Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Deputy Prime Minister said, about the Prime Minister's refusal to act against the member for Dawson:

If you start prodding the bear, you're gonna make the situation worse. For us as a government. Not better … I can assure you that when you've got a thin margin, don't start giving reasons for a by-election.

What sort of Prime Minister puts his majority over public health in the middle of a pandemic?

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

I'm not sure that question is in order. I'm happy to hear the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

To the point of order: the question goes directly to the responsibilities of the Prime Minister. The quote is from the Deputy Prime Minister. So, in terms of the argument as to whether the Prime Minister needs to be across what everybody said, we're talking about the Deputy Prime Minister who's made these comments—

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

That wasn't my point, but go on.

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

and goes directly to the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that the reason for not speaking out against the member for Dawson is the slim majority on the floor of this House.

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

I'll make this point. I will call it in order when it goes to the point that to form a government you need a majority on the floor of the House. But I do point out that it's a fairly broad question. Certainly, there's the opportunity for a broad answer, I have to say. The Leader of the House.

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

I think that the Prime Minister's position, with respect to the member in question, was made quite clear in the response to the motion that was moved yesterday.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

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

The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).

The member for Mor e ton then left the chamber.

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

With respect to the question itself, the Manager of Opposition Business, in speaking to the point that the question is directly relevant, is being very generous in his understanding of the word 'direct', because the question is more of a musing than a question. It simply puts an opinion and then seeks an opinion on an opinion. I don't see how—leaving aside relevance—it was actually a question.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business.

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

First of all, I thought that a ruling had been given. But, if we're still on the previous point, the standing order rule about relevance goes to answers, not to questions. This question goes to responsibilities. There is, during a pandemic, a clear responsibility to speak out in favour of public health. The comments from the Deputy Prime Minister today say that that has effectively been compromised in order to preserve a majority on the floor. The fact that the Prime Minister made some comments—

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

I might just ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. Certainly the question contained—I shouldn't say 'the question'; the statement was longer than the question, which was right at the end. I am going to rule it in order, but I am going to make the point—and I will reflect on this with other questions—that, when a question is asked in that manner, which really is a sort of political attack accusation, and that's what it is, and the bit at the end is relevant, I'm going to allow it. But I will not be taking points of order on the Prime Minister not being relevant, because the way the question's been asked it's almost impossible for him to be not relevant. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

Two days ago in this parliament, there was unanimous support for a motion that dealt with the issue of misinformation by members in this place. It was unanimous. Leave was granted by the government for that motion to be put forward, and that motion was supported by this entire parliament. And I voted yes to that motion. That's what I did in this place. I voted yes to that motion, as did the members of the government, joining with the members of the opposition, to send what I thought was a very clear signal on behalf of the whole parliament. So I find it somewhat disappointing that that mood of bipartisanship in addressing this issue is now being sought to be undermined by the Labor Party, only two days later. So what was that actually about? What was it about two days ago? Were we actually coming together to decry misinformation? Or was this just another political game from the Labor Party? What was it?

I thought, as the Prime Minister, when asked whether leave would be given to bring such a motion, that this was an invitation for the parliament to come together and decry misinformation. That's what I understood. I engaged with the Leader of the House and I said, 'Yes, we should give leave to that.' And I spoke in favour of that motion. In this place, we, as a group of elected officials, I thought, sent a very clear message against misinformation in this parliament. That's what I thought. But what we see today, not even 48 hours later, is that the Labor Party comes in here and even seeks to undermine the bipartisanship it sought to promote two days ago.

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

Leader of the Opposition, before I call you on a point of order, which I presume it is, I made it very clear in allowing this question, which was very broad, that the answer may well be very broad. And I'm just now trying to save time: if it's on relevance, I'm ruling the point of order out of order.

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

A point of order.

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

The Leader of the Opposition.

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

It is on relevance—

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

There's no point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

But I have become quite accustomed to that behaviour from the opposition over the course of this pandemic. As Labor, even most recently, have been seeking to tear down JobKeeper, one of the most important programs that has brought this country through, and Labor has said it's been a waste of money, that it's been a waste. On every occasion, what we have seen from the Labor Party through this pandemic is not a spirit of bipartisanship, but they have been a constant headwind to the efforts of this government to bring Australia through this. What Labor have been doing is seeking to undermine, to put hurdles and obstacles in the way. We would invite them to take a different approach, but I am not optimistic about that, because I have seen their form over the past 18 months. I welcomed the bipartisan—

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

The Prime Minister's time has concluded.