Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I second the motion. This government and this Prime Minister promised the Australian people that the government would be open, accountable and transparent, essentially inviting the opposition to ask this government and this Prime Minister in question time questions that the Prime Minister would answer in an open, accountable and transparent way. Mr Speaker, today I asked a question, which you allowed, regarding a press conference that the Prime Minister gave in Japan on 9 June—this was my first question. At the press conference, the Prime Minister answered questions about the member for Robertson—and I put that information in my question, which you allowed, and then I quoted the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said:

… I understand my office has been in contact, and … I understand that she has issued a statement …

Then I asked whether the Prime Minister’s office had any involvement in the preparation of that statement. You, Mr Speaker, allowed that question, and the Prime Minister stood up; he got the date wrong and thought it was another press conference, but nevertheless he attempted to give some sort of answer to the question. He said he would go away, work out the timetable and come back. I then asked a second question based on another press conference two days later in Japan, where the Prime Minister, in answer to questions about the member for Robertson, said—and I again quoted him:

… there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour here.

I then asked the Prime Minister if he would explain what he meant by ‘a pattern of unacceptable behaviour’. The Prime Minister himself said at that press conference, when he was answering questions about the member for Robertson in public, rebuking her publicly, that his talk with Ms Neal was:

… a clear-cut conversation between me as the leader of the parliamentary Labor party, and as the prime minister, and with her as a member of the parliament.

So the Prime Minister was telling the world at large that his statements about the member for Robertson were made in his capacity as the Prime Minister of this country. If we are denied the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister of this country what he meant by a phrase he used in a press conference in Japan, then we will have our hands tied for the next 2½ years in the lead-up to the next election.

This government promised to be open, transparent and accountable. Mr Speaker, you must not use standing order 100(c) to suggest that the question I asked was anything other than to the Prime Minister in his capacity as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of this country must answer questions that go to the very essence of his role as Prime Minister. He chose to use that opportunity to make a statement in public, at a press conference, about the member for Robertson. The Australian people are entitled to know what he meant by a ‘pattern’. We are not talking about one incident. The Australian people do not have the opportunity to go down to the Lodge or turn up at Kirribilli and ask the Prime Minister, ‘What did you mean by that?’ We as the elected representatives of the people of Australia are entitled to ask the Prime Minister, ‘What did you mean when you, as the Prime Minister of this country, said at a press conference in Japan that “there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour”?’ The Australian people are entitled to know what he meant. The forum for the Australian people to ask that question is through the elected representatives, in question time, in this chamber.

Mr Speaker, this question should not have been ruled out of order, with the greatest respect. We spent time overnight reading your statements yesterday in Hansard and, with the greatest respect, I am cognisant of the statements you made. I sought advice and I spent a lot of time drafting these questions to ensure they did not offend whatever interpretation you, Mr Speaker, put on the standing orders. So we directed the question to the Prime Minister’s statement, and you allowed that in question 9. You allowed a question about the Prime Minister’s statement and what that statement meant. The statement said that his office had been in contact with the member for Robertson and that he understood the member for Robertson had issued a statement. The fact is she had not issued a statement; therefore, we ask, ‘What did he mean by that? What did he mean by the issuing of that statement?’ The second question, question 10, is again in the same form, exactly the same form, as the question that you allowed. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister must be required to answer this question. (Time expired)

See this speech in context