Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why it was proper for the Liberal-National Party to accept a donation from the CEO of Brisbane based company Canstruct during negotiations with the Commonwealth which resulted in the award of a $591 million contract by the Department of Home Affairs?

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

The Leader of the House.

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

On the same matter that was raised previously, the entirety of that question is out of order. The entirety of it deals with a party political matter and a donation within the auspices of the AEC.

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

I'm just going to say now to the member for Isaacs—

Mr Dutton interjecting—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

If the Minister for Home Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition can just be quiet for a second! Something I've raised before, and I'm going to flag it right now so that there's no surprise: these questions are out of order. It's about the third one in a row that's out of order. You have 30 seconds to ask a question. I allow a preamble, but if I come to the view that these are deliberately outside the standing orders, I'll be cutting off the question. Really it's not the question; it's the statements that are clearly out of order.

I've asked the member for Isaacs to acquaint himself with what I think is a very simple principle, and that is that you can only ask questions about a minister or the Prime Minister's responsibilities. The very beginning of that question was about political parties. One of the points that's well established is that ministers and prime ministers are not responsible for political parties; statements by members who aren't ministers, obviously; occurrences in party rooms; and a whole range of statements. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. It's very clear: the question's out of order. I think I've made my point. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

Thanks, Speaker. I am seeking your clarification because there have been a range of occasions, particularly when individual ministers have been under pressure, where something that would not otherwise have been in order has been treated as in order because they had made statements to the House. Yesterday afternoon, at the end of question time, in the final answer the Prime Minister gave an answer which, if it had been in the form of a question, offended every single example you have just referred to.

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

I'm just going to pause you there. You're right, but the problem is he was answering a question, and the rules for questions and answers are very different.

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

I respect that.

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

Yes.

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

What I'm saying is the principle that is applied to other ministers at different points when they are under pressure, which is that the opposition is allowed to ask them about the statements they have made to the House, has allowed us to ask questions that otherwise would not have been in order. That answer that was given by the Prime Minister yesterday should be able to be interrogated because of the issues it opened up. The Prime Minister went on to new ground yesterday afternoon, and it should be quite proper for the opposition to test whether or not there are examples that would be regarded as hypocrisy by that answer being given yesterday.

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

I think the Manager of Opposition Business has sort of made the point I'm making—that is, that that question didn't do anything like that. It referred to things that aren't the Prime Minister's responsibility. Certainly members' statements can be referred to—I mean, that's a well-established precedent; I couldn't stop that—but just because the Prime Minister's made a statement, it doesn't allow the member far Isaacs to ask whatever he feels like. Let's be frank here, we're all politicians. I'm ruling the questions out of order. You know, there doesn't seem to be any upset or outrage from my left. I mean, let just call a spade a spade.

Opposition members interjecting—

Sorry, I should have corrected that.

Opposition members interjecting—

All right. That's enough. Let me correct my statement. There doesn't seem to be any outrage or upset from those on my left who know what they are doing. The member for Robertson has the call.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The Leader of the House: it's all right, you're in the right category.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are a disciplined lot.