Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download PDFDownload PDF 

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

23    Attendance of minister—Ministerial standards—Crown Resorts allegations

Senator McKim, pursuant to notice of motion not objected to as a formal motion, moved general business notice of motion no. 82—

(1)       That the Senate—

(a)       notes with deep concern allegations that current members of Parliament, including ministers, pressured senior officers in the Department of Home Affairs to make it easier for certain people, including high-roller clients of Crown Resorts, to obtain visas and clear customs; and

(b)       requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann) to attend the Senate immediately after motions to take note of answers on 1 August 2019, to make a statement of not more than 10 minutes detailing:

                                                        (i)       whether the Prime Minister has investigated the claims made against ministers regarding Crown Resorts, which prima facie would breach the Ministerial Standards,

                                                      (ii)       if the Prime Minister has not investigated these allegations, why he has not done so,

                                                     (iii)       if the investigation is ongoing, what are the Terms of Reference and timelines for the investigation, and when will the findings be released, and

                                                    (iv)       whether or not the Prime Minister considers that the Ministerial Standards have been breached.

(2)       That at the conclusion of the Minister’s explanation, any senator may, without notice, move a motion to take note of the Minister’s explanation.

(3)       That any motion under paragraph (2) may be debated for no longer than 1 hour, and have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes.

Senator Gallagher, by leave, moved the following amendments together:

Omit subparagraph (1)(a).

Subparagraph (b)(i), omit “prima facie would”, substitute “could”.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put and passed.

Main question, as amended, put.

The Senate divided—

AYES, 33

Senators—

Ayres

Green

McKim

Smith, Marielle

Bilyk

Griff

O’Neill

Steele-John

Brown

Hanson

Patrick

Sterle

Chisholm

Hanson-Young

Pratt

Urquhart*

Ciccone

Keneally

Rice

Walsh

Di Natale

Kitching

Roberts

Waters

Faruqi

Lambie

Sheldon

Watt

Gallacher

McAllister

Siewert

Whish-Wilson

Gallagher

 

 

 

NOES, 29

Senators—

Abetz

Colbeck

McDonald

Ryan

Antic

Cormann

McGrath

Scarr

Askew

Davey

McMahon

Seselja

Bragg

Duniam

Paterson

Sinodinos

Brockman

Fawcett

Rennick

Smith, Dean*

Canavan

Fierravanti-Wells

Reynolds

Stoker

Cash

Hughes

Ruston

Van

Chandler

 

* Tellers

Question agreed to.