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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. When asked yesterday why the Prime Minister was allowing the member for Chisholm to dodge accountability to the parliament, the minister said—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! I couldn't hear the question. Call me predictive, but I might predict that a point of order may come up subsequently. Can I ask Senator Kitching to restart it, because I couldn't hear the start of the question.

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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. When asked yesterday why the Prime Minister was allowing the member for Chisholm to dodge accountability to the parliament, the minister said that the statement:

… was tabled in the parliament. It has got the force of being tabled in the parliament in her name.

But the very same day the Speaker of the House ruled that:

… if a member is tabling a statement that's made outside the House, that really is just a record of a statement.

Who is right: this minister or the Speaker? Why is the Prime Minister assisting the member for Chisholm to dodge parliamentary accountability?

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

Before I call Senator Cormann: the term used there was specific about a member of another place and actually used the words 'dodge accountability'. I'm going to reflect on precedent, but I think that that dances particularly close to standing order 193(3) concerning an imputation of improper motive and all personal reflections on members of another place. I said yesterday, and I made it clear again earlier today, that reflections upon groups of people or reflections upon actions are very different to reflections upon persons and specific persons in another place. I will take that Hansard away and consult with the clerks about precedent, but I urge senators to be very, very careful about imputations and reflections specifically about individuals, as opposed to actions or groups of individuals. Senator Wong, on what I just said?

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

On the point of order, we understand your indication that you are taking this matter away to consider it. I also respect your ruling from yesterday and, I think, the day before in relation to plurals versus individuals—collective insults as opposed to individual ones. I would make a point here for your consideration when you subsequently are considering the Hansard, Mr President. There is a point about accountability to the parliament that the opposition is seeking to press. We all know that a statement to the parliament is very different to one outside the parliament. That is the point we wish to press. If the problem is the word 'dodge', we're happy to insert the word 'avoid'.

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

That's what I'll come back with. It is actually the terminology that to me crosses into potential personal reflection upon an individual member of this parliament, which may be inappropriate. I'm not ruling the question out of order. I am asking senators to be very cognisant of that issue. I think the point can easily be made without getting into the territory of breaching the standing order.

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

Firstly, I reject the premise of the question, and that goes to the point that you've also made under the standing orders, Mr President. Secondly, I don't see any inconsistency between my statement and the statement of the Speaker. Of course, it's a record of statement which was tabled in the parliament.

I would make just three more points. No. 1, Gladys Liu was elected as the member for Chisholm because a majority of Australians in Chisholm voted for her and for the Liberal Party. No. 2, the Prime Minister and the government have full confidence in the member for Chisholm. And, No. 3, if the Labor Party has anything other than smear and innuendo then put it up! Put it up! Otherwise, let's get on to dealing with matters that are actually genuinely in the public interest rather than this smear, innuendo and dog-whistling.

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

Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?

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

Will the Prime Minister allow the member for Chisholm to make a statement to the parliament?

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

The member for Chisholm is an elected member of parliament who fulfils her responsibilities as she sees fit. It's an offensive question and, again—I say it again!—if the Labor Party has anything other than grubby smear and innuendo then put it up. Otherwise, shut up!

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

Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?

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

On at least six occasions now, the Prime Minister and Ministers Cormann and Payne have refused to assure the parliament that Ms Liu is a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. Will the minister now, finally, give that assurance?

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

I completely reject the premise of the question. The only thing the government has refused to do is play Labor Party word games. I say again what I said in response to the primary question: Gladys Liu is the member for Chisholm because a majority of voters—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Gladys Liu is the member for Chisholm because a majority of people in Chisholm gave Ms Liu their confidence. That is something that seriously upset the Labor Party, which is why they're pursuing this grubby, grubby smear without any evidence of anything whatsoever. We have full confidence in the member for Chisholm. She does an outstanding job, and the people of Chisholm knew why they were supporting her rather than the alternative: because they wanted a continuation of good Liberal-National government.

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.