Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (15:11): I thank Senator Kitching. I find it ironic that Senator Kitching is leading this charge, given what the Fair Work Commission and the royal commission found in relation to Senator Kitching's own conduct. I think they found that Senator Kitching broke the law by falsifying the right-of-entry test and lying to both commissions by denying such conduct. Senator Kitching: Point of order: I think if you actually read through the documents you would see. I'm sure you've been given that by the Prime Minister's office. I would invoke standing order 193 suborder 3. Further to the point of order, I'm not sure whether Senator Seselja knows what that is, but it's about imputation, so, you can quote correctly— Senator SESELJA: I am quoting. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you quoting from the Hansard? Senator SESELJA: I'm quoting the Fair Work Commission. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps you can supply us with the quote, because otherwise I would ask you to withdraw it, but, if it's a quote— Senator SESELJA: I was quoting. I was quoting from the Fair Work Commission. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am asking you to, at some point, show us. Perhaps it's a good idea to table the quote. Senator SESELJA: No. I don't need to table it in order to quote it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I know you're not required. I'm asking you, in the spirit of good relations in the Senate, to consider tabling the quote, if it is a quote. Senator SESELJA: I note that request, and I thank you for it. The Fair Work Commission found on the totality of the evidence: … I find that Ms Kitching performed these tests. Ms Kitching's denials of knowledge and involvement cannot be accepted. So it is interesting that it is Senator Kitching leading this attack. But let's go to the substance of what the Labor Party are saying. They are saying that, because the serial referrer to the police, Mr Dreyfus, the shadow Attorney-General, has written another letter to the police, and because the police, when they get something from someone senior in politics like the shadow Attorney-General, have to give it due regard, they are saying now that should be the test and that people should have to stand aside. What has Mr Dreyfus's record been in the past in referring? He has referred a lot. He has referred nine matters, I believe, to police or other agencies, wasting their resources. He is the vexatious litigant. He referred George Brandis. He referred Christian Porter. He referred Stuart Robert. He threatened to refer Jamie Briggs. Every time this guy gets up to give a press conference and wants to refer somebody to the police. How many times has it led to charges? None. So we've got the shadow Attorney-General, who couldn't become the Attorney-General, because of the poor performance of him and the leadership of the Labor Party, who couldn't get into government, now wanting to bring down ministers by writing angry letters. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching? Senator Kitching: Mr Dreyfus, of course, was the Attorney-General. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What is the point of order, Senator Kitching? Senator Kitching: In fact, incorrect information. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's a debating point. Senator Kitching: Well, on relevance. Senator SESELJA: Indeed, the frustrated shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, whose party failed so badly to make him the Attorney-General and get into government, now wants to bring down ministers by firing off more letters. He should be seen for what he is: a serial vexatious complainant with complaints that lead nowhere. He wastes police resources time after time after time. What the Labor Party is now saying is that, every time the shadow Attorney-General fires off a letter to the police, and the police then take that seriously because he's the shadow Attorney-General, we should have to stand someone down—absolutely absurd. We know, in fact, that the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, was under investigation by the police and remained as the opposition leader, leading the Labor Party, and as the alternative Prime Minister. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator SESELJA: This mob just sits there and interjects because the truth hurts. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Seselja, please resume your seat. I've asked you to resume your seat. Senator Seselja has the right to be heard in silence. I would ask people to respect that right. Please resume, Senator Seselja. Senator SESELJA: Thank you, Deputy President. But I understand why they want to interject: because they don't like hearing the truth of these failed attacks from Mr Dreyfus and the Labor Party and the politics of smear. What is this about? This is about the fact that the Labor Party can't live with the fact that they lost the election, and Mr Dreyfus in particular can't live with the fact that he lost the election. So he thinks he can just fire off letters to the police asking for investigations. In the past he has referred other ministers, and where has that led? Absolutely nowhere. Minister Cormann made the point rightly in question time today: what if this were the new standard to be adopted by this serial vexatious complainant, the frustrated, angry Mr Dreyfus, who can't cope with his position in life, is considering his position in this parliament, wants to go off and be a QC again and can't cope with the fact that he is not the Attorney-General right now? I've got news for Mr Dreyfus and the Labor Party; the way to get there is not through the politics of smear. It is not by bringing good people down. It is not by firing off letters to the police. It is by going and convincing the Australian community that the plan you have for them is a plan in the national interest—that you have the better plan. But you took a plan for $387 billion of taxes, and the absolute politics of envy, fear and smear is now being brought into our federal parliament to replace policies of substance. So we're not going to be lectured to by the Labor Party, and we're certainly not going to adopt this standard that the Labor Party never adopted. We're not going to adopt a standard that, when you get complaints from this serial vexatious litigant, the frustrated Mr Dreyfus, we would have to stand ministers down. It is an absurd claim from the Labor Party, and they would be laughed out of court. Mr Dreyfus would be laughed out of court, and he should be laughed— (Time expired)