Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:07): I rise to take note of the minister's answer—or, at least, the complete and utter lack of one. In fact, wasn't it interesting that Senator McKenzie from the Nationals spoke longer than Senator Cormann from the Liberals in defence—well, I guess you could call it a defence—of the member for Chisholm. So we had Senator McKenzie riding in on a horse to rescue the Liberal Party from itself. What was also interesting about Senator McKenzie's contribution is that she decided one of her key planks of attack would be to cite the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and say the Labor Party had somehow acted in some kind of racist way—I suppose that was the imputation she was making—despite the fact that it was in fact Senator Wong who carried the China free trade agreement through the Labor Party. It was a complete and utter embarrassment for the Liberals that they had to rely on the National Party in this debate. Wasn't it interesting to see how many Liberals fled the chamber when Minister Cormann had finished speaking. None of them were particularly willing—as would seem to be the case for those present here now—to stand up and participate in this take note debate. There are three simple words that Minister Cormann, Minister Payne, and indeed, the Prime Minister, seem unable to say. They are: 'fit and proper'. They just roll off the tongue. They are not difficult to say. They are the words, in fact, that any Australian—indeed, any quiet Australian—would expect their Prime Minister to be able to say about any member of the backbench. Indeed, the only quiet Australians in this debate are members of the Liberal Party. They are unable to utter out loud the words 'fit and proper'. I would like to thank certain members of the Liberal Party who are in the chamber today for at least smiling quietly at that suggestion, as they are doing over there. Why can't the government say these words? Why can't they? Why can't they simply stand up and say, 'The member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to serve in the parliament'? Is it because they simply don't know? Do they have doubts? Are they not sure? Are they not confident enough to stand up and assert that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person? We read the media reports; Liberals are sharing concerns with the media that the member for Chisholm is not a fit and proper person. It must be deeply unnerving for some of those opposite to know that they helped elect someone who reportedly raised red flags with national security agencies before her preselection. Today we have reports in the Herald Sun that the member for Chisholm promised that she would write references for foreign students if they volunteered to work on her campaign. Those references would lead to permanent residency. The report says that, leading up to this year’s election, Ms Liu’s campaign sent WeChat messages 'offering to act as a "career referee" for Chinese students who did an "outstanding job" volunteering'. Surely this must be a concern to members of the Liberal Party and to the government. This appears to offer an inducement to a volunteer to act on behalf of a political party in an election, and it's not just any inducement; it is a significant inducement. It is the inducement to provide a character reference so someone can become a permanent resident in this country. Is this the member for Chisholm's 'visas for volunteers' program? Is the member for Chisholm, in her political campaigning, actually running a 'visa for vollies' campaign program? Is that what this is? Why can't the government, ministers in this government or the Prime Minister simply stand before the parliament, before the Australian people, and say, 'She is a fit and proper person'? It's because we keep seeing reports like this come out, day after day—national security agencies raising flags; campaign donations. Now she has to go back and run a double-check, an audit—apparently she's running it; we have no details as to how the double-checking process is working. And today there are revelations of a 'visa for vollies' scheme run by the member for Chisholm. Rather than put his faith in the member for Chisholm and declare her a fit and proper person, Prime Minister Morrison has instead chosen to run a straw man argument. What does he claim about scrutiny of the member for Chisholm? Despite the fact that there were reports she raised security concerns; despite the fact that there are questions around the donations she has raised, the sources of them and their links to the Chinese Communist Party; and despite the fact that she's been running a 'visa for vollies' campaign scheme, what does the Prime Minister do? He says it is racist to raise these questions. He describes this as having 'grubby undertones'. Do you want know what's grubby? Suggestions that the Liberal Party should exploit fears surrounding Muslim migration in order to win an election. That is what the Prime Minister reportedly did in a shadow cabinet meeting when he was shadow immigration minister in 2011. That's got grubby undertones. Do you know what else is grubby? Telling the media you're willing to waive the conditions and fast-track the visa application of a family you are deporting. Of course, I'm speaking of the Biloela family, the Tamil family. The Prime Minister was out there telling the media that, if they'd just apply, he would welcome it and, in fact, the government would make sure their visa was dealt with quite efficiently. What's grubby is that he never had any intention of doing that. Minister Dutton came out the very next day and made clear the government have no part in that. That is what is grubby. When this Prime Minister is cornered, what does he do? I'm not going to use the word 'lie'. But, boy, does he misdirect? Does he misrepresent? Does he just say the first thing that comes to mind that's going to get him out of that difficult situation? Let's look at what he did last week. When asked why it wasn't racist to use the phrase 'Shanghai Sam', what did the Prime Minister do? Did he answer the question? Did he tell the truth? No. He said, 'I never used that phrase.' And when video evidence emerged of him saying it, when audio evidence emerged of him saying it and when it was demonstrated quite clearly and demonstrably 17 times at least on the record that he had used that phrase, what did the Prime Minister do? It's laughable. He said, 'I didn't hear the question properly.' I mean, come on. I heard it. I am sure that all the reporters there heard it. I am sure that even Senator Cormann, had he been there, could have heard and understood it. That is what is grubby about this debate: playing the race card. