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

Gladys Liu is the elected member for Chisholm because a majority of Australians in Chisholm preferred her and the Liberal Party to the Labor alternative. Her Labor opponent was a member of a number of the same organisations that Labor is now using for its disgraceful, unsubstantiated smear and dog whistling. In fact her Labor opponent was the honorary chairman, seemingly unbeknownst to her, of at least one of those organisations.

The truth is: Gladys Liu is a proud Australian and a committed Liberal. She stands for our liberal values of individual freedom, free enterprise, reward for effort, risk-taking and having a go, as the best way to ensure that Australians today and into the future, right around Australia, and in particular in her electorate of Chisholm, have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. Those were the values supported by the people of Chisholm and those were the values supported by the Australian people at the last election who voted for our plan to make Australia stronger and more prosperous and to ensure that Australian families have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. Australians in Chisholm and all around Australia voted against Labor's high-taxing, antibusiness, politics-of-envy, socialist agenda—a socialist agenda which Australians understood would have made our economy weaker and all Australians poorer. The member for Chisholm is a strong advocate for her constituents and a valued member of our team in this parliament. She has the government's full support.

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

Well, that was it. I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Dare I call it an explanation—the few words, the pithy blurb by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Yet again we see the arrogance of this government, refusing to be accountable to this parliament, refusing to respond to public allegations and refusing to put the national interest first. As they leave the chamber, ladies and gentlemen, this shows what this government thinks of the national interest. Walk out because you don't actually want to defend Australia's national interest. What a shameful group of cowards they are. In the past week, and including today—

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

Order! Senator Colbeck, on a point of order.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong's comments are clearly a reflection on senators on this side. I would ask you to consider whether they're—

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

My ruling over the last 48 hours, which I have discussed with the Clerk, was that where reflections are specific in nature and, I might say, directly identifiable to an individual, they are out of order; where they are made collectively in political debate, they are not necessarily out of order. I will encourage senators to be careful with their language, but I do not believe that crossed the line, given my rulings from the last 48 hours.

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

Thank you, Mr President. I thank you for your consistency. Well, what we have seen in this past week is Senator Cormann and Senator Payne refusing on seven separate occasions to assure this parliament and this Senate that one of its members, the member for Chisholm, is a fit and proper person to be in the Australian parliament. Now we have had it for the eighth time, with Senator Cormann again refusing to assure the Senate that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to be in this place. In fact, he refused to talk about anything at all. Do you know what he said? 'Gladys Liu was the elected member for Chisholm.' Well, that's not an answer to the issues and questions which are being raised. He said, 'The coalition won the election.' Well, that's not an answer to the serious allegations and questions which have been raised. He said that their tax policy is better. Well, that's not an answer to issues and allegations which have been raised. In fact, there were no answers because they have none.

We have nothing from the government when it comes to responding to the allegations, the concerns and the issues which are being raised publicly, including by members of the Liberal Party, about the member for Chisholm. But, as inadequate as it was, we heard a little bit from Senator Cormann. We've yet to hear anything at all in the parliament from the member for Chisholm. The Prime Minister has hit the mute button when it comes to the member for Chisholm.

The Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and Senator Cormann continue to try and distract and claim there's nothing here to see. They're saying that we shouldn't dare, as the opposition, to ask questions about the member for Chisholm. Well, can they explain this: why is the media filled with reports that have their origins in leaks from the Liberal Party? Why is the media filled with reports that have their origin in leaks from your party, the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party? The government doesn't want to talk about that. They try to distract attention from that fact by impugning those opposite in our efforts to raise legitimate questions. But, whilst the Prime Minister is trying to project a united front, the member for Chisholm herself is yet to front the parliament. There are Liberal MPs and senators who are horrified at the Prime Minister's failure to assure the national interest. We know from what has been written publicly and what the Liberal Party members are saying privately that there are concerns.

Let's remember how we got here. For weeks now questions have been raised over whether or not Ms Gladys Liu's connections make her a fit and proper person to be in the Australian parliament. In an effort to address those questions, the member for Chisholm gave a TV interview, an infamous interview, with Mr Bolt. The facts are that her answers in her interview simply raised more questions. So, in an attempt to deal with those questions, the Prime Minister's Office then wrote a press release that was issued in Ms Liu's name. And, when that in turn raised new questions about why her statements are so wildly inconsistent, the Prime Minister gave a press conference where he claimed that the only thing that happened was that she had given a clumsy interview. He was trying to create the impression she was a political novice.

Well, those facts really are not supported. The member for Chisholm has been an active fundraiser and organiser for the Liberal Party for a long time. She, in fact, first ran for preselection in 2006. She was an adviser to Premiers Baillieu and Napthine, and she certainly has drawn attention over time, including running a social media campaign during the federal election in 2016, including one in relation to LGBTI Australians. She subsequently denied doing so, until faced with clear evidence. She has certainly been a prolific fundraiser. According to her preselection application, which can only have been leaked by her own colleagues in the Liberal Party, she fundraised $1 million. That's a pretty extraordinary sum for somebody outside of parliament, let alone someone in the parliament.

In the Herald Sun today is the latest in an avalanche of reports raising serious questions that the member for Chisholm should answer. We see again questions around a range of activities, a range of allegations—a suggestion that references, for example, for permanent residency were promised to Chinese students or overseas students. We still have silence from the member for Chisholm. I ask this question: how are people supposed to have confidence in the member for Chisholm when she won't be accountable to them and she won't even speak in the place to which she's been elected on the issues which have been raised publicly?

