Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and McAllister today relating to the Member for Bass.

Last week two members of the House of Representatives crossed the floor to vote against the government. One, the member for Dawson, voted against a government bill and delivered a speech that likened vaccine mandates and COVID restrictions to the Nazi regime and then called for civil disobedience.

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

Yes, Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, there was absolutely no reference at all in either the question put by Senator McAllister or the question put by the other senator from the other side to either George Christensen or his contribution last week and there was no reference at all in the answers from either minister with respect to that question.

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

Senator Scarr, that's a debating point. Please continue, Senator McAllister.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So one member crossed the floor under one set of circumstances and the other member, the member for Bass, voted to bring on a debate on an integrity commission after three years of inaction by the government. Only one of these members was hauled into the Prime Minister's office and reduced to tears.

Sometimes the things someone doesn't do can tell you as much about their character as the things they do. Last week in Senate question time we learned that Mr Morrison didn't feel the need to speak to a member of the coalition whose comments in and out of the parliament have the capacity to incite violence. He simply wasn't interested; it wasn't important enough. Now the Prime Minister has some real questions to answer about why that's the case. There is also the broader question: why was Mrs Archer treated so differently from Mr Christensen and forced to speak with the Prime Minister against her will?

Two-thirds of Australian women regularly tell surveys that they don't believe they are treated equally at work. Those women may have an idea why Mr Morrison singled out Mrs Archer for special attention. They are seeing a pattern that they know all too well. Mrs Archer now has the dubious honour of joining the list of Liberal women who have publicly spoken about the way the Prime Minister, his staff and close allies have used their power against them.

The Prime Minister described the meeting as a very warm, friendly and supportive meeting. Mrs Archer has said it wasn't a pastoral care meeting and, further, that she spent the first half of the conversation crying and apologising. That doesn't sound like the same meeting, does it? The Prime Minister finds himself in a position where yet again someone has called his version of events inaccurate and misleading. Perhaps it's not shocking that the Prime Minister has a different story from a woman who was in the room. This is the Prime Minister who has never really explained how he came to be so surprised when he learnt the following things—and I'll quote him:

I have heard that women are overlooked, talked over by men, whether it is in boardrooms, in meeting rooms, in staff rooms, media conferences, cabinets or anywhere else – overlooked and treated like they have nothing valuable to contribute.

I have heard about being marginalised, women being intimidated, women being belittled, women being diminished, and women being objectified.

Former Liberal backbencher Ms Banks is on the record as describing Mr Morrison as 'menacing'.

Perhaps the PM would have been less surprised if he took the time to examine how he and his office use power. The Prime Minister has made no secret of his love for the top job. He makes no secret of his love for red carpets and for power. But being powerful comes with obligations and responsibilities. You should be honest and you should exercise power in a way that enhances, not diminishes, others. We heard from those opposite that none of this is a big deal, that crossing the floor is a very important freedom for the Liberal Party. Indeed, when five senators voted for the One Nation private senator's bill last Monday Mr Morrison said that he doesn't 'run an autocracy'. But if that's the case, where are the moderate Liberals, crossing the floor for strong climate action? Where is the member for Wentworth or the member for North Sydney? Where is Senator Hume? Where are the others? It turns out that having the courage of your convictions requires both courage and conviction.

So here we are, entering the ninth year—the ninth year!—of this tired government, and on yet another occasion the Prime Minister's inability to understand the way women experience work and experience public life is on display. We see a leave pass for members who cross the floor and call for civil disobedience and we see a dressing down for members who want an integrity commission. As I said, sometimes it's the things that someone doesn't do that tell you as much about their character as the things they do.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were lots of debating points in that contribution by Senator McAllister to be responded to. Perhaps I can draw particular reference to Minister Birmingham and his response to the question. I think it was an important point he made, and it's something all of us on this side of the chamber hold dear, and that is that in the Liberal Party of Australia we have the right—and indeed there's an expectation, from some of our members—that we will exercise that right from time to time when we consider it necessary, to cross the floor on matters of great principle, of great conviction and of conscience. The member for Bass, Bridget Archer MP, exercised that right last week, and that is her right in the Liberal Party.

I want to quote from the article that appeared in the Guardian on 24 November 2021 in relation to Mrs Archer MP, member for Bass, exercising that right:

"To be perfectly clear, I always reserve my right to cross the floor, that is one of the reasons I sit on this side [in the Liberal party]," Archer said.

So when Bridget Archer made her decision, as the member for Bass, as to which party she would represent, one of the core principles of the Liberal Party of Australia had direct relevance to that decision, and that was her right—her right, as it is of every member of the Liberal Party in the lower house and every Liberal senator in the upper house, and similarly members of the National Party—to cross the floor on matters of deep conviction and on matters of conscience if they believe that is what they need to do in order to represent their constituencies and to act in accordance with their principles. That's what Mrs Archer, the member for Bass, did last week, and I deeply respect her for making that decision.

