|
representatives vote 2019-09-12#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-08-07 10:17:14
|
Title
Motions — Member for Chisholm- Motions - Member for Chisholm - Let a vote happen
Description
<p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Isaacs from moving the following motion immediately—</p>- The majority voted against a motion to suspend the usual parliamentary rules - known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) - to let a vote happen. It was moved by Isaacs MP [Mark Dreyfus](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/isaacs/mark_dreyfus) (Labor).
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Isaacs from moving the following motion immediately—*
- >
- > *That the House:*
- >
- > *(1) notes there are obligations for statements made by Members to the House which do not extend to statements released outside the House; and*
- >
- > *(2) therefore, calls on the [Member for Chisholm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/chisholm/gladys_liu) to make a statement in the House at any time before 2 pm, for a time not exceeding 20 minutes, which responds to:*
- >
- >> *(a) widespread reports in the media about the Member this week;*
- >>
- >> *(b) discrepancies in the Member's public statements this week; and*
- >>
- >> *(c) questions which have been raised concerning her fitness to be a Member of the Australian Parliament.*
<p class="italic">That the House:</p><p class="italic">(1) notes there are obligations for statements made by Members to the House which do not extend to statements released outside the House; and</p><p class="italic">(2) therefore, calls on the Member for Chisholm to make a statement in the House at any time before 2 pm, for a time not exceeding 20 minutes, which responds to:</p><p class="italic">(a) widespread reports in the media about the Member this week;</p><p class="italic">(b) discrepancies in the Member's public statements this week; and</p><p class="italic">(c) questions which have been raised concerning her fitness to be a Member of the Australian Parliament.</p><p>This motion is being moved so that the member for Chisholm can explain the discrepancies between the extraordinary interview that she gave on national TV and—having given this extraordinary interview on national TV on Tuesday night, and when the wreckage from that interview became apparent to everyone in Australia, and particularly to people in this House—being prevailed on, apparently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, to issue a statement that purported to clarify things. She claimed she was clarifying her denials or 'forgetting' of absolutely simple material. That is not to be believed. This House now has, from a recently elected member of this place, an absolutely extraordinary interview conducted by Andrew Bolt in which this member, the member for Chisholm, said as her excuse for her membership of these organisations that appear to be connected with the propaganda arm of the Communist Party of China that she couldn't remember and, therefore, she couldn't possibly have been a member of these organisations. Imagine if someone turned up to the compulsory drug testing for welfare recipients that this government wants to introduce and said: 'Oh, I can't remember; therefore, that's an excuse. Oh, and because I can't remember, I couldn't possibly have taken any drugs.' That's the equivalent of what we've had from this member for Chisholm.</p><p>Yesterday—this is why standing orders should be suspended to allow me to move this motion—we had a further absurdity piled on the absurdity of her interview with Andrew Bolt in which the member for Chisholm did not stand up before journalists, did not give a press conference, but simply issued a written statement, written for her—and it's apparent that it was written for her—by the Prime Minister's office and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Sukkar</p><p>Why is it apparent?</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>It is totally apparent because it's a parroting of—</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p><p>I'm asked why it is so obvious. It's because it is a parroting of words used by the Prime Minister and words used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The statement is one in which she does not actually explain what the situation is in respect of her membership, or possibly former membership, of groups that are associated with the overseas propaganda arms of the Chinese Communist Party. This is a very serious matter. When this kind of extraordinary revelation comes to light, it goes to whether or not the member concerned is a fit and proper person to be a member of this House. That is the kind of matter, absolutely, that the member should explain in detail to the House—exactly what her status is in relation to this organisation, and, if it's a past status, exactly what her past status was in relation to these organisations. It is not good enough—and that's why standing orders should be suspended to allow this motion to be moved—for the member to simply issue a written statement. What she should be doing is standing up in this House and explaining to this House what her status was, or is, with these propaganda arms of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a very, very serious matter and she has not explained her situation.</p><p class="italic">Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The member for McEwen! The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. I will say to the member for McEwen that he is not going to bellow at me when I've asked him to cease interjecting. I want to hear the member for Isaacs in silence. As you can probably tell, I've got a bit of a sore throat, so I'm going to mete out punishment even more than I normally do. I'm not going to lose my voice. The member for Isaacs has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>It is absolutely standard practice for a member of this House who finds herself in the situation that the member for Chisholm finds herself in to come into this House and explain her conduct, explain what her association with these organisations was and explain why she said the extraordinary things that she said in answer to perfectly standard and proper questions that were posed by the journalist Andrew Bolt. She's done none of those things in the statement that she released yesterday. The questions that were raised by her extraordinary interview remain unexplained, and that's why it's appropriate that this House should resolve to call on the member for Chisholm to make a statement in the House in relation to these matters.