Now, as I said, it is clear there are many in the Liberal Party who simply do not have confidence in the handling of these matters by Prime Minister Morrison or the member for Chisholm. Last week, we saw a report in TheWest Australiananonymously quoting one of the Prime Minister's own MPs—and I note that it is Mr Hastie's hometown paper—'There should have been concerns when she was chosen to stand as a candidate and I believe those concerns were ignored.' The Herald Sun also reported—and this is an extraordinary allegation—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'. These are not my words. This is what has been reported in the Herald Sun. It was reported that security agencies had concerns such that it made it unwise to preselect her.

I accept, given the position I hold now and that I have previously held, that people don't discuss the advice of security agencies. But, when such an allegation is made on such a serious issue on the front page of a national and serious newspaper, it should be answered, and it should be answered by the government of the day, because it is a very serious allegation to say that the Liberal Party was warned that it was unwise to preselect her. It may be true; it may not be true; I'm not in a position to assert that. But we are in a position to know that was printed on the basis of sources obviously within the Liberal Party. And at no stage has the Prime Minister of this country responded to that allegation and at no stage has his minister representing him here responded to that allegation. That has nothing to do with her interview. It is whether or not the Prime Minister is putting his political interests ahead of Australia's national interest.

Government ministers have repeatedly in this place refused to assure the parliament that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to be in the parliament, and it is obvious that the member for Chisholm will not provide that assurance. As I said earlier, much of the information in the reports originates from leaks inside the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. You can probably tell me more about this than I would know, Mr President. It is obviously a very happy place at the moment! The government is trying to distract us from that fact by impugning attempts by the Labor Party and by the media to raise legitimate questions.

And, shamefully, Mr Morrison has injected race into this debate. He's trying to shield himself from accountability by hiding behind the Chinese Australian community. He's suggesting that to ask legitimate questions when public concerns have been raised—not by the Labor Party but by others—is an attack on the entire Chinese Australian population. If we follow his logic, every time you're asked a difficult question it constitutes a racial smear on all Chinese Australians. Well, I'm pretty confident that that's not his view if I'm asked a difficult question or if any other Labor member who happens to be of Chinese heritage is asked a difficult question. That's not a smear on all Chinese Australians. In fact, making this about race is a really grubby political tactic and a dishonourable political tactic. It might help Mr Morrison deal with a political problem of his own making, but it certainly will not help Chinese Australians who seek to make, and are making, a contribution to this country.

I also want to make a comment about the diversity of the Chinese Australian community. It's a very diverse community. You have Chinese Australians who are descendants of those who came during the gold rush. There are others, like myself, who are ethnically Chinese—in my case, my father—and were born in other parts of Asia. This is the South-East Asian community: children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the diaspora from southern China into South-East Asia. There are some who are Taiwanese Australian. There are those who were welcomed by a Labor prime minister to stay in this country after the Tiananmen crackdown and there are those who have come more recently from mainland China. It is a diverse community and it is a hardworking community. It is a community that does share a love and loyalty for this country. It is also an informed community, and so many Chinese Australians can see right through what the Prime Minister is doing.

Senator Ruston interjecting—

I'll take that interjection. They can see what I'm doing, yes. I'm raising legitimate questions about Australia's national security and I'm responding to your grubby political tactic of trying to make this about race.

Senator Ruston interjecting—

Yes, you, because you are part of it. You are a cabinet minister, and it is shameful. As someone who has experienced racism firsthand, I object most strenuously to the way you are using it in order to divert attention from legitimate questions that even your own Liberal Party have asked about these issues. I'd make the point that the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, is taking this approach in spite of warnings from inside his own party room. As Mr Hartcher quoted, a senior Liberal said, 'This is a profound error.'

There are many Asian Australians who have experienced racism in their time in this country. I remember when Mr Morrison's hero, John Howard, called for cuts to Asian immigration. I remember what that meant for our community, and I remember that there were some in the Liberal Party then who stood up against it. But there were many who did not. I also remember this Prime Minister—the man who now says that you can't use race and that everything about this issue is about race—using the slur 'Shanghai Sam' 17 times, and then he misled the country and denied doing it. Really, does anyone believe him? Did you listen to him in the House of Representatives? 'I didn't hear the question.' Did anyone listen to the audio? It's as clear as a bell. And he's saying, 'I didn't use either of those phrases.' I think anyone who watched the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives saw precisely what he was doing. He got caught out. He hadn't told the truth and he got caught out.

Remember, this is the same Mr Morrison who, according to leaks out of the Liberal Party, urged the shadow cabinet to exploit community concerns about Muslim immigration. This is the bloke who's lecturing us about race. His own colleagues leaked on him and said he urged the coalition shadow cabinet to exploit community concerns about Muslim immigration. He urged the coalition to appeal to fear of immigrants. Everybody can see that this Prime Minister is seeking to avoid questions and he is using a grubby smear in order to try and avoid answering legitimate questions about the member for Chisholm. Well, we're not going to be deterred nor intimidated by this obvious distraction, and I suspect members of the media won't be. I suspect members of the community will not be. Because, ultimately, we are judged in this country not by our ethnicity or our faith, but by what we do—by our values and our actions. If one is elected as a member or senator in this place, we are accountable to the people who elect us through the parliament. That is the Westminster system. As yet, we have not had the member for Chisholm have the courage and the decency to stand up in this parliament and respond to the very, very lengthy, very serious set of allegations and concerns which have been raised about her and she should. The member for Chisholm must be accountable, and Mr Morrison should make her be so.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it any wonder that, when the people of Australia turn on their TV and listen to the debate that goes on in this place, they are losing faith in the political system? They see a duly elected representative from the seat of Chisholm being harangued unfairly. Gladys Liu is a new coalition MP, a backbencher and a go-getter. She is a woman who is proud of her community and she's also proud of her heritage. She should be celebrated, not attacked. Over 1.2 million Australians come from Chinese heritage—over 5.6 per cent of our population—and they make a significant impact on our community and our economy. She's representing her electorate amid a media storm whipped up by those opposite, and it is a shame.

