Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister and it's about his Statement of Ministerial Standards. Yesterday, despite reports that your ministers lobbied Home Affairs on behalf of Crown, you said there was nothing before you to warrant taking action. Today, you and Labor opposed a parliamentary inquiry into ministers and former ministers. The Attorney-General has referred some of the allegations to the law enforcement Integrity Commissioner, but this will not look into whether your ministers have acted improperly and breached ministerial standards. Given the stench from allegations regarding these matters, can you assure the House that you have fully investigated and that none of your ministers lobbied Home Affairs on behalf of Crown, or is it a case of don't ask, don't tell, with the government running a protection racket for ministers who have ties to Crown Casino?

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

I'm just going to hear from—

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right, cease interjecting—the Leader of the House on a point of order.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to standing order 90 and reflections on members, that is a reflection on all ministers here, without identifying particularly which minister he is reflecting on. And indeed there were no allegations of the type that he's raised in the media specifically or otherwise. So I think this is clearly out of order, Mr Speaker.

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

I'd just say to the Leader of the House: it's not up to me to judge what was in or not in the media. I only judge questions. I'm not going to bring a media summary in with me.

With respect to his point of order: the Practice makes it very clear on reflections. They really generally have to be direct reflections on particular members of parliament, and I think you'd find precedent questions of this nature have been asked before. Obviously, it was a long question—the full 45 seconds worth. I'll allow the question. I'll just say to the member for Melbourne: given the amount of preamble commentary and the nature of the 45-second contribution that wasn't all a question, the Prime Minister has extreme latitude in how he wishes to answer it. I call the Attorney-General—and, as I said, Attorney, that same latitude applies.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two matters to which I think we can provide a response. The first is with respect to the statement I made earlier today, and that is that all of the matters that have been raised in recent days in the media have now been referred by me to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity pursuant to section 18 of its act.

As I noted for the members' benefit this morning, in making that referral I'm simply saying there are sufficient concerns that have been raised to allow for that precautionary referral to the Australian commissioner for law enforcement integrity. He may decide to take further action by way of an investigation. He may report back to me that there is not enough in it to warrant a full investigation. But, clearly, that is the body that is best placed to make any investigation of the matters that have been raised in the media.

As to the broad nature of the issue that you raise, I can say that, with respect to the idea that there is some kind of favouritism or fast-tracking, there are systems in place—I say this representing the Minister for Home Affairs now—where a variety of passport holders, particularly referenced in the white paper on developing northern Australia, are themselves able to access and facilitate quick visa processing. There's nothing new in that. That's occurred on both sides of the House. But if there are any specific allegations that the member wants to make then perhaps he needs to make them.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

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

No, the call is going to alternate. I'll just say to the House very briefly: obviously people are jumping up. I'm trying to alternate the call. There's no secret that there are arrangements, with an Independent question early on in question time. If the government has decided not to jump, that doesn't mandate who I call, so I did call the Leader of the Opposition immediately after the member for Maribyrnong. I did that on the basis that I thought he was first getting to his feet ahead of the member for Melbourne. But I do point out, in any event, given the position of the Leader of the Opposition, if it was a contest, I would have called the Leader of the Opposition anyway. It obviously presents a difficulty for me, but we have two questions from that side and one from the government. We've now had one from this side.

All I can do is ensure that, in allocating the call, I alternate. If members wish to have things run more smoothly, with respect to the Independents, that's something they'll have to sort out within their processes. It's not up to me to simply just pick an Independent because the government hasn't jumped. What I've tried to do now is allocate the call as fairly as I can.

Ms Burney interjecting—

The member for Barton might like to resume her seat. Members will recall that the member for Melbourne had sought the call after being denied it as well. I thought that was the fair thing to do. We'll now go back to the regular alternating of the call.