Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (09:45): 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. Opposition members interjecting— Mr PORTER: That's precisely the proposition that you are putting. Here are the three organisations that are in question: the Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association, the Australian Jiangmen General Commercial Association and the United Chinese Commerce Association. The fundamental proposition those opposite are putting is that a Chinese-Australian with a wonderful heritage, who overcame domestic violence, who came to this country and who has natural associations with Chinese organisations, by virtue of those associations, is not a fit and proper person to be here. The question is: are you fit and proper people to be here when you run arguments like that? That's the central question. Let me tell you this. Let me read this. This is the House of Representatives Register of Members' Interests for the member for McMahon: On 26 April 2015 I travelled to Hong Kong and China for five days as a guest of the Australia-Guangdong Chamber of Commerce and the Communist Party of China … I engaged in high level meetings with Business and Government officers. Does that make the member for McMahon a communist? Should we wheel out Senator McCarthy to ask a few questions of them? 'I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party between the years 1949 and 1956.' Is this what you have honestly reduced yourselves to? It is an absolute disgrace. The member for McMahon might be a socialist, but he's not a communist because he had an association with the Australian Guangdong Chamber of Commerce. Nor is any Australian of Chinese heritage a communist or a traitor or something of that nature because they have had an association with the Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association or because as a Chinese-Australian they've turned up to meetings of the general commercial association, or because they have an involvement with the United Chinese Commerce Association. Might I add that, when you actually sit down and read the transcript in a calm and reasonable way—something they are incapable of doing—the member for Chisholm was asked, with respect to the Australian Jiangmen General Commercial Association, 'You have been an honorary president?' She confirmed that she had been. She said, 'Well, as the honorary president of the organisation, they didn't tell me everything that they do'—which is in the nature of these organisations. Opposition members interjecting— Mr PORTER: Well, was the member for McMahon told everything about the Australian Guangdong Chamber of Commerce? Can you cite their constitutional provisions for me? With respect to the United Chinese Chamber of Commerce— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will just pause for a second. I'm not going to raise my voice, mainly because I can't, but I am going to remind members that I anticipate a vote is coming and, given their passion, they might want to be here for the vote, but 94(a) does apply, and I am ready to start exercising it. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr PORTER: With respect to the United Chinese Commerce Association, the member for Chisholm was asked: 'You are also honorary president of the United Chinese Commerce Association?' 'You are'—present tense. She said: 'I don't think I am. In fact, I'm not any honorary president or chairman of any organisation at this point in time.' Totally correct. Totally, 100 per cent correct. She was then asked about the Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association—a very similar exchange association to the exchange that the member for McMahon went on. She said first, 'I can't recall' and then she said she hadn't been a member of the council—clearly a level of confusion, which she clarified in her statement. But if, out of those three things, there was some level of confusion about one organisation, which was clarified—and clearly there was confusion in the interview— Mr Watts: This'll come back to bite you in the arse! Mr PORTER: but that was clarified—and that is the basis upon which members opposite— The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a)—(1) for interjecting and (2) for using unparliamentary language. The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call. Mr PORTER: That is the sole basis upon which members opposite put the assertion that the member for Chisholm is not a fit and proper person to be in this place. That is outrageous. That is xenophobic and that is something that you should all be disgraced about. It's absolutely disgraceful! The second proposition that they put, which is even more laughable than the first, is that there is some form of comparability or equivalence between Sam Dastyari and the member for Chisholm. Let's examine that proposition for a moment. Sam Dastyari declared that Yuhu Group, linked to the individual Huang Xiangmo, helped settle a private legal matter for him that reportedly cost $40,000. In August 2016, whilst he was on Labor's front bench, it was revealed that the same Sam Dastyari had had the Huang Xiangmo Top Education Institute pay a $1,670 private travel bill when he went over his parliamentary travel budget. That private payment to Sam Dastyari occurred in secret and was not disclosed until that disclosure was compelled. That's what happened there. It was revealed under pressure because it had never been disclosed in accordance with the requirements of this parliament. Then, after that occurred, in June 2016 Sam Dastyari stood next to the same Huang Xiangmo at a press conference—again, a press conference organised in secret—and Dastyari and Huang Xiangmo both— Mr Burke: A secret press conference? Mr PORTER: That's exactly what it was. Sam Dastyari was beamed into China so that he could parrot Chinese policy in the South China Sea, hoping that no-one here would ever find out about it. That's what happened. But we did find out about it, and there they both were standing behind white podiums with the Australian coat of arms on those podiums. Huang Xiangmo then promised to give $400,000 to the Labor Party but threatened to cancel the donation when Senator Conroy made critical remarks about China, prompting Sam Dastyari to intervene and make statements contradicting Labor Party policy. That is what happened. What members opposite are putting before the parliament today is that there is some kind of equivalence or comparability between that and someone who made an error about their memory on the membership of an organisation, and that's it. That is it. That is the level of comparability. And what it indicates is that there is absolutely no depth that they will not sink to to smear a member of this government. But this member of this government has a remarkable and proud history. If a Chinese Australian with Chinese heritage, the first to join this parliament, has to suffer this type of outrageous slur on their character within the first sitting of this parliament—a proposition that she is not a fit and proper person to be in this parliament— Mr Gosling: You're not a fit and proper person! Mr PORTER: simply because she could not recall— The SPEAKER: The member for Solomon is warned. Mr PORTER: and made an error in an interview over a previous association with the Guangdong Overseas Exchange Association—and that somehow or other makes you not a fit and proper person to be in this parliament, there has to be more to it than that. Why on earth would you come in here with that proposition based on that absolutely outrageous and slender piece of evidence? There's nothing there. And as to the statement, the statement is absolutely clear. If there's something wrong with the statement, you tell us, but the statement is completely clear. At the end of the day, you would have someone excluded from this parliament because of their heritage and their association with that heritage to a Chinese organisation in circumstances like many people here, as is indicated by the member for McMahon's own proper and dutiful disclosure about associations with these organisations. Indeed, he travelled under their auspices to China to meet members of the Communist Party. That doesn't make him a communist. Simply because someone has a Chinese heritage doesn't make them a communist. Simply because someone has turned up to a dinner doesn't make them a communist. (Time expired)