We've all been in robust interviews. We all, with hindsight, could have used better words. And to come in here and suggest that Ms Liu has not been upfront and has not been engaging in clarifying those statements is simply incorrect. She has issued a statement clarifying her comments, and I quote, 'At all times I've complied with relevant state and federal disclosure laws.' Those opposite haranguing her here and in the other place is as childish as it is churlish. To suggest she's been silent is, again, incorrect. She said last week she was an active member in her local community, and she works closely with many groups, including many from the Australian-Chinese community. She has resigned from many organisations and is in the process of auditing any organisations that may have added her as a member without her knowledge or consent. That is appropriate, I believe.

She has the full support of the government, and, again, for those opposite to suggest anything else is misrepresenting us in this place. She's proud of her values and, as Senator Cormann said, they are Liberal Party values. She will make a great contribution to the coalition in her role as the member for Chisholm. But she flagged that this may be an issue and that it was not the first time she'd experienced something like this in her experience with the Australian public. In her first speech, she said:

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.

That is what Gladys Liu was elected to do. That is what she is doing, and she has the government's full support in representing her electorate.

Those opposite like to say that people are dog-whistling on racism. The reality is they are the ones who are targeting Gladys because of her ethnicity, and they have form in this space. This is not the first time the ALP has pulled this card out of their poker hand. I will go to Tanya Plibersek and her attack on the Adani coalmine. Plibersek said that Australians could not rely on an Indian mining company to bring jobs to Central and North Queensland. I don't know what the Indian part had to do with it. Who could forget Michael Daley, the former leader of the New South Wales Labor Party, who said, 'The immigrants are taking the jobs and replacing fleeing young Sydneysiders running from immigrants in Sydney'? There was also Labor's racist campaign against the Chinese free trade agreement. We sat in here for days, listening to the Labor Party deride one of our great trading partners and the benefits that would flow from the Chinese free trade agreement for agricultural commodity groups, for our mining industry and for local jobs throughout our economy on the back of getting ChAFTA through.

So you have form on calling out race whenever it suits you, and right now you've made a determination that criticising and haranguing Gladys Liu as the first Chinese-Australian elected to this place makes sense for you politically. Well, Gladys has the government's full support, and we look forward to the great contribution she's going to make in the other place on behalf of her constituents and, indeed, the nation.

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

I remind honourable senators to refer to members in the other place by the appropriate titles.

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

I rise to speak in response to Senator Cormann's statement. Centre Alliance supported Senator Wong's motion yesterday calling on the Leader of the Government in the Senate to provide an explanation of the government's response to allegations raised against the member for Chisholm and an assurance to the Senate that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to remain a member of the Australian parliament. This is a highly unusual motion, but a very necessary one in the context of the serious allegations raised in relation to the member for Chisholm. Those allegations boil down to the fact that the member for Chisholm has been reported to have been associated with and, indeed, been a member of organisations associated with the overseas influence and propaganda activities of the government of the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party. The member for Chisholm has denied aspects of these allegations—first in what she described as a clumsy media interview and then in a very carefully drafted statement, apparently drafted by the Prime Minister's office—but she has not been prepared to address these issues in the parliament. Allegations have also emerged about the member for Chisholm's responsibilities under the law to declare certain political donations made to the Liberal Party.

These matters have not been satisfactorily resolved by the member for Chisholm nor have they been resolved by the government. Instead, the government has decided to circle the wagons. Yesterday, the Leader of the Government in the Senate echoed the Prime Minister, who had declared that the government had full confidence in the member for Chisholm and then, unfortunately, accused the Labor opposition of engaging in tactics of smear and innuendo. Senator Cormann has added nothing to the discussion this morning. What should happen is that the member for Chisholm should make a comprehensive statement to the parliament addressing all allegations and issues that have been raised. What the government should do is ask the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to conduct a thorough investigation of the member for Chisholm's foreign political connections and then provide the parliament with the outcome of that investigation. Simple statements that the government has full confidence in the member for Chisholm aren't enough. It is, of course, not the ethnic background of the member for Chisholm that is the issue, not even remotely; it is her reported connections to a foreign power—a foreign power that has engaged in extensive influence and covert interference activities in our country.

Both Labor and the coalition have played partisan politics on the question of Chinese influence, and each has launched partisan attacks on the other in relation to particular individuals and cases, but we have to look at this in the wider context of China's economic and geopolitical rise, our deep trading relationship with China, the massive flow of Chinese investment into our country, the ever-growing people-to-people ties between Australia and China and the unambiguous desire of the Chinese government to directly influence our political, diplomatic and economic choices. This has been developing for a long time, and all the while we have had a series of worrying incidents that have gone inadequately investigated and haven't been resolved.

A decade ago we had serious allegations raised about the member for Hunter's relationship with a Chinese-Australian property developer, Helen Liu—and, I must stress, she is no relation of the member for Chisholm. The member for Hunter was then the defence minister. Years later, it has been confirmed that Ms Liu was directly connected with a senior Chinese intelligence officer who was actively engaged in covert political funding operations. More recently, we have had the unfortunate case of former Senator Dastyari, and we now have the revelations from the New South Wales Independent Commission against Corruption of an Aldi bag stuffed with $100,000 in cash.

