Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Member for Chisholm.

The Prime Minister has two responsibilities that sit above everything else. The first is to provide national prosperity—and we all know that he is failing miserably at this—but today we have also seen that he is failing at the second, and that second duty is his duty to provide national security. It is his duty as Prime Minister to ensure that all Australians are safe. How can you be the government of the day and ignore the advice of our national security agencies? It's irresponsible at best, dangerous at worst.

Those opposite are scrambling so fast to contain this that they are now playing one of the lowest cards one can play in public life, and that is the race card. But, actually, the last refuge of the scoundrel is proving to be the Liberal-National party room, because the only person linking these specific and serious concerns about Ms Liu to the entire Chinese-Australian population is the Prime Minister, and he should stop. National security agencies do not make decisions nor do they give advice because they're racist.

Let's go to a recent speech by the outgoing Director-General of ASIO, Duncan Lewis. Mr Lewis warned in that speech that foreign interference and espionage are proving to be an existential threat to our country. What he said was:

It’s my view that currently, the issue of espionage and foreign interference is by far and away the most serious issue going forward. Covert attempts to influence and shape the views of the public, media, government and diaspora communities, both within Australia and overseas, is now with us every day.

Unlike the immediacy of terrorism incidents, the harm from acts of espionage may not present for years, even decades, after the activity has occurred.

These sorts of activities are typically quiet and insidious, with a long tail.

He then went on to talk about the existential threat that they pose to the nation, noting that part of the danger was that it was more subtle and difficult to recognise than the threat of terrorism.

The ABC has reported that the office of former Prime Minister Turnbull received advice from ASIO Director-General Duncan Lewis, as he then was, that Mr Turnbull should not attend a meet and greet organised by Ms Liu following vetting of the guest list by ASIO. That is from one of our security agencies. There is no racism in what ASIO and its sister agencies do or in the work and advice that they give.

Under the Prime Minister's test, the question is: is Mr Lewis a racist? That is the question, and of course he is not. Need I remind this place who voted on a motion to say, 'It's okay to be white' or who lined up to congratulate former Senator Anning after he invoked the 'final solution' when talking about immigration policy. The Prime Minister loves to remind us all that the Liberal Party is the party of Menzies, but we're not buying what the Prime Minister is selling. Robert Menzies would be turning in his grave.

This whole sordid affair has come about because of the Liberal Party's quite unbelievable decision to preselect Ms Liu, knowing full well the concerns that existed around her associations. As a Victorian Liberal MP said to me rather gloomily late last week, she was preselected with everyone hoping she wouldn't win because then she'd be done and would never be able to run again.

Gladys Liu is not a new player on the political scene. She's been an active member of the Victorian Liberal Party for many years. She is notorious for raising enormous amounts of money but she is also notorious for being a loose cannon. She has a questionable work history, has brought vast, unexplained wealth to the Liberal Party and comes to this place with more baggage than Louis Vuitton—just ask her Victorian colleagues. She's a money machine. She's the LNP's own personal ATM from Whitehorse Road and that's why she sits in this place. That's why she was preselected. Because, let's face it, it's clearly not due to her strong media performances. Ms Liu's Victorian colleagues should be sharing what they know about Ms Liu with the Prime Minister, because the truth is: you don't know what you don't know and you should be very, very careful.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the matters raised by Senator Kitching, and it is with some amusement. I accept that 'amusement' is a strange word to use in the circumstances, because security is such an important subject, and yet here we are with almost every question being raised by the opposition in question time dealing with the slurs against Ms Liu in circumstances where the emperor really doesn't have any clothes.

We need only look to some of the coverage that this issue has received over the last few days to get a sense of just how empty the Labor Party's approach is at the moment. They don't have any substance on the economy, so they want to talk about this. They don't have any substance when it comes to climate policy; they're divided and confused. Some of them want to keep a 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030—that's Ms Plibersek. Others, like Mr Conroy, want to change and go to a 2050 net zero pollution target. Mr Butler wants to ditch the 45 per cent target, but in favour of what? Who knows! Mr Fitzgibbon says, 'We need to talk about the elephant in the room—our dud policy on climate, but nobody really knows what to replace it with. If we can just talk about Ms Liu enough, maybe no-one will notice that we're saying, "Look, a unicorn!" and asking people to look in the other direction.' Because the truth is: they've got nothing in the cupboard.

