Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to an FOI request about paid parental leave submitted to the Treasurer's office when he was social services minister. This request was rejected because it would have taken four days to consider the 550 pages of insults in which the Treasurer or his colleagues described working women as double dippers, fraudsters and rorters. Will he now apologise for describing working mums in such abusive and disrespectful terms?

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

The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standing orders are pretty straightforward about questioning ministers on their previous roles, which they no longer hold, as a minister. As the Treasurer is not responsible anymore for social security, how could he be asked that question?

Ms Macklin interjecting—

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

The member for Jagajaga is warned! I want to hear the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

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

Ministers are asked when an FOI is put forward as to whether or not they are going to release the information. As Treasurer, that request would have gone directly to him. If you would prefer the question to be redirected to the Minister for Social Services then that can be done as well, but it is certainly the case that the Treasurer, as Treasurer, has made decisions on exactly this matter.

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

The question was about the minister's previous portfolio. I could, on a very strict basis, rule it as being out of order. What I will allow, given it is Monday and it is the start of a sitting fortnight, is an opportunity for the member for Sydney to rephrase the question. There will be one opportunity.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will redirect the question. My question is to the Minister for Social Services. I refer to a freedom of information request about paid parental leave. This request was rejected because it would have taken four days to consider the 550 pages of insults in which the Treasurer or his colleagues described working women as double dippers, fraudsters and rorters. Will the social services minister apologise on behalf of the government for describing working mums in such abusive and disrespectful terms? (Time expired)

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. Those terms that you have raised are not terms that I have ever used with respect to the issue.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Members on my left!

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are not terms that I have ever heard the Treasurer use with respect to that particular issue. It is the case that, when you put in a freedom of information request of that nature, it covers any instance where any minister or any member of the executive has forwarded an article written in the press that has used any of the Boolean search terms that you have raised. It does not surprise me that a puerile request of that nature has been denied because of the outrageous amount of time that it would take to look through documents that include the forwarding of articles written in the media. It does not surprise me that that stunt has been declined by the departments, through advice, because of the amount of time that it would take up.