We also heard from our Prime Minister in relation to that decision that our party is not a party of drones. There are strong personalities, strong-minded individuals in our party. We've seen that demonstrated in the 2½ years during which I've been sitting in this place—and I'm sure we'll continue to see it demonstrated in the future. I think that's a good thing for our democracy. The particular matter that Mrs Archer, the member for Bass, crossed the floor on, in terms of a Commonwealth Integrity Commission, is an important matter. I certainly am 100 per cent behind the introduction of a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Do I support the Independent member's bill? No, because I am deeply concerned, with respect to a Commonwealth integrity commission, about the impact any structure that might be adopted could have upon persons who are subject to complaints.

As I have done in the past, I want to bring the chamber's attention to the matter of Mr Stephen Pearce, who went through the New South Wales ICAC process. Mr Pearce was the deputy commissioner of the State Emergency Service. He went through an absolute ordeal through the New South Wales ICAC. An article by Natalie O'Brien in the Sydney Morning Herald, dated 13 February 2016, quotes Mr Steven Pearce:

"My family and I suffered substantial public humiliation, emotional and financial trauma," he said.

"Never did the system look after me and I was crucified publicly and professionally."

These are important issues. Mrs Archer, the member for Bass, was quite entitled to cross the floor, and she was deeply respected for doing so. At the same time, I will say to this chamber that I will do all I can to make sure that any Commonwealth integrity commission gets the balance right in terms of pursuing matters which ought to be pursued by a corruption commission but also in terms of ensuring that reputations are not unnecessarily trashed, as the legacy lasts forever even though the political caravan moves on. (Time expired)

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

Senator Scarr is right: there are a lot of different debating points you can make about what happened in question time today in response to Senator McAllister's questions and others' questions. But I don't think the point here is about crossing the floor; I think the point is about what happens when a woman, in particular, does something the Prime Minister doesn't want her to do—what the impact is on that woman and what that says about the Prime Minister's beliefs and values and the culture of this government.

I am deeply unenthusiastic about contributing to this debate, because, in my 2½ years in the Senate, this issue has dominated so much of the public discourse. This government is completely inept when it comes to listening to women, understanding the issues that women are raising, and seeing this place as a workplace, where people not only have rights but also have responsibilities to each other. For women in this workplace, especially, that is abused. I was in this chamber only two weeks when I first heard the phrase 'quota girls' thrown out from those opposite me—just a few weeks. What a nice welcome to the chamber which has gender parity!

We've seen three different positions on quotas from the Prime Minister. We've heard views like, 'We want more women in, but just not at the expense of men.' We've seen all sorts of incidents when it comes to the treatment of female MPs in this government, whether it's Mrs Archer, as was the topic in question time today, or the experience of Ms Julia Banks in this parliament. We've seen the nonsense the Prime Minister has uttered in response to the concerns of women giving birth in regional New South Wales: 'Well, the solution to your lack of access to maternity care isn't a hospital; it's a highway.' We've seen this government sit on the Human Rights Commission's Respect@Work report for almost a year and then completely fudge its response to the recommendations. They pretended they were going to do it all, and then they reneged on that commitment. But all of this pales in comparison to the way that female staff have been treated in this building. And it pales in comparison to the way women in general are treated by this government—when women join on the lawns of Parliament House for March4Justice and the Prime Minister says, 'Women in Australia should be grateful, because not far from here such marches even now are being met with bullets.'

I am so sick of having these debates. I am so appalled that this has to be a topic in question time. It has to be, because it's still going on, right? It has to be, because we're still seeing this kind of behaviour. In my 2½ years here, given everything I've seen and everything this place has borne witness to, given the courage and bravery of women seeking to change the culture of this place, I am completely fed up that not enough seems to happen to recognise that this is a workplace and that the people within this workplace need to be treated with respect. If women in this workplace feel like that, is it any wonder that women outside of this workplace, looking in, don't want to put their hand up to be here—that's especially true on the other side—and is it any wonder that those women don't feel like their concerns, the issues facing them, are being listened to or heeded by this government?

This is a cultural thing and it starts at the top. If this is the way the Prime Minister perceives women, if this is the way the Prime Minister responds to concerns from women, if this is the way the Prime Minister runs his workplace, which is the workplace of all of us, then that culture will permeate down. It doesn't just stay in this building; it goes beyond its walls as well. It sets a standard which becomes one more broadly in the public space. It is no wonder that women in Australia are fed up. I am fed up, too. So I would urge, as we look at the debating points, as we continue this debate, that we give some consideration to how serious this is for the women outside of this building and those within it.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm fed up with being mischaracterised by Labor on these matters. What we are seeing right now is a grubby campaign to denigrate the Prime Minister. We have an inherent right, in the Liberal and National parties, to cross the floor. Senators have not mentioned Senator Fierravanti-Wells or Senator McMahon, who crossed the floor. Don't they matter? What we are seeing here is a continuing grubby attempt by the Labor Party to denigrate the campaign and rewrite history.

