Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Why has the minister decided not to step aside from her portfolio responsibilities?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has received very strong legal advice on this issue. On that basis, the Prime Minister has determined that it is appropriate that I stay on as a minister. I would say that I find it extraordinary that when those opposite could come in here and ask questions that people out there across the country, particularly in regional Australia, are interested in they are not taking the opportunity to do so.

Let me tell you, when I'm out in my communities, when I'm out in regional Australia, what people are talking to me about is not section 44; they're talking about jobs, about whether or not their grandchildren are going to be able to get jobs, about energy prices, about the cost of living, about whether or not they can get in to see a doctor, about whether or not they feel safe, about whether or not they think that the circumstances for them in their homes provide safety, about national security. They're talking about the things the government's done, like delivering the inland rail. It took this coalition government to deliver the inland rail—$8 billion. They're saying, 'Thankyou very much' to the coalition government for the $500 million we're seeing going out for regional development. They're saying, 'Thankyou very much' to the coalition government for fixing competition law and getting the effects test in place. And they're saying thankyou to the coalition for fixing country-of-origin labelling. They are particularly saying thankyou to the coalition government for taking the lead on the issue of energy so ably spoken about by Senator Birmingham just previously, because that's what's important to the Australian people. They're not talking about section 44; they're talking about all of those issues, and Labor is showing complete disrespect for the Australian people, because they simply don't understand. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the minister sought advice about varying ministerial decision-making processes in order to avoid the risk of their being challenged while her eligibility as a senator is being resolved by the High Court?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the senator is well aware, this is a matter that is before the High Court at the moment, and those processes will run their course.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, a point of order?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a very direct question to the minister. On previous occasions, Mr President, you have asked us to be direct, and we were. We've asked the minister a direct question about the variation of ministerial decision-making processes while this matter is being considered by the High Court. Can you please direct the minister to answer the question?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't direct the minister, but I will remind the minister of the question that was asked.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can indicate, even though it was only a few seconds before those opposite stood to their feet, that the proper processes have been followed and that all of my decisions that I make as a minister were considered appropriate.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the minister has failed to answer my question about whether or not she has sought advice about ministerial decision-making processes during the period when her eligibility is being resolved. I ask again: has she sought advice and, if not, on what basis can she assure us that her decisions will be valid?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite would be well aware that, as I've indicated before, this is a process that is now before the High Court. I have been—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is on direct relevance. The issue of eligibility is before the High Court. The issue of the validity of ministerial decision-making is not a matter that is being referred to the High Court. The minister has been asked a direct question on a number of occasions. The question is whether advice has been sought in relation to variation of ministerial decision-making processes. She ought to answer that question; she continues to avoid it.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will remind the minister of the question that has been asked.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did indicate to those opposite that the proper processes had been followed. If they would allow me to stand on my feet for more than a few seconds, perhaps I could elaborate on that for them, although it was indicated in the previous answer that I gave that advice has been sought and it is solid. I have indicated to the chamber that the decisions that I as a minister have made have been well considered and appropriate, and they will continue to be.