Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We're in a situation where, as we understand the composition of the parliament at the moment, the government, if it sought to prosecute a case, would not have a majority, and the opposition, if it sought to prosecute a case, even if it had all of us supporting them would not have a majority either. And so we are in a situation in this parliament where we have to resolve what is in the public's mind and should be in this parliament's mind: a very, very crucial issue about who is entitled to sit in this place and who should be referred to the High Court. Some might say that it is a problem that we are at a situation where there is potential deadlock. I think it is an opportunity and I think it is probably timely that that is the way that such a question is being resolved. As you might expect, those of us on the crossbench, given the situation that we are in, have spent a fair bit of time having discussions with each other.

Honourable members interjecting—

Some people clearly don't think it is that serious, but we've spent a fair bit of time having discussions about what would be the best way to resolve this. A number of my colleagues will make their own contributions to this debate, but I think it's fair to say what's come out of the discussions are a couple of propositions. One is that, for someone to be referred, there ought to be a legitimate question, but the corollary of that is that, where there is a legitimate question, the presumption should be that they should be referred, because it is not this parliament's role to stand in the place of the High Court where there is a legitimate question.

The second point that has come out of our discussions is that this must be even-handed and non-partisan. We cannot possibly have a situation in this parliament or any other parliament where a government of whatever stripe uses its numbers to start referring opposition members, because, when we move out of this hung parliament impasse scenario, we may go back to parliaments where there are majorities, and, if it's okay to start moving and picking off people one by one when you are in government and send someone off to the High Court because they are being troublesome, that is a very grave concern. In that respect we look to what has happened in the Senate and note that in the Senate members from across the political spectrum have been referred either by sticking up their hand or by agreement of the whole Senate. That has been the approach taken and that ought to be the approach that gets taken here.

We want to be absolutely clear that we support the referrals of people where there is a legitimate question, including those that the Prime Minister has identified on the opposition side. But we also think that, where there has been a case made that there are legitimate questions on the government side, they should be referred as well. So, as a result, we are adopting, I think it is fair to say, the following position.

Firstly, we think there should be an agreed set of names that go forward from this House. Secondly, we will not support picking off people one by one, because that would mean the position at the moment would be that no government member, no matter how serious the question, could ever get referred. So we understand why the government wants it to be done one by one, but we're saying, 'No; it needs to be an agreed list.' And, thirdly, if the government thinks that the list of people in this motion is too short or too long, then come up with additional names and arguments and we will look at them on their merits. We will look at them on their merits in the same way we did when the Manager of Opposition Business put his names up. We considered them on their merits.

We're not the adjudicators of foreign law. That is a matter for the High Court. But I do want to address a couple of matters that have been raised by the government in their contributions. I note that they make contributions about one member and say, 'They've got a statement from the embassy that they've never been a citizen,' but I note they said nothing about that member in relation to US citizenship. In all the contributions they've made to this debate, they've said nothing about the question of US citizenship. Some people have raised that as an issue and it seems, on the face of it, to be a legitimate issue that should be dealt with by the High Court. I also understand that with respect to other nationalities, there seems to be, from my perspective, a legitimate point of dispute about whether you need to actively renounce or whether you don't. I'm not in a position to adjudicate that; that's what the High Court is there for. So if the government wants to get into an argument about the merits, I say that immediately back to them.

I also make the point about the two members of the government—I accept the Prime Minister's argument that this is not about some numerical legitimacy; that's not what we're after. But I make the point about the two members who have gone: it was crystal clear for them, and they did nothing more than what our members did a while ago when it became crystal clear; however, we're not dealing with a category of people who are crystal clear. We are dealing with a category where there is argument. And where there is argument, what do we do? I applaud those two members for stepping down and doing what our senators did when they found themselves in a similar situation, because that's what they should have done. Fine; great. But we are now dealing with a situation where there is a dispute, and what do you do where there is a dispute?

I think I speak on behalf of a number of my colleagues in saying: the test here is, in large part, what would the public think is a fair thing to do? What would the public think is a fair thing to do where there is a legitimate question mark over someone? I would urge the two sides to start having a conversation with each other, and in that conversation put themselves in the public's shoes. Step out of here for one moment, because one way or another this is going to be resolved, and put yourself in the public's shoes and ask, 'What would the public think is fair where legitimate questions are raised?' It's not vexatious, it's not being done to annoy people—we won't have a bar of that. But if a legitimate question is raised about someone, if a document hasn't been provided or if there is a question about whether or not that document is sufficient—and it is a legitimate question—then put yourself in the public's shoes. Do you think that should be resolved by the High Court? That's what we would urge the two sides to do. Whether it is now or whether you need to spend tonight talking about it, put yourself in the public's shoes, because I don't think that it is right that we walk out of here only having referred one side and not the other. I just don't think that's right, if there are legitimate questions—and there are, in my mind, legitimate questions.

I want to make some final comments about the member for Mayo, because she has asked me to. The member for Mayo has said: 'I don't think that I, as the member for Mayo, have done anything wrong. I had advice before I nominated, and I thought I did the right thing. I still think I will win in the High Court, but I accept that there are people who've got an alternative view.' The member for Mayo has said she is prepared to put herself forward. If that's the test, it is a test that ought to be able to be applied equally by members of the government. Where there is a serious question, this is the opportunity to have it resolved. The government has now got an opportunity to consider how it wants to proceed. The composition of the parliament is what the composition of the parliament is, but we would urge the two sides to think about this sensibly and think about what the public wants.

See this speech in context