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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Farrell today relating to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Dutton).

The question that I asked Senator Cormann at the beginning of question time today was not simply a rhetorical question. In fact, it has serious consequences for the validity and the eligibility of our Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Dutton, to sit in the House of Representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the deposed former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Turnbull, sought legal advice from the Solicitor-General as to the eligibility of Mr Dutton to sit in the parliament. Unfortunately for Mr Dutton, of course, that advice was equivocal. The Solicitor-General didn't come to any finalised decision on the matter. So the matter, therefore, as to Mr Dutton's eligibility is still an open question. One can imagine, of course, that had Mr Dutton got three more votes he'd now be Prime Minister and we'd be debating an even more serious set of circumstances. But it's serious enough to have question marks over the validity of our home affairs minister. The home affairs minister makes all sorts of decisions that are extremely important to the security of this country, and there shouldn't be one iota of doubt.

Now, who's raising the issue of Mr Dutton's eligibility and the question as to whether he does meet that eligibility? It's not the Labor Party. We find today that, from New York, the deposed former Prime Minister Mr Turnbull is saying to his former colleagues in the Liberal Party in the government of this country that there's a question mark over Mr Dutton's eligibility to sit in this place that needs to be clarified. As Senator Macdonald would know, before Mr Turnbull came into this place he was a very, very experienced lawyer. He did a number of major cases—the Spycatcher case comes to mind. He was a very, very good lawyer. In fact, he probably should have stuck to law rather than going into politics, as luck would have it. It's his view that there are question marks over Mr Dutton's eligibility. He's saying that.

But it's not just Mr Turnbull who's raising these questions. Julie Bishop—the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party a couple of weeks ago—was a lawyer before she came into this place. I know she was a very good lawyer. She was two years behind me at the University of Adelaide Law School, so I know for a fact that she would have got a very, very good legal education. What's she saying? What is the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, a former lawyer and foreign minister, saying about Mr Dutton's eligibility? She's saying that when this issue gets back to the parliament at some stage—one imagines next week—she's going to make up her mind about whether or not she's going to vote for the referral of Mr Dutton.

It's my view that there shouldn't be a question mark over Mr Dutton. There shouldn't be a question mark over the decisions that he might be making about important issues of national security. The issue needs to be resolved. Of course, there is a very simple way of resolving this, and it is how it was dealt with for a whole host of former MPs and senators. Mr Dutton can take the initiative and refer himself. We now know what the Solicitor-General says: his advice is inconclusive. We know what Mr Turnbull is saying; he's saying: 'Look, this issue needs to be determined. It needs to be determined quickly. It needs to be determined by the only authority that can determine the issue, and that's the High Court.' We now have the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Ms Bishop, questioning whether she's going to support or not support Mr Dutton. This is a dysfunctional government at the moment. We need to have a government focused on the people; not on themselves. (Time expired)

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

Well, excuse my mirth, Madam Deputy President! Senator Farrell is one of the few people over there who I genuinely like. I think he is a good guy and makes a wonderful wine. I can only think that Senator Farrell may have been imbibing too much of his own wonderful wine with that presentation he just gave! He said the government should be concentrating on policy issues and on the people of Australia. Have a look at question time today. The government asked serious policy questions all the way through, and I'm delighted to—

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order: unparliamentary language against a fellow senator.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: Senator Macdonald reflected inappropriately on Senator Farrell in his remarks earlier and he ought to withdraw.

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

If Senator Farrell had taken the point of order, I would have apologised, but he obviously took it in the spirit it was given. He's a wonderful man. I'm not for a moment suggesting he's drinking during the day. I was really giving him a free advertisement for his wonderful Farrell Wines, and that's what he should be concentrating on. This is a ridiculous point of order and typical of the Labor Party.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald has further explained what he meant. Unfortunately, I didn't hear it and nor did the Clerk. Please continue, Senator Macdonald.

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

If you had heard it you wouldn't have thought there was anything improper about it, as Senator Farrell clearly didn't. I can't understand the Labor Party sometimes.

Here we on this side are asking serious policy questions. I was delighted to be able to ask the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, about the wonderful announcement today that Adani is building a new railway line in North Queensland and Central Queensland, joining the port of Abbot Point to the Carmichael mines. That will mean those Carmichael mines can go ahead with development, with creating real jobs for Central and North Queenslanders. It's an announcement today that has absolutely brightened my heart, and I might go and get one of my favourite wines, the Farrell red wine, to celebrate such a wonderful announcement.

But what did we get from the Labor Party? This is why I doubted Senator Farrell's sanity, in a nice way. He's accusing us of talking about ourselves and not about policy issues for the people of Australia. Every question today from members of the Labor Party was about parliamentarians, about the internal workings of the Liberal Party. Can I tell people: not many people on this side of the parliament are too interested in that and, I can assure you, neither is any other Australian. They are interested in things like real jobs for Australians that the Adani mines will bring. They're interested in the NBN rollout, new black spots and, as Senator McKenzie so eloquently announced, the many initiatives happening in rural and regional Australia.

