Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to Prime Minister Morrison's call to the New South Wales police commissioner about the criminal investigation into the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. A spokesman for Attorney-General Christian Porter has confirmed that he was in the room during the call. Why did it take five days to make that fact public, and why did Prime Minister Morrison fail to advise the House that the Attorney-General was present for the phone call when he made a statement to the House five days earlier?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The questions that get answered are the questions that are asked. I might just throw back: why did Labor not volunteer that it was a partisan, politically motivated letter from the shadow Attorney-General that was the single thing that initiated this whole process? Why did Labor not fess up immediately that this was nothing more than a partisan, politically motivated witch-hunt by the shadow Attorney-General, many of which he has pursued in the past, all of them unsuccessful? He is indeed a serial letter writer, a serial pest and usually unsuccessful.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Journalist for The Australian Ms Niki Savva first revealed that Attorney-General Porter was in the room for the call when on Insiders yesterday. She said, 'I'm told that the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, sat in on that call while it was happening.' Who briefed Ms Savva? Did any member of the Prime Minister's office brief Ms Savva? If yes, why?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question that I'm being asked now is: who has briefed a journalist? Who has briefed a journalist! Let me tell you, I don't know who briefs journalists; I really don't. I leave it to you to make those inquiries.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Insiders, Ms Savva said:

Porter, as the first law officer of the land … should have grabbed the phone out of his hand and said, 'Don't do this, it's not a good idea'.

Did the Prime Minister seek any advice from the Attorney-General about the appropriateness of his call to the New South Wales police commissioner?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It won't surprise you to hear me say that I disagree with Ms Savva. The phone call by the Prime Minister was entirely appropriate. He advised the House of Representatives that that's what he would do after he was first asked the question by the Leader of the Opposition. He did what he said he would do—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong on a point of order?

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

Direct relevance. The minister has answered neither the first nor the second question. The question is whether or not the Prime Minister, who this minister is representing—

Government senators interjecting—

Maybe you should deal with the—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Can I hear the point of order, please.

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

I don't even have my glasses on, so I can't see who I'm responding to! The question is whether or not the Prime Minister sought any advice from the Attorney-General about the appropriateness of the call. I hope the minister, given he has dodged the first two questions, might actually answer this one.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to deal with points of order on previous questions, because that is not in order. It is not in order to raise points of order to answers to previous questions. The minister is entitled to challenge an assertion in the question, in this case a quotation, and be directly relevant. I call on the minister to continue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr President. Of course, the Labor Party are clearly embarrassed, because, after they kept this key fact secret, they were absolutely exposed for the partisan, politically motivated process that this whole thing is by the revelation that it was the shadow Attorney-General—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Wong on a point of order?

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

How is discussion of the opposition directly relevant to whether the Prime Minister sought advice, Mr President? I'm interested.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said before, I'm not going to pull up ministers—directly relevant is not possible to police on every single sentence. The minister is entitled to challenge the assertion, quotation or otherwise of a preamble in any question.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, if I could finish before I take another point of order.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Can I finish this and then, please, by all means, come to me. What I will ask the minister to do is to turn to either the quotation used, which I believed he was in order in addressing or challenging before, or the question asked at the end of that preamble. As I said, glancing comments around other matters are appropriate, because one couldn't police—

Senator Wong interjecting—

He was in the middle of a sentence, Senator Wong. I'm not going to pull up ministers in the middle of a single sentence.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, I'll take the interjection then, but, quite frankly, the previous question, which you did raise a point of order to, referred to 'why', and I think the minister was in order in using those words in answering why the government did not do something. I don't think I can rule that is not directly relevant. There is a time to debate this after question time, and that's the appropriate forum for it.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, Senator Wong can be as touchy as she likes. The truth is, and the reason the Prime Minister was forced to act the way he did was, because the shadow Attorney-General was the one who initiated a process in a partisan politically motivated way and, of course, being asked about it by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I was trying to deal with the order of questions I was being informed of by whips.

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

A point of order on direct relevance—and everybody can see what he's doing—it is not directly relevant to be talking endlessly about the opposition, as obsessed as he might be. Did the Prime Minister seek advice from the Attorney-General about the appropriateness of the call?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this matter, unlike the previous two questions—on the point of order, Senator Cormann?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The supplementary question that was asked actually made an assertion about the appropriateness or otherwise of putting a quote to me, and the only way I can answer that question in a way that is directly relevant to the question asked is by putting it into the context of the way this process was initiated. That is why I submit to you, Mr President, that my answer is 100 per cent directly relevant.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, my apologies, I was receiving advice from senators about the order of questions during that sentence, which I occasionally do during question time. I ruled previously the minister was entitled when asked a question which started with 'why'—that's a very wide-ranging question. On this particular matter, I don't consider the opposition's policies to be directly relevant, but, as I said, I'm not going to pull up a minister in the middle of a glancing sentence. There are nine seconds remaining to answer, and I call the minister to continue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr President. The only reason why the Prime Minister was forced to make these inquiries was because the Leader of the Opposition asked a question in the House of Representatives without revealing the fact that it had been initiated— (Time expired)