Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to media reports that Dean Mighell, the Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, spent $80,000 from his own workers’ redundancy fund, Protect, on an extraordinary trip to London that included business class flights, meals, drinks, valet service, internet, in-house movies, booze and other items including a phone call to a transsexual escort by the name of Suzana. Is this an appropriate use of workers’ redundancy funds? Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the member for Deakin is a former organiser for the redundancy fund? Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the member for Deakin was not involved in the distribution of almost $1.4 million of the funds that were used to buy a house for Kevin Harkins, the union’s state secretary and former candidate for the Labor Party at the last election?

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

Order! The first part of the question was in order but the part referring to the member for Deakin and the rest of the question were well out of order. The last part was really something that could only be introduced by way of substantive motion.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Roxon interjecting

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

Order! The Minister for Health and Ageing is not helping at all. I have suggested that the first part of the question is in order. I just simply say to the member for North Sydney—as he mumbles a new precedent—that I got myself into strife when I prevented on three occasions out of about eight the Prime Minister from taking questions when they referred to the conduct of a member. That deals with the second part of the question. He knows that the third part of the question is well and truly out of the order because it is bordering on something that should be done by substantive motion.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I seek your guidance. We have just witnessed the member for North Sydney cast a slur on a range of members on the alleged basis of asking a question in question time. Can you indicate—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wasn’t a question. Can you indicate whether it is in order for, in the guise of asking a question, members of this House to be defamed? You allowed the member for North Sydney to continue with that question even though it was clearly out of order.

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

Order! I simply say to the Leader of the House that (1) I have ruled two aspects of the question out of order and (2) I could not have ruled them out of order until I had listened to the question. If he thinks that I am happy about that situation, I can indicate that I am not. But I cannot pre-empt what is going to happen and whether or not I think it is appropriate is not the chair’s business. I have dealt with the two aspects of the question that I believed were out of order.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The remarks that the member for North Sydney made in that part of his question which was out of order were clearly offensive and should be withdrawn.

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

Order! I think the real problem was that they were couched by way of a question rather than being definitive. I think that the ruling out indicates that they are not part of the record.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say to the question from the member for North Sydney, firstly, as I have seen in media reports, as I have been advised, ASIC is investigating the matter he refers to. If there are any allegations of improper conduct in any way then obviously that is something that ought to be properly investigated and dealt with. I will repeat what I said to this parliament yesterday in a different context: everyone should abide by the law; there are no exceptions. Everyone should abide by the law. Having said that, when everyone should abide by the law, the way the system works in this country—perhaps the member for North Sydney might prefer it were different—being a democracy, is that if there is an assertion that someone has not abided by the law, that is not tried in this parliament; that is dealt with by the appropriate investigative authorities, who should then deal with it. So everyone should abide by the law and everyone should let due process go through in relation to the allegations, and as I am advised ASIC is dealing with the matter.

More broadly, can I say this: if the member for North Sydney believes he is in possession of information that goes to proper conduct of any member of this parliament then he should immediately move the relevant substantive motion. If he does not do so, people will understand what kind of person he is.