-term member of the Liberal Party, supported the Liberal Party before being elected by the people of Chisholm as a member of parliament.

The Labor Party are now so desperate that they are continuing to pursue this smear. This is all a little dog-whistle campaign. Because Gladys Liu is born in Hong Kong, because she's a Chinese-Australian, she must be a spy. That is what this is all about.

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

At a personal level, I would ask my colleague to withdraw. He knows that is not true. He knows that is a lie—I'm sorry, sir; that is a line. The only person—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Well, get up and have an argument about New South Wales, but you're accusing the Labor Party of dog-whistling. The only person who is drawing a link between the cultural heritage of Ms Liu—

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

I ask that it be withdrawn.

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

Senator Bernardi, on the point of order?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, this is not a point of order at all. Senator Wong has got up and made a number of statements. She hasn't drawn your attention to anything specific or made any particular point in regard to the standing orders.

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

Senator Wong, on the point of order?

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

I take the interjection from my colleague, Senator Bernardi. There is an imputation about members of this place that I ask be withdrawn.

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

I will review the Hansard about anything unparliamentary. Senator Wong, on that, I provided you with an opportunity to put your case with some discretion as leader. I didn't detect anything unparliamentary in what the minister said. I said last week that one of the precedents in this place is that, for something to be unparliamentary and a reflection, it needs to be addressed to an individual. Comments that people take offence to with respect to a party have not historically, in my memory, been taken to be unparliamentary, even if some people would prefer they are not made.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, last week I made the ruling, and I did check it afterwards. No-one has brought to my attention an example where claims against other parties had been deemed to be unparliamentary. I'll review exactly what Senator Cormann said, but I did not hear anything unparliamentary then. On the point of order, there wasn't a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Cormann's at liberty to continue for 33 seconds. He's concluded his answer? Senator Gallagher.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a supplementary question. The Minister for Government Services, Stuart Robert, told Sky News yesterday that Ms Liu is double-checking both the donations she has helped to raise for the party and her previous associations. What is the nature of this double-checking process?

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

The Labor Party is running a bit slow behind the evolving events, obviously. As I have indicated in response to the primary question, the member for Chisholm has made it very clear that at all times she has complied with relevant state and federal disclosure laws.

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

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) | Link to this | Hansard source

To ensure the integrity of Ms Liu's double-checking, will the Prime Minister require Ms Liu to make a full statement detailing the results of the so-called double-checking to the parliament?

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

Ms Liu made a statement last week which was tabled in the parliament last week.

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

Direct relevance. This is not about a past statement; this is about a statement about the process that a government minister is asserting shows that she's all clear. The question goes to whether or not the government will ensure that Ms Liu makes a statement to the parliament about this so-called double-checking process. The point of order is direct relevance. A past statement is not relevant to a future one.

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

With respect, Senator Wong, the minister had been speaking for five seconds. I'm not a mind-reader. I'm going to allow the minister time to answer the question.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Order! I'm just going to try and rule on the point of order. If a minister is asked about a future statement, I disagree, Senator Wong. I think drawing attention to a past statement, while it may not be the preferred answer, is directly relevant to answering that question.

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

Again, the Labor Party wants to go with this approach of guilty unless proven innocent. The member for Chisholm has been very clear. If the Labor Party has got any specific allegations, if they've got any specific evidence, they should put it. Responding to Senator Wong's previous comments, I won't mention any names, but running into lots of Labor backbenchers at the airport on Thursday, let me tell you that there's a lot of concern on your backbench about your approach to this issue.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! It's Monday. I have allowed a little discretion for people to get used to the chamber. We're wasting question time, which I know the opposition considers a forum for non-government parties.