Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, yesterday I spoke on a question and I have since been deliberately misquoted by three people this afternoon.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, are you seeking leave?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I am, again, seeking, under standing order 191, to make an explanation of the speech I made yesterday, which has been misquoted deliberately and maliciously on three occasions in the last half hour.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, on that point, let me make it very clear that standing order 191 is not the appropriate avenue for what you are raising today. That was in a speech yesterday. You had the opportunity yesterday, if you were in the chamber, to again speak to the matter, under standing order 191, if you wished to, to clarify the way you were misrepresented. That is not the case today.

The case today was: that speech was raised in a question directed to a minister today. That was not in the context of standing order 191. You do have a right, though, under standing order 190, as I mentioned earlier, to raise this matter by leave of the Senate. In giving any explanation, you must not debate the issue. You now have opportunity to seek leave. The ruling is quite firm on 191. You are within your rights to seek leave to make an explanation under 190.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I can do nothing but accept your ruling. Accordingly, I seek leave to speak for no more than five minutes to give a personal explanation under standing order 190.

Leave granted.

Yesterday in a speech, I made some comments not deliberately or specifically about the Paid Parental Leave Scheme; it was brought into a question by the minister at the table. I made some other comments, which I will now quote verbatim from the Hansard so that the incorrect statements made not only by Senator Moore in the question, but subsequently in the 'take note' debate—and by Senator Faulkner, dishonestly, capriciously and quite viciously and personally, and also by Senator Singh in the same way. I want to quote to the Senate what I actually said yesterday:

Yet many have said to me that, with the paid parental scheme, the age of entitlement is finished. I will not enter into that. That is a debate for another place and another time. It is a debate, as I understand, is yet to be held. I read in the paper that there are—quoting the Deputy Prime Minister—'different issues' being looked at by the government in relation to the paid parental scheme. I look forward at some time to being taken into confidence by the government on just what is going to happen with it. But, as I say, that is another debate for another time.

I also said:

So wouldn't this be an appropriate time—with the support of the Commission of Audit—to say, 'The paid parental scheme is a good goal to head towards. It is something that a wealthy, prosperous Australia could and should enter into, but perhaps now is not the right time because now, at this stage in our game, we are trying desperately to pay off Labor's debt'?

I will leave it there. Any fair-minded person in reading what I actually said—and then having a look at what Senator Moore, Senator Faulkner and Senator Singh allege that I said—to see how I was deliberately misquoted in relation to those issues.