Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement of the member for Dobell, given on Monday. Does the member for Dobell's statement cause her to change her view that the member for Dobell has failed to meet the standards of conduct and behaviour that she would expect of a member of the Labor caucus?

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is in order and the Prime Minister has the call.

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

My judgment about the member for Dobell sitting in the Labor caucus has been made and is clear. I have publicly explained it. It was about respect for the parliament. I think as a matter of common sense people would understand that there is a difference between which party rooms members of this parliament sit in and the question of being entitled to sit in this parliament itself. There is a difference in those things. Clearly sitting in this parliament itself, being here representing an electorate, is a different matter. Obviously there are exceptional circumstances in which someone can be excluded from voting, but people are entitled to vote on behalf of their constituency.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are they?

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

I am referring for example to the constitutional circumstances. I suggest if the member does not know them he ought to acquaint himself with those circumstances.

I have been concerned throughout this matter about the presumption of innocence and prejudgment. I would refer the member for Sturt, who asked the question, to the words which I think are important: 'The irony is that the Leader of the Opposition thinks he should be judge and jury in these matters.' Those words were said by Premier O'Farrell in the New South Wales parliament. Of course, the opposition are full of hypocrisy, not consistency; nothing to do with standards, everything to do with their political interests. (Time expired)

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer in which she described issues to do with being judge and jury. If, as the Prime Minister has said, the parliament should be judge and jury, why won't the Prime Minister invite the member for Dobell back into the caucus?

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

I refer the member for Sturt to my statement at the time that I announced that the member for Dobell would not participate in Labor caucus and suggest he reads it. He will see when he reads that statement that I was not prejudging the matters being dealt with by Fair Work Australia. I explained my view about respect for the parliament. I continue to believe that it is inappropriate for this parliament to prejudge matters which will ultimately be dealt with by the courts.

I also note, in terms of the opposition's approach to these matters, that they have one standard when people are members of the Liberal Party or the National Party and a different standard for everyone else. How can they come into this place and claim any consistency, given the matters involving, for example, Senator Fisher from South Australia, now Senator Heffernan and the like? If you are in the Liberal Party everything is apparently okay. That is the standard of the publicity of this opposition.

For me, I believe it is important that people have, if they are to be the subject of legal proceedings, their entitlements to their day in court and to put their defence as they choose to do so.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to ask a second supplementary question.

Mr Albanese interjecting—A second supplementary?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt is correct; the previous Speaker had allowed a second supplementary question on previous occasions. The member for Sturt has the call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. In her previous answer she said that she was not prejudging the member for Dobell—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, my recollection is that the Leader of the Opposition asked a supplementary before and the Manager of Opposition Business did as well.

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

Get with the program!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may get with the program outside the chamber very shortly if she does not desist from providing ongoing advice to the chair. The member for Sturt has the call.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the Prime Minister's previous answer she referred to how she was not prejudging the member for Dobell and, therefore, I ask her how it is that the member for Dobell is not fit to sit in the caucus but is fit to sit with the Labor Party in all votes of this House?

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order: this is exactly the same as the previous questions that have been asked by the Manager of Opposition Business and it has been fully answered.

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

I refer the member to my other two answers—that is the explanation; and, on the continuing campaign by the opposition and its hypocrisy, I note that the shadow Treasurer stated for the opposition that they would cheerfully accept the member for Dobell's vote so I do not see the point of this questioning.