Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:57): I too rise to take note of questions and answers in today's question time. These are very serious questions indeed and raise very serious issues, not just for the member for Chisholm but also for the Prime Minister and the government, about the political judgement of the Liberal Party in Victoria. The questions surrounding the member for Chisholm's suitability to sit in the parliament go to the heart of the electorate's distrust, disillusionment and despair at the state of contemporary politics. In case anybody hasn't been listening, Australians have started to lose confidence in their elected representatives and are wondering whether they are acting in their interests. Is it any wonder? The efforts in today's question time to not answer questions, or to obscure the real questions, to try and give rise to an apprehension that the Labor Party's questions today were directed at the capacity of all of the people of a particular community in Australia, is a misrepresentation of the position and, more seriously, a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of those opposite and the responsibilities of government to act in the best interests of national security. For weeks, questions have been asked about the member for Chisholm's suitability to sit in the Australian parliament. Every answer from the member for Chisholm to these questions begs more questions. A careless reference to national security is a smokescreen—the last refuge. What is required here is precision and an understanding of people's responsibilities. Was Ms Liu, the member for Chisholm, a member and honorary office-bearer of organisations that are part of the foreign influence activities of the Chinese government? Is this true? Did she declare her membership of these organisations or did she obscure her membership of these organisations? Did the Prime Minister know? Was he warned about it by the security agencies or other agencies? If the Prime Minister knew, what did he do about it? In an effort to clear her name, the member for Chisholm agreed to an interview with Andrew Bolt on Sky on Tuesday night. That's not necessarily where I'd go in an effort to clarify things, but that's where she went. The interview was a train wreck. It wasn't the clumsy effort of a first-time backbencher. We could all make those mistakes. The member for Chisholm couldn't explain her membership of numerous organisations of concern. She could recall during the election every other aspect of her CV but she couldn't recall or explain those memberships. She failed on three occasions to commit herself to the bipartisan Australian national position on the South China Sea. Yesterday she issued a statement in an effort to clear her name. The reports are that the statement was prepared by the Prime Minister's office. On Tuesday night she couldn't recall her associations; less than 24 hours later, she was completely clear. What has changed? I think people are entitled to know. And, in a more serious sense, they're entitled to ask: what did the Prime Minister know? What did the Victorian Liberal Party know about Ms Liu's previous associations? What did they do to satisfy themselves about whether or not she was a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament? In question time today, Minister Cormann refused to assure Australians or the Senate that Ms Liu was a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. In question time yesterday, Senator Payne refused to assure Australians that Ms Liu was a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. It's time the Senate got some answers to these questions. (Time expired) Question agreed to.