Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Minister for Human Services' trip to China. The department of foreign affairs has confirmed at Senate estimates today that a Chinese government note taker would have been present at the meeting between the Minister for Human Services, the Chinese vice-minister for land and resources, and Nimrod Resources. Does that mean that the Chinese government has notes of the meeting and the Australian government does not? And has Dr Parkinson sought notes of that meeting from the Chinese government?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. The matter, as I have said earlier, is being investigated by Dr Parkinson in accordance with the code of ministerial standards. When he has completed that inquiry and advises me, I will then make a decision concerning the matters, subject to the advice, and advise the House accordingly. So the due process is underway. Any suggestions the Leader of the Opposition wants to make to me or to Dr Parkinson can be duly noted, but we are not going to deviate from due process. Proper accountability and transparency are very important and we are undertaking that.

The Leader of the Opposition is filled with indignation today. He is pumping himself up again with indignation almost to the level of the member for Isaacs. It is impossible to achieve, and he is the king of indignation in this chamber. We do have to remind the Leader of the Opposition that accountability and transparency are an important—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no preamble to the question. It goes to what records the Australian government holds for meetings attended by one of its own ministers.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the Prime Minister is in order. He is addressing the topic of the question.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of records and accountability, of course, is very central in the trade union royal commission and none more so—

Opposition members interjecting—

I hear the honourable members opposite protesting.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat for a second. As the Manager of Opposition Business well knows, a point of order on relevance can only be raised once. Yes, I did not ask him to state that, given his position. Clearly his objection was based on that standing order. It was clear that was the objection. I have allowed a point of order. The Prime Minister has still quite a way to go in the answer. I am not going to hear another point of order on the same topic on a technicality.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These issues of accountability are very important and due process is very important, in accordance with the code. What the honourable member should consider, however, is the extraordinary circumstances of the industrial agreement with Cleanevent, where thousands—

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 68, the standing orders are clear—when a member has given a personal explanation to correct a misrepresentation—about your opportunity to be able to intervene. The Prime Minister is exactly now dealing with the issues that were subject to a statement of having been misrepresented in parliament the other day.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address this as briefly as I can because I do not want to detain members throughout question time. The former Speaker, as the Manager of Opposition Business knows, addressed this issue in some detail. It is a new standing order that has only operated in this parliament and it was invoked, I think, with respect to the member for Jagajaga at one point. What was made clear then, without me rereading through everything, is that it is not possible for me as Speaker to know the subject of every personal explanation. I do not carry that with me. Now that the member has raised that, I can be cognisant of it for the future, but I am not going to pause question time, look at what was said and make a ruling on it now. The Prime Minister has a minute to go on the question that has been asked. Just before I call him, I am allowing very robust questions. There are preambles in some questions and there are going to be preambles in answers. If the House itself wants to decide it does not want preambles in questions and answers, we can discuss that another day through the relevant procedure committee. The Prime Minister has the call.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The case of the Cleanevent industrial agreement is a very relevant one. What that involved was one of Australia's largest and oldest unions, of which the Leader of the Opposition was the national secretary, entering into an industrial agreement with an employer which, in the course of that agreement, traded away conditions, penalty rates and so forth in the agreement, but which involved, unbeknownst to some of the most low-paid workers in Australia, a secret deal between the employer and the union to pay money to the union behind the backs of those employees. That was accepted, apparently, as standard practice. That was regarded as okay; perfectly reasonable. Honourable members opposite cannot imagine— (Time expired)