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done in his attempt to defend the embattled member for Chisholm. Let's not take the word of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Let's not take the word even of the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate. Let's take the word of that left-leaning keyboard warrior Andrew Bolt. What did Andrew Bolt say in his column? Addressing Prime Minister Morrison, he said: Australians are in greater danger now that you've played the race card to defend Liberal MP Gladys Liu. I'm going to repeat that because I am not sure that the Acting Deputy President heard me. He seemed a bit distracted. Andrew Bolt said: Australians are in greater danger now that you've played the race card to defend Liberal MP Gladys Liu. So not only are all these actions grubby, they are proof of the lengths the Prime Minister is willing to go to to cling onto power. It is proof that you can take the Prime Minister out of the advertising game but you cannot take the ad man out of the Prime Minister. He is willing to do anything, say anything and promise anything. He is even willing to, in the words of Andrew Bolt, 'put Australians into a greater degree of danger' rather than to take seriously the national interest. One TV station this week chose to call into question what the Prime Minister says compared to what he does. On Monday this week we had one TV network Channel 10 calling into question what the Prime Minister says compared to what he does. The following day the Prime Minister went ahead and did interviews with every other TV station except the one that had held him to account. This goes to show just how much this Prime Minister does not like being held to account. Every time those opposite tell Australians to 'Look away. There's nothing to see here. It's all a misunderstanding'—'Labor', 'Labor', 'Labor', 'Labor' is all that we hear from them—it's a hint that the Australian people need to examine their actions more closely. It's a question of character of the people who represent their communities in this place and their fitness to serve. Now more than ever it is vital that the Australian people can have the utmost faith in the democratic institutions of this country. To claim that this scrutiny of the member for Chisholm—again, much of it arising from the alleged notification that went to the Liberal Party and much of it arising from what appeared to be the genuine concerns held by national security agencies—is racist is utterly contemptuous. It is contemptuous of the parliament, it is contemptuous of the Australian people and it is contemptuous of the national interest. I would also highlight that, according to reports by many journalists in this building, the majority of concerns about the member for Chisholm are being raised by her own party. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs speak to us constantly, and rightfully so, about the threats that Australia faces from foreign interference. Over the last fortnight, we have seen a series of allegations in the media—much of it stemming, it would seem, from unnamed sources from the Liberal Party—about the member for Chisholm. And these cast genuine doubt over her conduct and raise serious questions about foreign interference. And yet when the parliament and the Australian people have looked to their government and their Prime Minister for reassurance they've got nothing. In fact, what they've got is worse than nothing. What we've heard from those opposite is contemptuous and grubby. We now know that seven times in this Senate— Senator Wong: Eight now. Senator KENEALLY: Eight now, as the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, Senator Wong, rightly points out. Eight times the members of this government have refused to stand here and answer the questions and say the three simple words 'fit and proper'. They cannot apply them to the member for Chisholm, and they will not say them. What faith can the Australian people have in the member for Chisholm and the government that she is part of? What we're seeing instead is a display of obfuscation and delay, a blatant refusal to do the right thing, which necessitated this motion before the chamber, and the weak, short and lack-of-detail answer that came from Minister Cormann here today. Again, I point out that Senator McKenzie, the leader of the National Party in this place, gave a more robust defence and a longer explanation than the leader of the Liberal Party in this place. I think that says it all. The Senate, of course, has done the right thing. I acknowledge all those senators who supported this motion and called upon Minister Cormann to attend the chamber to provide an explanation for the member for Chisholm's conduct and to assure the Australian people that she should be in this parliament. Of course, we didn't get any such assurance from the government. I have to say, listening to the Prime Minister misdirect, listening to the Prime Minister play the race card and listening to the Prime Minister say and do anything to hang onto power does raise the question when we're talking about serious issues of national security and foreign interference. I think it's legitimate to ask: whose side is this Prime Minister on? Is he truly on the side of the Australian people or is he on the side of himself and his Liberal Party mates, clinging to power, hanging onto power, at any cost. The questions that are being raised here are being interpreted by the Prime Minister as some kind of attempt to threaten his parliamentary majority. That's rubbish. These are questions that go to national security and foreign interference, and they should be rightly raised. If the government took questions of foreign interference and national security seriously, they would rightly answer these questions, because surely the first responsibility of a government above all else is to put the national security and the Australian interest above all else? The Prime Minister and Minister Cormann owe it to the Australian people to provide an explanation for the member for Chisholm's conduct to ensure us that she is indeed a fit and proper person to serve her constituents and the Australian people in this parliament. They still haven't done so. It is extraordinary and it is contemptuous, and all it guarantees is that legitimate questions by all senators in this place, and indeed by all senators in the opposition and on the crossbench, will continue to be raised. Questions will continued to be rightly raised by the media and by the Australian people, because they go to the very heart of what it is to be a fit and proper person in this parliament. They go to the very heart of what it is to stand up and speak to and defend the national interest of the Australian people.