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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Leader of the House said, and I quote, 'The Constitution, of course, allows a person to be a minister for three months after they've been deemed not to be eligible.' Is it seriously government policy that ministers will keep their jobs for three months after being disqualified by the High Court?

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

Mr Speaker, the question is entirely hypothetical. As you have said before, the member for New England is entitled to be the member for New England in the House until the High Court rules otherwise. As a consequence, these fishing expedition hypothetical questions should be ruled out of order.

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

I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

Mr Speaker, the question asks what the government policy is. If there's no government policy, he can say that there's no government policy. But the question asks what the government policy is.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

If the Leader of the House ceases interjecting, I can come to his point of order. I would just point out to the Leader of the House that I haven't made comments about eligibility. I've pointed out that, to the extent that I have constitutional responsibilities, they don't relate at all to the matter of eligibility; they relate to swearing members in and other matters.

The question did ask whether it was government policy. On that basis, I think that, whilst the Leader of the House could point out that he thinks it offends the standing orders, there have been many questions asked about government policy—about whether the government has a particular policy or whether, in a different circumstance, it would adopt a different policy. So I'm going to allow the question. I call the Prime Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is another far-fetched hypothetical question we get from the opposition, which stated over the last few days that its object this week was to create chaos in the House of Representatives. That was what they wanted to do. They wanted to do it this week: at a time when we face the gravest threat to peace on the Korean Peninsula; at a time at home when we have Australian families and businesses bearing the brunt of higher and higher electricity prices; and at a time when the Labor Party have finally made the stunning admission that it was their complacency, their neglect and their wilful recklessness that resulted in there being a shortage of gas on the east coast of Australia—when, in other words, they put their hands up and said that they were guilty of the high electricity prices we're currently facing and that are putting tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs at risk. At a time of all of that, the Labor Party's goal is to create chaos and mayhem. They threatened that they were going to create disorder in the House. At one point, they said they were going to walk out.

The Australian people expect this House, this parliament, to focus on their security: their national security, their energy security, and securing their jobs and the opportunities for the future. That's what the government is focused on. I know the opposition has no interest in taking advice from me, but I would counsel them to focus on the same real issues themselves.