But what did the Labor Party do? They talked about politicians. There was not one question about jobs; not one question about the economy; not one question about the disadvantaged in our community; not one question about infrastructure, about development, about the economy or about reducing Labor's debt; and not one question about the more than one million jobs that have been created since the Liberal-National government has been in power. These are all the issues that Australians are interested in, and the Labor Party, under their current leadership, took their whole hour to ask about internal party matters.

That's why Mr Shorten is so detested by the Australian public. As was said during question time, Mr Morrison has been in the job only a couple of weeks, but already he leads Mr Shorten in the opinion polls as the better Prime Minister. And it's no wonder, when he leads the 'rarble'—to quote a Labor Party senator—that you see over on the other side of this chamber. They're not a group of senators interested in Australians, interested in policy issues, interested in economic issues, interested in the disadvantaged—interested in the things that Australians are interested in. All the Labor Party seem to be interested in here is internal politics. I don't know why they didn't ask a question about Senator Cameron and former Minister Obeid, who was in Senator Keneally's cabinet, and the former minister the bad Ian Macdonald—

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: I'd like to point out that the minister has misled the parliament and I ask him to withdraw.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a debating point. Please continue, Senator Macdonald.

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

Senator Keneally was closely associated with Mr Obeid and the bad Ian Macdonald.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: again the senator has misled the parliament. He is invited to read the New South Wales ICAC transcripts, and I ask him to withdraw his comments.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are debating points.

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

You see how sensitive members of the Labor Party are when we talk about the bad Ian Macdonald—that is, the New South Wales Labor minister who is now in jail for corruption—or the other bad Labor minister, Mr Obeid, who's also in jail. These people were in the cabinet when Senator Keneally was there. Why didn't they talk about them? We don't talk about them; we talk about policy issues, the things that really interest Australians. (Time expired)

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every question was about parliamentarians, and there are reasons for that. These are legitimate questions that go to the heart of the capability—or incapability—of this government to govern for the people of Australia in a way that is filled with integrity. That goes to the heart of the issues that affect the people of Australia. The former deputy leader of the Liberal Party has stood up today and raised very serious questions about a minister, Peter Dutton, and his eligibility to be in the cabinet, to represent the people of Dickson and to continue to be paid as a member of the House of Representatives. That is a very serious question that is being asked not only by the former deputy leader of the Liberal Party but also by the former Prime Minister of this country, who only two weeks ago was leading this nation, but all of a sudden it's, 'Let's not have a look at this; that's old news.' It's not old news; it is very critical news. There is a doubt as to the eligibility of a minister in the Morrison government to be in this parliament, and it is our job as the opposition and as other members in the Senate to critically question and analyse all of that.

As Senator Farrell has said, we didn't raise this today because we just wanted to; we raised it because a member of your government raised it and a former member of your government—Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, as he was then—raised it. Therefore, we have to look at this. When even the Solicitor-General's advice shows there is a risk with Peter Dutton's eligibility, we should be pursuing the fact that this has to go to the High Court. His eligibility to stand in the parliament is under question, it is under a cloud, and every single decision that he makes and even every single decision that he has already made are under a serious cloud.

Over the last 18 months many senators and members—yes, some after lots of deliberation—have chosen to go to the High Court for clarity. It is the right thing to do for Peter Dutton to stand up now and say, 'I will go to the High Court to have this clarified.' It is the right thing to do to remove that doubt and send a clear message to all Australians that we in this parliament do take this seriously and that decisions made in cabinet are being made by people who are eligible to be there. That is what is in question. Instead we see blame-shifting, a blame game—'Nothing to see here'—and the Australian people are sick of it. They're fed up with it.

You have unfinished business in that cabinet. Peter Dutton needs to refer himself to the High Court. There is no other question here other than whether he is eligible to be sitting there as the member for Dickson in the cabinet, making decisions on behalf of the Morrison government, representing the people of Australia. There is way too much doubt. When you have constitutional legal experts also raising that, the doubt is very clear. So it's not about the opposition playing games here. We are doing what we have to do—that is, keeping you accountable to make sure you are doing the right thing for the people of Australia.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am continually shocked by the short memories of those opposite in this chamber. As they come in here and preach to us about doing the right thing when it comes to section 44, they seem to have forgotten that for months and months Labor Party parliamentarians had not just some risk of being ineligible, not just a small doubt; they had absolutely no basis on which anyone could have misunderstood their status. They were clearly ineligible to sit in this parliament because of dual citizenship issues. Nevertheless, with almost a contempt for the rules that apply to this game, those opposite happily supported three members of their team continuing to participate in the decisions of this parliament and continuing to receive all of the benefits and privileges that come with holding these offices. It was only when they were dragged kicking and screaming and were ruled out by the High Court that they faced up to reality.

Let's compare that to the way doubts about section 44 have been dealt with on this side of the chamber. I can say, with some comfort, that this has been dealt with ethically and in a way that respects the importance of Australia's Constitution every time an issue of this nature has cropped up on the coalition side of the room. When John Alexander came to find that circumstances existed that meant he had a problem, he immediately took measures to deal with it—immediately. When Barnaby Joyce had an issue and when Senator Canavan had an issue, they were up-front about dealing with it. Senator Canavan happily stood down from his ministry and happily did what had to be done because, more than anything else, his loyalty was to this country.

