Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Hansard source

I'm opposed to this censure motion and I'm opposed to allowing the Greens to have a further platform to express what are very misleading statements, which have already been addressed, I guess, by Senator Leyonhjelm. I'm opposed to it because it draws us into a realm where, notwithstanding your ruling, it could be contested that the resolutions of this place could be used as a weapon in a court against an opponent in a legal action.

If we go down the path of censuring people for private statements that are made in this place, it opens up a can of worms from which we do not know what will emerge. I've heard a number of vile things. I've heard homophobic slurs and racist slurs from Senator Hanson-Young directed at members of the government in the past. I've called her to account for them. I've asked her to withdraw them. She has refused. She has pretended she hasn't said them. And now here we are with Senator Leyonhjelm, whether you agree with his comments or not, whether they are appropriate or not—I have said on the record it would have been better had they been withdrawn, but he said no, he wasn't going to do it—being taken to court, not on the basis of anything he has said in this chamber but for statements he has made outside of this chamber. What relevance is that to his ability to conduct his role as a senator for New South Wales?

You may think he shouldn't be here. That is up to the voters of New South Wales. You can level that accusation against all of us. But, ultimately, we are being asked to condemn someone and censure someone for making statements in this place which are protected by privilege, because they've hurt the feelings of someone else, who is, using the most polite explanation of it, inconsistent in her approach when she is on the receiving end of interjections and when she's dishing them out.

It is wholly inappropriate for this place to be engaging in the private lives or the personal conflicts between two senators that have happened outside of this place. Senator Leyonhjelm has made a very valid point. It's all good and well to get the kudos of the media and say, 'I've been slut-shamed'—using that term, or however else you want to describe it—and use that as the basis to mount a public attack on your enemies and to justify commencing defamation proceedings, and then suddenly to have those things disappear in your statement of claim which limits the defamation proceedings. I think it is inappropriate for this chamber to be moving motions such as this, because it has zero relevance to actually what happened in this chamber, because that is not part of the allegedly defamatory comments. It is not part of the lawsuit.

If we want to go down this path, we can move censure motion after censure motion about all the private conversations that take place that hurt people's feelings. I can tell you that none of us would come out particularly well from that sort of exposure of our private lives. And I would say this: Senator Hanson-Young would rate lower than most in that regard, because time and time and time again she has refused to withdraw the vile accusations that she has levelled at others. She does it and then pretends she's never done it. And yet her comments have been homophobic and they have been racist; they have belittled and humiliated individuals on the basis of their unemerged sexuality. It has been appalling. So if you want to ask all senators to abide by the same standards that Senator Leyonhjelm is being tagged with today, we are opening ourselves up to a disgraceful way of destroying what the function of this place is. That, I think, would be a great tragedy.