However, these high-profile political scandals are part of a wider stream of controversies concerning China's growing influence in Australia, including, for example, China's aggressive interest in Australian resources and critical infrastructure; the Chinese acquisition of Darwin's port infrastructure; the revelation that a Chinese owned mining company has been allowed to set up shop in Australia's top-secret Woomera defence testing range; concerns about China's political influence on Australian university campuses; and deeply worrying reports of extensive Chinese cyberespionage activities. The outgoing director-general of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, has called foreign interference an 'existential threat'. He didn't name China, but that's what he was talking about.

The problem is that both the coalition and Labor are keen to fire partisan shots at each other, whether about Sam Dastyari or Gladys Liu, but they refuse to talk openly about the elephant—or, rather, the panda—in the room. Neither side wants to open debate about our future relationship with China. They are fearful of Beijing's reaction and fearful of what that might reveal about the extent of China's reach within our economy and our political institutions. Twice the coalition and Labor have voted together to block a Senate inquiry into relations with China. This week, Reuters reported that our intelligence agencies positively identified China as the source of hacking attacks on this parliament and both major political parties, but neither the government nor Labor want to talk about that. A year after the passage of our Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, the parliament still hasn't created an equivalent parliamentary scheme. Only now has the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges been tasked to renew its inquiry on that matter, thanks to a Centre Alliance initiative.

Australia can enjoy a prosperous and mutually respectful relationship with China, but only if we get our house in order and are properly insistent on respect for our sovereign democracy. In years to come, I fear we may look back on these debates and say that that was when we missed our opportunity to address issues that go to the very heart of our sovereign democracy, that that was when we failed to address an existential threat, the 'panda in the room', because our major political parties were too busy engaging in partisan spats to see the bigger picture. I very much hope those fears are mistaken, but I fear they are not.

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

I rise to take note of the minister's answer—or, at least, the complete and utter lack of one. In fact, wasn't it interesting that Senator McKenzie from the Nationals spoke longer than Senator Cormann from the Liberals in defence—well, I guess you could call it a defence—of the member for Chisholm. So we had Senator McKenzie riding in on a horse to rescue the Liberal Party from itself. What was also interesting about Senator McKenzie's contribution is that she decided one of her key planks of attack would be to cite the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and say the Labor Party had somehow acted in some kind of racist way—I suppose that was the imputation she was making—despite the fact that it was in fact Senator Wong who carried the China free trade agreement through the Labor Party. It was a complete and utter embarrassment for the Liberals that they had to rely on the National Party in this debate. Wasn't it interesting to see how many Liberals fled the chamber when Minister Cormann had finished speaking. None of them were particularly willing—as would seem to be the case for those present here now—to stand up and participate in this take note debate.

There are three simple words that Minister Cormann, Minister Payne, and indeed, the Prime Minister, seem unable to say. They are: 'fit and proper'. They just roll off the tongue. They are not difficult to say. They are the words, in fact, that any Australian—indeed, any quiet Australian—would expect their Prime Minister to be able to say about any member of the backbench. Indeed, the only quiet Australians in this debate are members of the Liberal Party. They are unable to utter out loud the words 'fit and proper'. I would like to thank certain members of the Liberal Party who are in the chamber today for at least smiling quietly at that suggestion, as they are doing over there.

Why can't the government say these words? Why can't they? Why can't they simply stand up and say, 'The member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to serve in the parliament'? Is it because they simply don't know? Do they have doubts? Are they not sure? Are they not confident enough to stand up and assert that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person? We read the media reports; Liberals are sharing concerns with the media that the member for Chisholm is not a fit and proper person. It must be deeply unnerving for some of those opposite to know that they helped elect someone who reportedly raised red flags with national security agencies before her preselection.

Today we have reports in the Herald Sun that the member for Chisholm promised that she would write references for foreign students if they volunteered to work on her campaign. Those references would lead to permanent residency. The report says that, leading up to this year’s election, Ms Liu’s campaign sent WeChat messages 'offering to act as a "career referee" for Chinese students who did an "outstanding job" volunteering'. Surely this must be a concern to members of the Liberal Party and to the government. This appears to offer an inducement to a volunteer to act on behalf of a political party in an election, and it's not just any inducement; it is a significant inducement. It is the inducement to provide a character reference so someone can become a permanent resident in this country. Is this the member for Chisholm's 'visas for volunteers' program? Is the member for Chisholm, in her political campaigning, actually running a 'visa for vollies' campaign program? Is that what this is? Why can't the government, ministers in this government or the Prime Minister simply stand before the parliament, before the Australian people, and say, 'She is a fit and proper person'? It's because we keep seeing reports like this come out, day after day—national security agencies raising flags; campaign donations. Now she has to go back and run a double-check, an audit—apparently she's running it; we have no details as to how the double-checking process is working. And today there are revelations of a 'visa for vollies' scheme run by the member for Chisholm.

Rather than put his faith in the member for Chisholm and declare her a fit and proper person, Prime Minister Morrison has instead chosen to run a straw man argument. What does he claim about scrutiny of the member for Chisholm? Despite the fact that there were reports she raised security concerns; despite the fact that there are questions around the donations she has raised, the sources of them and their links to the Chinese Communist Party; and despite the fact that she's been running a 'visa for vollies' campaign scheme, what does the Prime Minister do? He says it is racist to raise these questions. He describes this as having 'grubby undertones'.

