Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity in this adjournment debate—and I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak—to make comment on the report just tabled: the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests. I thank the members of the committee. I do not envy the many hours and perhaps the conversations and phone calls that they may have had with regards to their deliberations. It is not an easy job to sit on these committees. The two essential matters that arise from this report are the findings of fact and the conclusion. I am very pleased to say that the findings of fact determine, as set out in paragraph 1.15, that the member for Robertson had said to me, ‘Your child’—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am reluctant to interject, but it is suggested that members of the committee indulged in telephone calls in pursuit of their duty—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. There are other forms that can be used in the House to clarify that remark.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not for me to comment on what conversations may or may not have taken place, but I do not envy any members if they did have conversations with or received pressure from other quarters. This is not beyond the realms of possibility. In the event that they did happen, I do feel sorry for them. There are two important elements. The first, the finding of fact, is outlined in paragraph 1.15:

The Member for Robertson, in a reference clearly made to the Member for Indi who was heavily pregnant, said, as recorded by Hansard and noted by the Member for Indi:

“Your child will turn into a demon if you have such evil thoughts”

“You’ll make your child a demon. You’ll make your child a demon”

“Evil thoughts make a child a demon”.

The other finding of fact was what I had said, and is outlined in paragraph 1.15:

... the audio of the exchange only reveals the question ‘Are you a man hater?’.

and, in paragraph 1.16:

‘How can you say that?’

which was of course in reference to those particular comments. The other important element of the report that I would like to draw the House’s attention to is the conclusion. The whole reason for this committee’s deliberations—the reasoning, the discussions, the debates, the legal opinions—all resulted in this one conclusion in paragraph 1.25. Of course, we have heard that:

the Committee is constrained by the very tight interpretation that surrounds a finding of deliberate misleading.

It goes on to say:

However, the Committee observes that the Member for Robertson’s responses in the Main Committee fall below the standards expected of a member and do not reflect well upon her.

I thank the committee for having the courage to make those comments. I am sure that the people of Robertson and the people of Australia will make a judgement upon these matters.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Price interjecting

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand why there are some in the Labor Party who want to create some position of moral equivalence, as if to say that my comment ‘How can you say that?’ and my question ‘Are you a man hater?’ equate to the comments made by the member for Robertson. It is such a desperate, desperate attempt to try to protect the member for Robertson. I do not know why they want to; she is hardly a jewel in the crown of the New South Wales Labor Party. But that is their choice. It was recorded in the report in paragraph 1.19, that:

The only potential matter of privilege arising from the events referred by the House is a question of possible deliberate misleading of the House by the Member for Robertson in denying that she made certain statements in the Main Committee. The Member for Indi acknowledges this point in her submission.

In other words, the main purpose of the committee’s deliberations was to determine whether there was a possible misleading of the House. That arose out of the comments made by the member for Robertson, my subsequent request for a withdrawal and a denial of those comments being made. No-one else denied making comments. No-one else was asked to withdraw any comments. This committee deliberated on the question of the possible deliberate misleading and found, on a very tight interpretation, that there was not a deliberate misleading. So let me remind those members: the Australian public knows what you are trying to do and they will pass— (Time expired)