So I am reluctant to accept the sanctimonious bleating of those opposite about the eligibility of Mr Dutton. They've pointed out just how important the decisions he has made in that role are, and can I say I wholeheartedly agree that in his role he is responsible for some enormously important work. He is part of a team who, along with Scott Morrison when he was Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, has completely brought to an end the saga of boat after boat after boat of asylum seekers arriving on our shores, risking their lives at sea. He has helped put an end to this cycle of deaths at sea in the cruellest of circumstances, and he has reconfigured our immigration policy to provide fairness to those people in desperate circumstances who seek refuge in this country but who do it by the book, who follow the proper processes, who apply in a transparent and honourable way. In doing so, he has not just vastly reduced the number of people who face detention; he has completely eliminated the situation of children being in detention. We don't have to think back very long to remember a time when Labor had thousands of children in detention because they simply could not stem the flow of boats arriving on our shores. But now we have a situation where we are getting through that backlog. All of the children are out, and we can confidently say we have a fairer and more transparent process for dealing with immigration and refugee issues in this country.

I have complete confidence in his ability as a minister. I also note that he has been transparent in providing legal advice that he has received. The Solicitor-General's advice has been obtained. Does the advice 100 per cent, hand on heart, eliminate absolutely every potential option under the sun? Well, quite honestly, I haven't yet seen a lawyer's advice that does. All lawyers acknowledge the different constellations of circumstances that can change in time. But we have a conclusive answer in the legal advice. It's plain for all to see. It's time for those in the Labor Party to stop playing games and get on with the job of working for Australians.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to participate in this take note debate sparked by Senator Farrell's question reflecting on a tweet sent from New York City from the former Prime Minister Mr Malcolm Turnbull. There he is, exiled to New York, tweeting away, helpfully providing information and advice—and not just to his colleagues who remain back here in Australia. I suppose he could have done that by WhatsApp or a text message, but by tweeting he provides advice not just to his colleagues in the coalition but indeed to all Australians. What was that advice? It was that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, should be consistent in the rules. The rule that applied to Barnaby Joyce, referral to the High Court, should also apply to Peter Dutton, to resolve the legitimate and lingering questions about his suitability to sit in this parliament. I'm not often one to stand up and say Malcolm Turnbull is right, but in this instance, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'm happy to do so, because the advice the former Prime Minister has tweeted from New York is very helpful advice that should be taken up by those opposite in this chamber.

New York is an interesting place. It's a beautiful place. It's the city that never sleeps. We know that. I'm sure many of us in this chamber and many Australians have had the opportunity to visit New York City. It turns out there's one other Australian that might get that opportunity to go to New York City: none other than the member for Chisholm in the other place, Ms Julia Banks. Yes, it seems that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has offered the member for Chisholm the chance to go to New York City. I don't know—maybe he thinks she could catch up with Mr Turnbull. Maybe he thinks she needs a break. Possibly he thinks that it would be so handy for the Morrison government to have the member for Chisholm off in New York City for three months, because that's what she would get if she took up this offer. She would get the chance to go to New York City on a trip to the UN. She would get to go to the UN and be seconded there, away from the prying eyes of the public, away from the cameras and away from her parliamentary privilege in the lower house. She would get the opportunity to be in New York, and he would get the opportunity not to have her in front of the Australian people talking about things like bullying, intimidation and—heaven forbid!—quotas in the Liberal Party to get more women elected.

The member for Banks—excuse me, the member for Chisholm. I'll get that one right yet! The member for Chisholm, Julia Banks, has spoken quite clearly, quite forcefully and quite strongly about the need for there to be more women in the Liberal Party ranks in this parliament. She made clear in her speech last night that we're talking about quotas for women, who represent more than half our population. These are the words of the member for Chisholm:

The meritocracy argument is completely and utterly flawed. There are an equal number of meritorious Liberal women out there in the real world as there are men, but they won't come if the barriers to entry and mountains to climb are too high.

Ms Banks goes on to point out a culture of what she describes as appalling behaviour in the Liberal Party:

Appalling behaviour is an umbrella descriptor for bullying, intimidation, harassment—sexual or otherwise—or a lack of integrity. In my political journey, a culture of appalling behaviour has been widespread, pervasive and undermining, like white ants.

No wonder Scott Morrison tried to persuade her—buy her off, perhaps, and get her silence—by sending her to New York for three months!

Is this how the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, proposes to 'deal with' the problems? Is this his solution—offer a few women a few positions, a few minor promotions, and offer Julia Banks, the member for Chisholm, the opportunity to go to New York for three months so he gets her out of sight, out of mind and away from the Australian public and talking about the appalling culture, the appalling behaviour, the bullying and the intimidation going on inside the Liberal Party? I'm going to end on the words of the member for Chisholm. She says there is no 'ready fix' for this issue and she believes increasing representation of women through quotas will go some way to doing this.

Question agreed to.