It goes without saying that we are doing the heavy lifting on these difficult issues—getting the balance right between our need for economic development and our need for environmental protection. We are getting on with the job in a no-nonsense, no-grandstanding kind of way—exceeding Kyoto targets, meeting our Paris commitments, and doing it all with a growing economy rather than devastating it, like Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target would have done. But all of this goes to the heart of the matter, and that is: Labor have got nothing to offer.

They're the same on the economy, too. They don't know what they want. Do they still want a high-tax, high-spend agenda, or are they going to listen to the Australians who said, 'That just isn't the way we work'? Well, at the moment, they don't know. So, again, they point to the unicorn over there—'Quick! Look over there!'—because they've got nothing to offer.

Ms Liu is a first-term MP. I've only been in this place a short period of time, and I know how nerve-racking it can be to be a new person in this place and to do media interviews. It can be a tough thing to do. She gave a clumsy interview, but they are tricky things to do. But let's not pretend, even for a second, that that means anything like what the circumstances of former Senator Dastyari looked like. That was a wildly, wildly different situation.

Let's have a look at the facts here. Ms Liu is a woman of Chinese heritage, born in Hong Kong. She came here with just two suitcases and has started a life for herself. She's overcome disability. She's overcome domestic violence. She's overcome so many of the barriers that people from different races in this country face as they try and be heard in the public square. Yet she has done it, and she has made it all the way to the parliament of Australia in what is really a milestone. She's run a small business. She's come here to get an education. She's created something beautiful for her and her family. And you know what? That speaks to the stories of the 1.2 million Australians of Chinese heritage who have made their home here—who do it with a loyalty to Australia, who do it understanding where they've come from and acknowledging that culture, and who are often involved in organisations that reflect their connection to that culture but with their heart here in Australia. That's one of the really exciting things about a multicultural Australia—something that shouldn't be turned into a cheap shot.

It's very different to anything that could be compared to Mr Dastyari's situation: she hasn't got anyone to pay her personal expenses—she hasn't got foreign nationals to do that; she hasn't changed her position on issues, doing the bidding of people from another nation; and she hasn't done it using the crest of this place. No—she's a Hong Kong-born Australian, doing her best to represent the people of Chisholm to the best of her ability in this place.

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

Every day, there are new questions raised about the member for Chisholm's affiliations in the past, her actions, her work history and the donations that she solicited for the Victorian Liberal Party. Every day, the government ducks and weaves away from all of these questions. Every day, those opposite try to evade responsibility for what's going on with the member for Chisholm, what the Prime Minister knew and when.

We call on the Prime Minister and Gladys Liu to come clean on the donations facilitated by her, by her own account—which were, as she claims, 'very substantial'—and we call on her and the Prime Minister to come clean about her past affiliations. The best place for the member for Chisholm to do that is in the parliament. It certainly didn't go very well on Sky the other night. The interview on Sky the other night wasn't the clumsy interview of a first-term backbencher—I've done a few of those myself recently. When asked questions about what organisations she's been a member of, she did not tell the truth. When she was asked questions about what the Australian position should be in relation to the South China Sea, she refused to commit herself to a position. It's not clumsy; it's far worse than that. She should make a full and complete statement about what's happened.

There are strong indications from the material that is now in the public domain that the Prime Minister put winning a marginal seat and internal Victorian factional considerations ahead of Australia's national security. The Prime Minister's response is to smear all those who want answers about the affiliations and the donations swirling around the member for Chisholm, with a disgraceful allegation that the questions are motivated by racist antipathy towards the Chinese community or opportunism. The counterfactual is that nobody should ever ask questions about the member for Chisholm, and I don't think that's acceptable in this place.