The fact of the matter is that our government has done more for Australian women than any other government before. When I talk about what we are doing for Australian women, I talk about the, in excess of, $1 billion that we are providing for women's safety, on matters such as emergency accommodation. Did members opposite, the former Labor federal government, ever make a provision for women fleeing family violence? Did the former Labor government ever think that it might be a good idea to provide support in emergency situations, when women are fleeing family violence, through finance for emergency accommodation?

We have provided an absolute record amount of funding to care for women and children in their hour of need: more flexible parental leave; accessible, affordable child care—not child care for millionaires, which is Labor's policy. Labor's policy is about more money going to millionaires than ever before. Our government is providing child care to those who need it the most, those who are in the lower and medium income brackets. Labor's childcare policy is a disgrace. Look at our record on closing the gender pay gap. It was at a record low, under us, of 13.4 per cent. It now sits at 14.2 per cent, down from 17.4 per cent under the previous Labor government. So when we talk about caring for women, I can tell you right now this is one of the most caring workplaces I have ever worked in. I've put that on the record before. But I will call out bad behaviour and I have, as I did, with the member for Higgins, on Insiders earlier this year in relation to Mr Laming.

Where were Labor women when Emma Husar was treated so disgracefully? When Labor had made a decision to get rid of her where were Labor women? She was subjected to the most horrific abuse, false allegations. It almost drove her to a nervous breakdown, to breaking point. Where were Labor women in standing up for Emma Husar? Where were they in standing up for Gai Brodtmann, the former member for Canberra? There is so much hypocrisy. When it comes to bad behaviour from Labor I have not seen Labor women stand up and hold to account those who treat Labor women so badly.

As for our Respect@Work report, let me put on the record that nearly all of the recommendations have been implemented by our government. There are some, of course, that can only be implemented by the states and territories, so I correct the record in that respect. We are really proud of the work that we are doing.

I say to the member for Bass, who has got courage: what a wonderful party we are in where we celebrate the fact that we can exercise our conscience. Guess what happens to Labor senators and members if they cross the floor? If they exercise their conscience, they are expelled. They are the rules of Labor. There is no ability to stand up for what's right or to exercise one's own conscience in the Labor Party. You cross the floor and you are gone. So let's stop the hypocrisy that we are hearing from Labor in this debate.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's just be really clear: this issue is not about crossing the floor. It is about respect for women, about equal treatment for women—not just care, but respect. We can debate the policy in this place, about various positions on either side of the chamber, but the core disrespect for women shown by the Prime Minister is the issue that we are discussing right now. This issue is about the appalling double standards applied by this Prime Minister when it comes to the way he treats the men of his government and the way he treats the women of his government.

Tasmanian Liberal Bridget Archer, the member for Bass, was singled out not for having the audacity to stand with the opposition, the crossbenchers and the Australian people in calling for a national integrity commission but for being a woman. She was marched over to the PM's office against her wishes. What was the response to other members of the government? When wayward South Australian Senator Alex Antic crossed the floor to vote to undermine public health messages, was he marched immediately over to the PM's office? No. Apparently, according to the PM, Senator Antic was just expressing his right to be an individual. It's the same with two Queensland renegades, Senator Gerard Rennick and the member for Dawson, George Christensen, who both crossed the floor to vote with One Nation to undermine the hard work of health officials. Were they immediately marched directly to the PM's office? No, they were not. By her own admission, Bridget Archer had asked on numerous occasions to have the conversation postponed—not cancelled—until she was able to gather her thoughts. She knew she had to talk to him but she clearly needed some time to collect herself. This simple request was denied. Her wishes were ignored.

Former Liberal MP Julia Banks has previously called out this exact type of behaviour, calling it 'menacing, bullying and calculating'. Grace Tame has labelled this treatment as 'textbook coercive control'. So now we add Bridget Archer to the list of those who've seen recent displays of blatant disrespect: Grace Tame; Brittany Higgins; Julia Banks; Christine Holgate; Sam Maiden; the women of the March 4 Justice. What we are seeing, over and over again, is that, regardless of the situation, the PM has consistently refused to respect women's views, refused to respect women's voices and refused to respect women's requests. This pattern of behaviour, this culture within our current government, is appalling. And that is what we stand up against, here, today—that behaviour, disrespecting the women across Australia.

Question agreed to.