Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table documents of correspondence between the President and me relating to the referral of a senator's eligibility under section 44 of the Constitution for inquiry and report, as circulated among the whips on Monday night.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving that the documents be tabled.

I have written to the President with regard to Senator Payman and her eligibility to stand in this parliament. I have received a letter back from the President with regard to this, and I believe that this documentation should be tabled in Hansard for everyone to see and know what this correspondence is about. Later today I am moving a motion for it to be put to a vote via the parliament that the matter be referred to a committee, as was the case for many senators in this place, regardless of their political party, in establishing their right, under section 44, to stand in this parliament.

What is happening now, as I see it, is a protection racket by the Greens to protect Senator Payman. That's not what this place is about. Why is someone being treated in a totally different way than every other senator in this place? These documents should be tabled so everyone can see what is stated in them, which I think is very important. The people of Australia should know what is going on here.

I don't know why the Greens are pulling this stunt again, as a protection racket for Senator Payman. I know that she votes with them pretty much most of the time, but it shouldn't be a mate's call here, looking after your mates. This is relevant to this parliament, under section 44 of the Constitution, so they are obstructing justice. This should be referred to a committee for investigation as to whether she is eligible to stand in this place. Why are the Greens doing this? Why are they denying this? There's no clear indication or reason for them to do it—just obstructing the game for the sake of doing it. That's why they are absolute loose cannons in this place with what they support and what they don't support. That's why I keep calling for this: the Greens must go. It's all about them and what they want and not what is right for the Australian people. So I will continue.

I tell you what, the way I'm treated with this—not putting the documents up, plus other stuff—two can actually stop and call out for no formal motions to be agreed to. Be prepared for it, and I will stand my ground on this issue. I don't believe it's right that anyone should be stopped. I will do this again and again and again, but be prepared because I will do it today. You'll see me a lot down here, because what one wants to do the other can do just as well. I'll be doing it, so be sure. Be prepared for it if you won't allow these documents to be supported and put in.

Anyway, it's coming to a vote this afternoon—it's no. 5 on the Notice Paper. I hope that it does go to the vote because I will be putting it to the vote. It should be referred to the Constitution, and referred to the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests for inquiry. That's what I'll be doing. It's not going to the High Court. We're not going to the High Court. I'm not doing that. It needs to be sent to an inquiry to be investigated properly and thoroughly, because the documentation is not good enough. It would not be good enough for anyone else here in this place, so why is the protection racket going on? I don't know. I will keep trying to expose this and call for accountability, and I hope I get the support from the other senators in this place as well.

Fatima Payman (WA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, why don't you just look at me when you're saying all these things through the chair? It's absolutely outrageous that you're going to come to this place to suspend standing orders when we've got an agenda full of important things that Australians want us to do. Instead of representing her constituents through the chair, Senator Hanson is more caught up in section 44. You know what? Through the chair, Senator Hanson has worn the burqa in this place—maybe it's time that she pack her burqa and go to Afghanistan and talk to the Taliban about this. Clearly, when the Labor Party put me up as a candidate, they did their homework. And here it is—here's the advice, Senator Hanson. Do you want to see it for yourself? No, you're in absolute denial. All that Senator Hanson does in this place is spread hatred and spread division because that's what she's made to do here. It's outrageous. It's beyond comprehension.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you've got nothing to hide then put it up.

Fatima Payman (WA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here! Take it! I absolutely just don't understand why we're wasting our time talking about a matter that has no basis. You've had it good for too long, Senator Hanson—through the chair.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, is this a point of order?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is, because if she's got the documents I ask her to table those documents.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a point of order. Senator Payman, you have the call.

Fatima Payman (WA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very honoured that I live rent-free in Senator Hanson's mind, but I think you've got better things to do than worry about section 44 here when there's nothing to see. The racism and comments and quotes that you've made in the past—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want 'racism' withdrawn. It's not racism. I want it withdrawn.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payman, I would rephrase that, please. I'd ask you to withdraw for the benefit of the chamber.

Fatima Payman (WA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I would like to make a few quotes from Senator Hanson that have previously indicated—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payman, you have to withdraw for the benefit of the chamber, then you can quote as much as you want.

Fatima Payman (WA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw so I can proceed. Senator Hanson has said, 'I challenge anyone to tell me one thing that I've said that is racist.' Here I begin—there are a few. There are so many we could be here all day. She said, in her first speech, 'I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.' In 1998, in a policy speech, she said that Aboriginality would no longer exist under her party's policies. In another statement she said:

We're bringing in people from South Africa at the moment. There's a huge amount coming into Australia, who have diseases; they've got AIDS …

If that is not racist, what is it?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not, sweetheart.