On this side, we take national security seriously along with our obligations to uphold the duties of parliamentarians to stand up unequivocally for the national interest. This week, again—like last week—there are no plans for the government to deal with the economic challenges that face the country: no economic policy, no energy policy and no climate change policy. The catalogue of zero government policy is seemingly endless, and there are real clouds over the integrity of the Prime Minister, who said on Friday that he had never used the term 'Shanghai Sam' in relation to the conduct of former Senator Dastyari. He did use that term, with all of its dog-whistling connotations, 17 times, including four times in a single sentence, which is a remarkable thing to achieve. At the time he was making it, the Prime Minister thought that the smear against former Senator Dastyari was a real hit. All of the blustering, bullying, bloviating boy from Bondi's behaviour was on full view—all there for everybody to see. Not so much now, it seems!

If there are any sensible people left on the other side of the parliament, they should give the Prime Minister a bit of advice: if your only defence of the indefensible is to smear your opponents then you'd better come to the debate with clean hands. The Prime Minister's hands are filthy. We have a Prime Minister who is failing when it comes to integrity. The only person in this conversation who is trying to pretend that what is going on around Gladys Liu is about an entire community is the Prime Minister. We know that, because he's running the paid ads on WeChat already. It's offensive, it's absurd, it's opportunist and, unfortunately for the Prime Minister, it is true to form. All we are asking for and all the community is asking for is an assurance from the Prime Minister that Ms Liu is a fit and proper person to stand in the Australian parliament and that he hasn't put winning a marginal seat and putrid Victorian factional politics ahead of Australia's national security. The member for Chisholm should rise in the parliament, in the House of Representatives, this afternoon and make a full account of these matters. She should do it this afternoon and she should do it without delay.

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

Senator Ayres, I'd just remind you, when referring to those in the other place, to always use their correct title. Thank you.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the debate to take note of the answers to various questions. Senator Ayres, I had some hope when you asked your question; you actually asked a policy question in this place—a policy question! It's been so long since we've heard a policy question from those opposite. It was such a relief, but now, in the taking note debate, we get to the point where we're back to the same old, inside the Beltway, politics for the sake of politics from the Labor Party that we've seen so often. Labor have form in this area. I find it almost extraordinary that they are the ones who want to bring up Sam Dastyari. We heard from Senator Cormann earlier; we heard about some of the exploits of that particular individual in the past and some of the activities that he was involved in that led to his eventual departure from this place. It is quite extraordinary for the Labor Party, who have got such form in this area, to be running these sorts of lines—this attack on a single coalition member of parliament—to muddy the waters on their own pretty shabby dealings. We've all heard Labor's new policy to ban plastic bags—it's not an environmental policy; it's a donation policy. The Labor Party have got a track record of using these sorts of thinly veiled xenophobic attacks against those they don't like.

Talking about the Adani coalmine, the member for Sydney said: 'You cannot rely on an Indian mining company to bring jobs to Central and North Queensland.' We all remember Michael Daley's claims about Asians with PhDs taking jobs. We all remember Luke Foley talking about 'white flight'. And we all remember the union campaigns against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We remember the paid advertisement on TV featuring—well, let's say a Caucasian family, the mum folding the laundry, talking about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This is pretty thin, pretty sad stuff from the labour movement and from the Australian Labor Party.

The member for Chisholm addressed some of these potential happenings in her first speech, in fact. She said:

I do not underestimate the enormity of being the first Chinese-born member of this place. I know some people will see everything I do through the lens of my birthplace, but I hope that they will see more than just the first Chinese woman elected to this place. I hope they will see me as a strong advocate for everyone in Chisholm. Chisholm is where my heart is.