Do you want know what's grubby? Suggestions that the Liberal Party should exploit fears surrounding Muslim migration in order to win an election. That is what the Prime Minister reportedly did in a shadow cabinet meeting when he was shadow immigration minister in 2011. That's got grubby undertones. Do you know what else is grubby? Telling the media you're willing to waive the conditions and fast-track the visa application of a family you are deporting. Of course, I'm speaking of the Biloela family, the Tamil family. The Prime Minister was out there telling the media that, if they'd just apply, he would welcome it and, in fact, the government would make sure their visa was dealt with quite efficiently. What's grubby is that he never had any intention of doing that. Minister Dutton came out the very next day and made clear the government have no part in that. That is what is grubby. When this Prime Minister is cornered, what does he do?

I'm not going to use the word 'lie'. But, boy, does he misdirect? Does he misrepresent? Does he just say the first thing that comes to mind that's going to get him out of that difficult situation?

Let's look at what he did last week. When asked why it wasn't racist to use the phrase 'Shanghai Sam', what did the Prime Minister do? Did he answer the question? Did he tell the truth? No. He said, 'I never used that phrase.' And when video evidence emerged of him saying it, when audio evidence emerged of him saying it and when it was demonstrated quite clearly and demonstrably 17 times at least on the record that he had used that phrase, what did the Prime Minister do? It's laughable. He said, 'I didn't hear the question properly.' I mean, come on. I heard it. I am sure that all the reporters there heard it. I am sure that even Senator Cormann, had he been there, could have heard and understood it. That is what is grubby about this debate: playing the race card. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done in his attempt to defend the embattled member for Chisholm.

Let's not take the word of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Let's not take the word even of the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate. Let's take the word of that left-leaning keyboard warrior Andrew Bolt. What did Andrew Bolt say in his column? Addressing Prime Minister Morrison, he said:

Australians are in greater danger now that you've played the race card to defend Liberal MP Gladys Liu.

I'm going to repeat that because I am not sure that the Acting Deputy President heard me. He seemed a bit distracted. Andrew Bolt said:

Australians are in greater danger now that you've played the race card to defend Liberal MP Gladys Liu.

So not only are all these actions grubby, they are proof of the lengths the Prime Minister is willing to go to to cling onto power. It is proof that you can take the Prime Minister out of the advertising game but you cannot take the ad man out of the Prime Minister. He is willing to do anything, say anything and promise anything. He is even willing to, in the words of Andrew Bolt, 'put Australians into a greater degree of danger' rather than to take seriously the national interest.

One TV station this week chose to call into question what the Prime Minister says compared to what he does. On Monday this week we had one TV network Channel 10 calling into question what the Prime Minister says compared to what he does. The following day the Prime Minister went ahead and did interviews with every other TV station except the one that had held him to account. This goes to show just how much this Prime Minister does not like being held to account. Every time those opposite tell Australians to 'Look away. There's nothing to see here. It's all a misunderstanding'—'Labor', 'Labor', 'Labor', 'Labor' is all that we hear from them—it's a hint that the Australian people need to examine their actions more closely. It's a question of character of the people who represent their communities in this place and their fitness to serve.

Now more than ever it is vital that the Australian people can have the utmost faith in the democratic institutions of this country. To claim that this scrutiny of the member for Chisholm—again, much of it arising from the alleged notification that went to the Liberal Party and much of it arising from what appeared to be the genuine concerns held by national security agencies—is racist is utterly contemptuous. It is contemptuous of the parliament, it is contemptuous of the Australian people and it is contemptuous of the national interest.

I would also highlight that, according to reports by many journalists in this building, the majority of concerns about the member for Chisholm are being raised by her own party. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs speak to us constantly, and rightfully so, about the threats that Australia faces from foreign interference. Over the last fortnight, we have seen a series of allegations in the media—much of it stemming, it would seem, from unnamed sources from the Liberal Party—about the member for Chisholm. And these cast genuine doubt over her conduct and raise serious questions about foreign interference. And yet when the parliament and the Australian people have looked to their government and their Prime Minister for reassurance they've got nothing. In fact, what they've got is worse than nothing. What we've heard from those opposite is contemptuous and grubby. We now know that seven times in this Senate—

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

Eight now.

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

Eight now, as the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, Senator Wong, rightly points out. Eight times the members of this government have refused to stand here and answer the questions and say the three simple words 'fit and proper'. They cannot apply them to the member for Chisholm, and they will not say them. What faith can the Australian people have in the member for Chisholm and the government that she is part of? What we're seeing instead is a display of obfuscation and delay, a blatant refusal to do the right thing, which necessitated this motion before the chamber, and the weak, short and lack-of-detail answer that came from Minister Cormann here today. Again, I point out that Senator McKenzie, the leader of the National Party in this place, gave a more robust defence and a longer explanation than the leader of the Liberal Party in this place. I think that says it all.

The Senate, of course, has done the right thing. I acknowledge all those senators who supported this motion and called upon Minister Cormann to attend the chamber to provide an explanation for the member for Chisholm's conduct and to assure the Australian people that she should be in this parliament. Of course, we didn't get any such assurance from the government.

I have to say, listening to the Prime Minister misdirect, listening to the Prime Minister play the race card and listening to the Prime Minister say and do anything to hang onto power does raise the question when we're talking about serious issues of national security and foreign interference. I think it's legitimate to ask: whose side is this Prime Minister on? Is he truly on the side of the Australian people or is he on the side of himself and his Liberal Party mates, clinging to power, hanging onto power, at any cost.

The questions that are being raised here are being interpreted by the Prime Minister as some kind of attempt to threaten his parliamentary majority. That's rubbish. These are questions that go to national security and foreign interference, and they should be rightly raised. If the government took questions of foreign interference and national security seriously, they would rightly answer these questions, because surely the first responsibility of a government above all else is to put the national security and the Australian interest above all else?