</p><p>Let's go to some of the things that the member for Chisholm said in this extraordinary interview conducted by Andrew Bolt. She couldn't bring herself to support the bipartisan position taken by the Labor Party and taken by the Liberal Party of Australia in relation to the conduct of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea. That position—to be absolutely clear—she could not bring herself to say was that the actions of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea were in breach of international law. This is a standard position. It's one in respect of which the current Prime Minister of Australia outrageously suggested that there was some lack of patriotism in a former senator, who happened to be a Labor senator, and it suited the current Prime Minister of Australia at that time—</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p><p>to say that there was a lack of patriotism on the part of that senator—because of the statements that he had made about the conduct of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea. Now we have a recently elected Liberal member of parliament who has said something virtually identical to the statements made by that former senator—statements in respect of which that senator ultimately resigned from his position in the Senate—and we've had nothing from the Prime Minister and nothing from the member for Chisholm in relation to this. Instead, she has not come and explained herself to this House but instead simply distributed a written statement that self-evidently was prepared for her by the foreign minister and the Prime Minister's office, self-evidently is not in her words and self-evidently is not the language that she herself chose to use when she was being interviewed by Andrew Bolt. The ridiculous hypocrisy of all of the people on the government benches, starting with the Prime Minister and including the member for Chisholm, is on full display for the Australian people to see. That's why standing orders should be suspended in order to have the member for Chisholm come into this House as she should, as convention would require she should.</p><p>She's run out of the House, as one of my colleagues reminds me. She was here when I started speaking, but she's now run out of the House. She doesn't want to speak to this House. She's not prepared to front this House, of which she is a member, and fully explain the mess that she made on national TV on Tuesday night. The unexplained matters remain unexplained by her written statement issued yesterday, which was obviously written for her. She needs to explain, and this is a serious matter. It goes to whether or not the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to occupy the government benches which she is presently occupying, and it's a matter on which we should also be hearing from the Prime Minister of this country, who stood after this member's first speech and glowed with pride that she had joined the government benches. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Is the motion seconded?</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Butler</p><p>I second the motion. It is important that standing orders be suspended for this matter to proceed and for the member for Chisholm to clarify certain matters that go directly to the public interest. There is a cloud hanging over the absolute majority that this government holds and a cloud hanging over whether or not the longstanding bipartisan position about the PRC's actions in the South China Sea is a position unanimously held by government MPs, and there are some important questions over fundraising and events that have happened over the past couple of years. The hypocrisy and false dudgeon by those opposite, who held one of our former Senate colleagues to a particular standard they now won't hold their own colleague to, is extraordinary! The false dudgeon and the hypocrisy of those opposite, who when in opposition trumpeted the importance of members making statements in this place—and not outside—where members are held to certain standards, is just extraordinary.</p><p>There are important questions that need to be clarified here and can only be clarified by the member for Chisholm coming in here and making a statement to the House on those questions. As I said, whether or not the bipartisan position over the PRC's actions in the South China Sea holds and is unanimously supported by members of the government is now in question. The member for Chisholm would not agree with the longstanding position between the Labor Party and the coalition that some of China's actions in the South China Sea are unlawful. That raises questions about the unanimity of the government's MPs on this important question. There are important questions that the member for Chisholm has not been able to clarify, because she's contradicted herself over the course of this week over her membership of certain committees. They can only be clarified by her making a statement in this House. And there have been further questions raised only over the course of this morning, some of which only the Prime Minister may be able to answer. But, before the Prime Minister can answer them, the member for Chisholm has to give a full reckoning to this House.</p><p>Now, we in this House all know—I thought those opposite in this House knew—that the member for Chisholm, like all of us, is not just another citizen. You can't just go out and make some clarification outside of this House when you're not bound by the rules set out very clearly to govern the members' obligations on statements in this House. Certainly when they were in opposition they trumpeted that principle very loudly indeed. I remember it. Most of the members on this side certainly remember it. There's selective amnesia going on with those on the other side.</p><p>This goes to some very important matters of public interest. It is critical that standing orders be suspended and the member for Chisholm be given the opportunity to speak for up to 20 minutes to clarify these matters.</p> <p class="speaker">Christian Porter</p><p>Thank you. It's pretty awful stuff, isn't it? Earlier this week we had a condolence motion for the last living member of the Menzies government, who helped unravel the White Australia policy. And all these years later, this is where we are—what a lovely way to spend the morning! There are two fundamental propositions that are being put by members opposite. The first proposition is this: if you are associated in any way with one of the three organisations—or, indeed, others like them—somehow you are not a fit and proper member of parliament. That's the proposition.</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Members</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|