I think Senator Cormann really belled the cat when he talked about the fact that the Labor candidate for Chisholm was a member of many of the same organisations that are currently the cause for the attack on the current member for Chisholm. It really does call out those opposite for their lack of focus on policy, for their desire to attack a single coalition backbencher, a backbencher who gave a clumsy interview—I think that is the best word for it. All of us, early in our careers, have perhaps given interviews where we haven't quite got the words out correctly. I think we can all very much feel for that. But Ms Liu has made it very clear in subsequent statements, including statements to parliament, that she did choose her words poorly during that interview and that, on the declarations matter, she has complied with all relevant state and federal disclosure laws.

I call on those opposite to really consider what they're doing with this current attack on a single member of parliament. It is not a particularly edifying example of the way this chamber or this parliament should behave, and I certainly would ask all members opposite to reflect on that.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

MARIELLE SMITH () (): I also rise to take note of the answers given to questions asked by Senators Wong, Gallagher, Keneally and Kitching today. And while members of the government have dismissed the saga surrounding the member for Chisholm as that of a conspiracy theory, senators on this side believe it is time that the inconsistencies that we keep getting are addressed head-on.

As members and senators of parliament, elected to this place by the Australian people, we hold a unique responsibility to the people that we represent. It is a responsibility of trust and transparency in the work that we undertake. It is a heavy responsibility held by all of us, none more nor less than any other, because all of us are required to make decisions that are in the best interests of our communities, our states and our country—most of all when these decisions include overseas or foreign influences. When inconsistencies regarding these matters emerge, it is fair for questions to be asked that seek clarification and explanation. That is all that my colleagues on this side of the chamber sought to do in question time today, and the suggestion that their questions have been motivated by anything other than that, I have to say, is deeply offensive and just ridiculous.

During the past few weeks we have heard, seen and read successive reports in the media, in the Senate and in the other place regarding the member for Chisholm. It has been well canvassed that on Tuesday night the member for Chisholm agreed to an interview with Andrew Bolt in an effort to clear her name on these issues. It's probably not the program that I would have chosen to go on but it was the program that she went on. I sympathise, as someone new to this profession, and as some of my colleagues have also said today, that early interviews can be quite challenging. But this wasn't just first interview nerves and it was more than a clumsy interview. It was a train wreck, because, during this interview, the member for Chisholm raised more questions in every answer that she gave. Indeed, the member for Chisholm couldn't explain her association with numerous organisations of concern, and on three occasions during the interview she failed to commit herself to the bipartisan position on the South China Sea. This is more than 'clumsy', and the Prime Minister and the government surely know it.

But you would not think so, because in question time on Wednesday last week the Prime Minister refused to assure Australians that the member for Chisholm was a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, in Senate question time last Wednesday, refused to assure Australians that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. And today we have heard continuing refusals from Senator Cormann to assure Australians that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to serve in the Australian parliament.

On Thursday last week, there were extraordinary reports that senior Liberals were warned by security agencies regarding concerns about the member for Chisholm and her links to the Chinese Communist Party. As Senator Keneally reminded Senator Cormann in a question today, one government MP is quoted as saying, 'There should have been concerns when she was being chosen to stand as a candidate, and I believe those concerns were ignored.' This raises very serious questions as to whether the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party put winning marginal seats ahead of Australia's national security.

All of this goes far beyond a clumsy interview; it goes to questions regarding the national interest. The Prime Minister needs to demonstrate to the Australian people what steps he took to ensure the member for Chisholm was a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. He should explain what he knew about these reports and when he knew it. It's time for answers, not more inconsistency from a saga that has been riddled with inconsistency after inconsistency. Because our responsibilities here as members of parliament and as representatives of the Australian people are rightly heavy responsibilities, Australians need to know that these responsibilities are being met, and the member for Chisholm has a responsibility to address the inconsistencies that keep rolling in, including to the other questions raised today about the double-checking process that she is reportedly going through. She should do that by making a full and complete statement in the Australian parliament. Again, this is about inconsistencies. Questions have been asked; they need to be addressed. It's time for answers from the member for Chisholm and from the Prime Minister. It's time for the inconsistencies to be cleared up.

Question agreed to.