The Prime Minister and Minister Cormann owe it to the Australian people to provide an explanation for the member for Chisholm's conduct to ensure us that she is indeed a fit and proper person to serve her constituents and the Australian people in this parliament. They still haven't done so. It is extraordinary and it is contemptuous, and all it guarantees is that legitimate questions by all senators in this place, and indeed by all senators in the opposition and on the crossbench, will continue to be raised. Questions will continued to be rightly raised by the media and by the Australian people, because they go to the very heart of what it is to be a fit and proper person in this parliament. They go to the very heart of what it is to stand up and speak to and defend the national interest of the Australian people.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure this chamber that Gladys Liu, the member for Chisholm, has the full confidence of the government. Ms Liu is a very proud Australian—a very, very proud Australian, indeed. She was democratically and validly elected by the people of her electorate, the electorate of Chisholm. They elected her. They stand by her. She's the member of parliament representing the 100,000 or so people in the electorate of Chisholm.

Ms Liu has made a statement in relation to the allegations about her donations and declarations, and I will read it to the chamber. Ms Liu said, 'At all times, I have sought to comply with relevant state and federal disclosure laws.' She has been very clear about accuracy in her reporting, so I think that puts to rest any accusations that her declarations have been in any way incorrect. I would also say that it's not just us in this chamber who stand by Ms Liu and have full confidence in her. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he stands by Ms Liu.

Sadly, the personal attacks on Ms Liu that we are seeing are somewhat predictable. But I'm very keen to know what you are actually accusing Ms Liu of. In her contributions, I heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate accusing Ms Liu of being a party fundraiser. She accused Ms Liu of being an adviser. But this doesn't make her an experienced performer on the public stage. Ms Liu has stated quite clearly that she did a clumsy interview when she went on Andrew Bolt's show last week. God forbid anybody should stand here and say that we've all been perfect whenever we've been put on the public stage! Can anybody in this place actually stand up, hand on heart, and say that they've never done a clumsy interview? Can they say that they've never done an interview or stood up in this place and said something and thought afterwards: 'Gee, I could have said that better'? I think we all have. I can certainly say that I have on occasions thought, 'Wow, I could have put that better.' That's exactly what happened to Ms Liu last week when she went on Andrew Bolt's show.

But don't just listen to me. There are others in this building who are not on this side of the chamber who have expressed concerns about the way this issue has been handled by those opposite. There are people in the Labor Party who are particularly concerned about the way this issue has been handled in this place by the Labor Party. Simon Benson, the national affairs editor of The Australian, made comment in an article last week about this very issue. He said that he understood that there was a 'raging debate' within the Labor Party about the tactics that should be used on this particularly issue, commenting that the 'lowest common denominator' appears to have prevailed. One Labor MP has apparently told Mr Benson that 'in the "thinking" ranks of the caucus there was palpable dissent' about the approach intended to be taken by the Labor Party in pursuing the backbencher Ms Liu. In fact, one Labor MP said, 'We are acting like the NSW branch of One Nation,' and I assume that that's supposed to be an insult, given the way they treat One Nation in this place.

The point that probably most drew my attention and had the greatest amount of resonance for me was the comment made by one of Labor's MPs, who said, 'It appears there is now no road low enough for us to make a political point.' I think we should probably stress that: even those on the other side think that the tactics are extraordinarily low. I have another comment, which probably goes very much to the direct point of why they are attacking Ms Liu. One of Labor's own said:

Why it is choosing this path is a mystery to even some of Labor's own MPs who have privately expressed their disgust considering their own candidate for the same seat, Chinese Australian Jennifer Yang, has told the Liberals that she been thrown on the scrap heap by the Labor Party.

Is this just a front for a very sad and very sorry attempt to be very angry about the fact that Ms Liu was successful in her election in the seat of Chisholm and defeated your own candidate? If you were to consider the comments of Mr Benson in The Australian, you would think that's exactly what it is. So what I would say to those opposite who have stood up here on two occasions and made 20-minute contributions, or thereabouts, is this: if you have any evidence, rather than continue to smear and cast innuendo over Ms Liu and her credibility and integrity, why don't you put that evidence forward? Otherwise, I think it's time for us to end this debate.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the people of Queensland and Australia, because I am their servant, I want to take note of Senator Cormann's statement. I walk to talk about two issues, two words. The first is 'accountability' and the second is 'racism'. In regard to the first, accountability, Senator Cormann has not, in my opinion, addressed the core questions. He has failed to provide reassurances and explanations that meet the people's needs, and in that he has raised serious questions. I'm not going to continue that line of argument at the moment, though, because Senator Wong has done an outstanding job of that. I just want to point out the lack of accountability in Senator Cormann's statement. I haven't done the research, so I'm not going to continue that comment other than to point out that accountability is lacking. Having seen Martin Parkinson dodge my questions and those of the Chair of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee just adds to the lack of accountability in this house, and that undermines people's respect for the house.

But the second question I am concerned about is that there have been no suggestions from the Labor Party—or from journalists, to my awareness—that Ms Liu is under pressure because of her race. That the Liberal Party and the National Party have claimed that is, in fact, saddening, disappointing and slightly annoying. There is no racism that I have seen in any comments on this from the Labor Party. But I have seen implied racism from the Liberal Party in its defence. Then we hear today that these questions are against 1.3 million Chinese in this country and that the Labor Party and others who are seeking questions answered are simply bashing the Chinese. That is false. That is clearly not part of the game. That is a tactic that the Greens often use and non-government organisation activists use when they don't have evidence—when they lack facts and lack an argument.

