Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Western Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister just said he, 'seeks to support all the premiers in the work they do in this country to save lives', so why did he intervene in the High Court case to support Clive Palmer's attempts to tear down the WA border?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was also the Prime Minister which, after discussions with the Western Australian Premier, decided to withdraw our case.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Members on my left!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what leaders do. They work with each other. It is the standard process for Commonwealth governments to engage in High Court cases involving those types of matters, as the previous government would've done and any other government has done. As the issue unfolded I discussed the matter with Premier McGowan and I worked through the issues with Premier McGowan. We took the decision, which we thought was in the best interest of the country and of Western Australia.

I know the Labor Party wants to only look at things going back; I understand that. I understand that. But what they will not acknowledge is that where there are issues that have to be turned around and addressed and fixed, that's exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what we're doing. So last night I was on the phone to a Labor Premier in Queensland and a Liberal Premier in New South Wales, as I am regularly, working through the issues. During the course of this last week, I've been working with the Western Australian Premier, working with the minister for transport and working with the assistant minister for transport, to resolve important issues regarding crews on ships entering Western Australia. We work every single day with the premiers and the chief ministers to work through the national response to COVID, which is to save lives and to save livelihoods. That's what the government is doing. That's what the state and territory governments are doing.

What the Labor Party is doing is politicising a health crisis for their own gain, and the Australian people can see it. Every single day: undermining the national vaccine program, undermining partnership, constant negativity. This is a leader of the Labor Party who couldn't even be bothered to come to Canberra to meet with the head of—

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

No, the Prime Minister—

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

Withdraw!

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

The member for Isaacs is warned! I have said to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions that it is not an opportunity for him to launch a political attack on the Leader of the Opposition when he's been asked a specific question by a private member about a specific issue. I'm making that very clear. The Leader of the Opposition?

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

Yes, Mr Speaker, on a point of order. It goes to the standing orders and your previous rulings about when a personal explanation has been given, outlining the facts. I outlined the facts regarding Lieutenant General Frewen yesterday, including the details that are there in emails: the fact that my office did not hear from them between 25 June and 20 July; the fact that a briefing was offered for this parliamentary sitting week; the fact that I offered three dates—two on Tuesday, one on Thursday—in accordance with the request; and that the health minister's chief of staff responded, accepting, saying: 'Let's lock in 4 pm on Thursday. Invite to follow.' The Prime Minister has twice during this question time repeated something that he should know is untrue and that is untrue, and I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

I just say to the Prime Minister that it is not a question under that standing order of being asked for a withdrawal. That's not right. I'm very familiar with the standing order. I say to the Prime Minister that saying he is not going to withdraw is very unhelpful for the debate. I'm saying that is very unhelpful, when I'm seeking to rule. As it happens, on this occasion the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition would not warrant a withdrawal because there's a specific standing order. But I'm making the general point: if the chair does ask for a withdrawal, then that has to happen.

Now, I'm going to rule on the standing order. This is a problematic standing order, as I've said before. This was introduced in 2013 by the then Leader of the House. And what that standing order essentially says is that if a claim has been made and a personal explanation has been taken, that claim cannot be repeated. That is what that standing order says, and that is what former Prime Minister Abbott and former Leader of the House, Mr Pyne, introduced, citing a whole lot of instances in opposition. I will say I was in a different seat, where the Prime Minister at the time, then Leader of the Opposition, kept making personal explanations about health spending.

Frankly, when the standing order was introduced, I thought it was problematic. The then Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, thought it was problematic and said so. But that standing order is there. What it requires, of course, is for the Speaker to have heard it and to have heard all the material. As it happens, I have heard that and so, under that standing order, I don't think that claim can be made again unless there's new information. The Prime Minister.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do this through another form of the House at the conclusion of question time because I believe the Leader of the Opposition has misrepresented the claim that I have made. I have made no suggestion about the arrangements for this week. I have simply made the point that Lieutenant General Frewen has been in the role since the start of June and at no time over June or in early July did the Leader of the Opposition seek to be informed by him, and that's a fact.

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

I'm just going to say to the Prime Minister that one of the reasons we are discussing this is because he has ignored my earlier rulings about attacking the Leader of the Opposition when he hasn't asked the question and the subject of the question is not about him. So I've now made that point for a fourth time. Let's move on with question time and see where we end up. The member for Bass.