Fatima Payman (WA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, it's not racist! Somebody bring the dictionary because Senator Hanson does not know the definition of racism. The fact that you would say, just weeks ago, to Senator Faruqi, 'Piss off back to Pakistan,' means you're not just vindictive, mean, nasty; you bring disgrace to the human race—no dignity whatsoever as a senator in this prestigious place, where we're supposed to bring unity and where we're supposed to have that freedom of expression, yes, but within the boundaries and confinements of respect. I kept on giving you the benefit of the doubt, Senator Hanson, despite your repetitive attempts to be racist to anyone who does not look like you.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, do you have a point of order?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do. I want these comments about calling me racist withdrawn.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're a convicted racist.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, this is not adding to the debate. Accusing someone of being a racist is in breach of the standing orders. Senator Payman, can you withdraw that and continue with your remarks, for the benefit of this chamber.

Fatima Payman (WA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of this chamber, I will withdraw. But do you know what, Senator Hanson? How do you live with yourself, Senator Hanson, with so much vile hatred? How do you live through your days spreading hatred? How do you go to sleep? How do you look your neighbours in the eye knowing that you come to this place and spread the vile hatred, the vile comments that you make? It's disgraceful. It's disgusting. I have no other words to describe your actions. I don't know how you're going to justify it to every Australian out there watching, because I hope they're watching what Senator Hanson is doing. She's holding up the business of the day because she is obsessed with me. Wow—well done!

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to speak to the matter before the chair, which is the suspension of standing orders in relation to a denial by the Greens of Senator Hanson's request to table a document. The opposition will support Senator Hanson tabling that document. She has gone through the appropriate processes by providing the document to this place to enable the chamber to make a determination about the validity of the document, so we will be supporting Senator Hanson in her quest to table this document.

I would add that this in no way is a reflection of the views of the coalition on what is contained in that document, on the substance of that document. This is merely a procedural support because we believe that the conventions of this place are extremely important, and the convention to allow a senator to be able to table a document that's been through the appropriate processes is something that we will support. But I would draw to the attention of the chamber that, once again, this in no way reflects the coalition's view on the substantive matter that is contained in the document that Senator Hanson is seeking to table.

I would also draw to the attention of the chamber that this was a simple procedural matter that could have gone through this morning—and it could have gone through yesterday—quite simply by allowing Senator Hanson to table the document and allowing the appropriate processes to take place after that. Instead of that being the case, the Greens have sought on both occasions to deny leave to Senator Hanson, and in doing so they have stimulated a significant debate on the substantive issue that's contained in Senator Hanson's document. I would suggest that the Greens perhaps rethink this. If they really don't want this matter to be the subject of continued debate and really don't want this matter to be something that continues to consume the time of this chamber—when we know that we've got very important legislation that needs to be dealt with over the coming hours and remaining few days that this parliament is sitting—then perhaps they should respect the procedures of this chamber and respect the right of senators to be able to use those procedures. There is a very significant difference between a procedural—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, it is not adding to the debate. You will have an opportunity to speak, and you can speak. I'd like to hear Senator Ruston in silence.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my closing remarks, I draw attention to this particular issue—that there is a very big difference between a procedural motion and a substantial motion. We are today seeking only to deal with a procedural motion, and all the Greens have done, by their actions, is conflate the substantive issue with a procedural motion. We should focus on the procedural motion, which the opposition will be supporting, and then deal with the substantive motion at the appropriate time. This is nothing more than plain grandstanding by the Greens and others in the chamber. Let's respect the conventions of this chamber. All the Greens are doing at the moment is drawing light on the fact they're an activist party that has got no respect for the conventions of this chamber. The opposition does, and I'm sure the government does too. We should respect those conventions and deal with the procedural matter before us.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak. I support the comments made by Senator Ruston.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course you do!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's very helpful, Senator Faruqi, as usual! The point is that Senator Hanson approached people in this chamber a couple of days ago—which is the traditional way and the custom and practice in this place if you would like to table a document, whether you agree with it or not. The approach is that you come to representatives of groups within the parliament, provide those documents and allow for time for consideration. We were going to give leave for those documents to be tabled, not for speaking to them. Our view was that it was appropriate that a member had sought to table documents, and those documents could be tabled and we could move on. That does not mean that in any way we support what Senator Hanson has been corresponding with the President of the Senate on, but she has a right to table information relating to that. That is why we were going to provide leave. By denying leave, the Greens have provided for a 30-minute, very destructive debate in this place that didn't need to happen.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It happens every day in this place!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faruqi, you choose to table documents from time to time and we give you leave for that. The way this chamber works, because it is a minority chamber, is that custom and practice allows for the tabling of documents.

Honourable senators interjecting—

This is ridiculous, and I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the Senate is that the standing orders be suspended.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(In division) Shame on you all.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Backing a convicted racist.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could have just let her table it.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we have some order, please? The tellers are having difficulty.

Senator Hughes!

Senator Thorpe, you're not helping me. I have two people counting.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you still use the Chairman's Lounge?

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I use the Chairman's Lounge, absolutely, on the colony's money. The colonisers pay me to use it.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I look forward to your adjournment speech at some point, but if I could have some quiet.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That documents relating to Senator Payman's qualification under sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution be tabled.

Question agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe!

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are disgusting, Senator Thorpe!