Playing the race card as the Liberals have done and the National Party has done only undermines their own position. We have got to stop using the race card in this country. When people can't mount an argument, they resort to lies, misrepresentations and accusations like 'misogynist', 'racist' and all the rest of it. That undermines the argument in the Liberal Party's defence.

One Nation opposes racism, opposes implicit racism and won't do that. We abhor the government for taking that stance in this case. Please come clean with the facts. That's all that people want. That's all that Australians want, because there are serious questions that the media have raised and that Andrew Bolt has raised. People in Australia just want answers.

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

Clearly, when we look at the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, we see a prime minister who is out of his depth on foreign policy. We saw it on full display at the G7, where he was Nigel No Mates on the phone, and what we also see is a prime minister who has failed upward his entire career. The problem, of course, is that he now has serious responsibility. He has little comprehension of that with which he is dealing. His colleagues know what it means when the most virulently nationalist and tabloid propaganda newspaper outside of North Korea praises an Australian prime minister's rhetoric. His blind repetition of the talking points of a foreign government is cause for grave concern.

Let's look at the Global Times. Let's look at some recent articles that they've published. One is headed 'China urges US to stop malicious hyping on South China Sea'. Another is 'US bellicose stance cannot jolt China'. It goes on to talk about Huawei and divisions within the US administration. There is 'Be wary of US intervention in China-ASEAN cooperation.' We all know that China has sought to interfere in ASEAN, of which they are not a member, through initiatives in ASEAN countries. That has raised concerns about how ASEAN is going to progress. Another is 'China should hasten defence system deployment in the South China Sea: analysts'. Then they go through and quote them. You won't be surprised to know that all of those analysts believe in hastening defence system deployment in the South China Sea. Of course, we don't really consider it 'defence'. Another is, 'Xinjiang policy is justified', for an article that talks about the Uyghur Autonomous Region. But my favourite has been, 'Reuters fake report on Hong Kong is a stain on global journalism'. The article talks about the fake news on the Hong Kong government. It says:

When a crisis erupts in a developing country—

that is, Hong Kong; I'm sure most Hong Kong people would not consider their region to be 'developing'—

some Western media agencies have played a disgraceful role by taking advantage of its communication influence.

It then goes on to say that the Reuters report:

… is typical of Western news agencies that purposely set out to create maximum change at minimum cost by shaping public opinion at critical moments. In light of this action, Reuters has severely deviated from the bottom line of journalism ethics that all news agencies should follow. It has carried out what US and British intelligence agencies usually do.

I am sure Reuters will love that!

The Prime Minister has made himself to be a useful idiot, and that's the most generous interpretation one can have on that.

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

Order! Senator Kitching. I ask you to reconsider the phraseology there. I don't consider it parliamentary.

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

He has made himself useful to another government. It's not that he's been ignorant of Ms Liu. Let me tell you a story from a Victorian Liberal Party fundraiser from when the Prime Minister was the Treasurer. They were at a function and there were questions afterward. Mr Morrison had given a speech, presumably about what an excellent economic manager he's turned out to be—doubling federal government debt to more than half a trillion dollars, stagnating wages et cetera. So he'd given a speech about that. Then there was a question and answer component to the evening, and Ms Liu was there. Ms Liu repeated the Chinese Communist Party line on the South China Sea and asked Mr Morrison to validate that line. Mr Morrison afterwards asked the organisers of the function: 'Oh, is Gladys now the member for Chisholm? Is Gladys a member of the CCP?' Of course, he was only half joking. So Mr Morrison cannot claim ignorance about Ms Liu. He has known for a very long time about her disposition on these matters. But, of course—and I will come to this—Ms Liu offers something that is actually quite rare in political parties, and that is the ability to raise a lot of money. There is a real problem in that.

As Prime Minister, one of Mr Morrison's main purposes—other than ensuring national prosperity, which, as we can see he has totally and abysmally failed at—is to ensure national security. He sees everything through the prism of a party political prank. As the Australian Prime Minister, he has no higher duty than being our representative, and that includes representing and communicating the values of our system to the nation and to the world. He has proven himself incapable of doing so. Mr Morrison's being praised by that particular publication, the Global Times, is a prize he will wear like a crown of thorns. On social media he is now being denounced as ScoMao. He is being denounced at ScoMao by Australians who are gravely concerned by his handling of Ms Liu. No wonder the Liberals don't want her to explain herself in the chamber. Mr Morrison is highly experienced—I was going to say that Mr Morrison is often referred to as 'the liar from the shire', but I won't, and I'll withdraw that immediately.

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

Thank you, Senator Kitching.

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

But he is highly experienced at defending the indefensible. We've seen that over the course of his entire career and, in fact, before he came into politics, when he was at the tourism board. Of course, his own preselection raised many questions in the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party.

The truth that we need to recognise is that Australians of Chinese descent love Australia. They love this country, they love being here and they love living here, and this is because they have a direct comparison with the way of life that they experienced as younger people. That is why they love living here. They love our freedom. They are very realistic about the government in the country from which they came, which doesn't offer its own citizens the same freedoms that they have here, although the Prime Minister seems to think otherwise—an ignorant view and a typically simplistic view from the least qualified, worst credentialed, most clueless Prime Minister on foreign policy in our history. The only thing in all of this that gives me comfort is knowing that there are many Liberal MPs who see our foreign policy and our role in the region with much more realism than the Prime Minister does. They worry about his delusional view and they worry about Ms Liu the most.

In amongst Ms Liu's other questionable behaviour, the latest of which we saw today, is Ms Liu offering references in exchange for being 'volunteers' on her campaign—that is, she was going to give people references if they volunteered. But do you know what Victorian Liberals have been hearing about since Ms Liu gave that interview on Andrew Bolt's program and what they are most concerned about? They are most concerned that Ms Liu has passed on electoral role or data feedback to another state actor. The people who live in Melbourne in the Chinese Australian community are concerned that their information is being passed on to the Chinese government and the CCP. And the reason they are concerned about that is that they make their own money there, and they would like to bring that money here. They have to declare how much money they are moving out of the country, and this has been recently tightened by the CCP. What has happened is they might declare that they're taking some of their money out, but, in fact, they are living in residences that are of far higher value. Those Chinese Australians are concerned that their electoral information—where they reside here—is being passed back to the CCP, and the problem with that is, of course, that a lot of these people still have family members in China and those people are in danger of being detained.

The reason we did not pass the extradition treaty with China was that we know there is a system of collective responsibility in China. So even if they can't reach the person who is now a citizen of Australia, those people still have families back in China. And, of course, we've recently seen on some of the Australian university campuses that this has been a significant issue. Senator McKenzie talked about Ms Liu's activities in her local community and that she worked closely with the local community. That's true, and that local community is now very concerned that their private details are being shared in an inappropriate way.

The creation of victimhood status around Ms Liu is unbelievable. Instead of acknowledging that Ms Liu is up to her neck in this, Mr Morrison, now with the backing of the CCP, is running interference for Ms Liu by claiming that she's done nothing wrong and that everyone is out to get her because of her ethnicity. This is patently false. As Senator Patrick has pointed out—and as I pointed out earlier in the week—there is no way that our security agencies would be passing on their concerns to a political party about a potential candidate up for preselection unless they had valid concerns. If anyone is suggesting that the former Director-General of ASIO is racist, then they are making a grave mistake. It is actually totally inappropriate for someone to suggest that our security agencies act with anything at their heart other than the very best interests of this country. They would not have made that visit lightly; they would not have done that lightly and taken that course of action lightly. They did it because they were concerned about Ms Liu.

There are many other concerns that people have about Ms Liu, apart from what's gone on in the past week where, firstly, she failed to declare her membership of wings of the Chinese government propaganda machine, memberships she had for over a decade. Secondly, she denied she was ever a member of them, before backflipping and saying she didn't know how her name got on these lists. Thirdly, she bragged to colleagues about raising more than $1 million for the Liberal Party, before it was exposed that large amounts of this went undeclared. And, fourthly, she then denied having to return $300,000 in donations. We also know the security agencies made contact with office holders in the Victorian Liberal Party about her nefarious associations. She was pre-selected anyway. We also know that she lobbied for the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party to ease foreign investment laws. And now we have today's story about her offering references to volunteers for her campaign.

We know that Mr Morrison knew all of this, because we know, from the Victorian Liberal Party, that at fundraisers Ms Liu had raised issues of Chinese foreign policy. What I would say is that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and we now know what Prime Minister Morrison's standards are: (1) he repeats foreign propaganda lines, not even thinking through their implications for our national security; (2) he permits his own backbenchers to raise millions from sources so dubious that they cause justifiable panic from security agencies; and (3) he falsely presents criticism as racism, despite having a history of being willing to engage in the very worst form of race-baiting himself.

We have a Prime Minister who is turning a blind eye to a monstrous scandal, and in the process he has revealed himself to be a—I was going to say a 'dupe', but you might say that's a breach of standing order 193, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, so I will instead say he has proven himself to be ignorant of foreign policy concerns. What I would say is that you don't know what you don't know, and there are more things that will come out about Ms Liu. I will leave it there.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Gladys is a new member, a fellow member of the class of 2019.

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

Senator Hughes, sorry to interrupt, but I would ask you to refer to the members in the other place by their appropriate title. I have reminded the Senate a couple of times already.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member Chisholm is a new member, a fellow member of the class of 2019. She won in an election that saw the Australian people make a clear choice for the aspirations of all Australians and reject the high tax-and-spend agenda, the politics of envy put forward by the Labor Party. She's a proud Australian and a committed Liberal.

As new members we're all learning. I am sure perhaps even those that have been in this place since before I was born can think back and remember what it was like. She made a clunky, ill-worded media performance, and has perhaps not brought a full speech into the chamber. But as a senator from New South Wales, the fact that any Labor member from my state should suggest impropriety, even in this dog-whistling smear of a way, is astounding. In fact, if it were not so offensive, it would be hilarious.

This is the party who has boosted the brand of Aldi beyond what any advertising campaign could ever do; who has members currently before ICAC, once again displaying the totally morally bankrupt culture, the 'whatever it takes' Sussex Street attitude that puts Labor not only above the law but apparently above laws that the Labor Party itself introduced. This is the party that must face incredibly awkward caucus meetings here in Canberra; the party of Eddie Obeid, now languishing at Her Majesty's pleasure; the party of Michael Williamson, now reunited with his wife after divorcing her prior to his incarceration and bankruptcy; and the party where the poor member for Kingsford Smith, during his time as state general secretary, was opposed to the elevation of now senator Kristina Keneally to the premiership of New South Wales. I guess, luckily for Senator Keneally, Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid could make the calls on her behalf, make the calls and move Mr Thistlethwaite's support away from Frank Sartor.

So I'd suggest to those opposite who are smearing a hardworking member, a validly elected member chosen by the good people of Chisholm—the voters of Chisholm who rejected the party of Obeid, the party of Setka, the party of Shorten—who defeated the candidate you thought had already won the seat: have a look at yourself. Perhaps this says more about you and your disgraceful state of affairs.

Question agreed to.