Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I associate myself with many of the comments from my colleagues. I think the member for Melbourne in particular spoke very eloquently on behalf of all five of us here on the crossbench. I would briefly add a few footnotes to emphasise the degree to which many people in the Australian community have, frankly, had a gutful of the citizenship fiasco, of politics and of politicians. We have to do something strong, decisive and unambiguous to turn that around. We've become the laughing-stock of this country, and if we don't resolve this matter decisively and unambiguously this week then our stocks will go down even further. Even today, we should be in here debating the bill on marriage equality, a vitally important reform for this country, but we can't go ahead, finish debating and vote on that while there is such a cloud over the character and integrity of this parliament, because it has been brought into disrepute by the citizenship fiasco. The only way to end this, in my opinion, is for every member in this House about whom there is a legitimate concern over their eligibility to be here under the Constitution to be referred to the High Court.

When there is uncertainty, the only entity with the ability and the power to deal with that uncertainty is the High Court. It's not up to us to try to make sense of these matters. I must apologise to some members of the media; I've been quite rude and had to pull out of some media commitments today, simply because we have been flat out lobbied to death by both the government and the opposition. One of the threads that has run through that lobbying has been trying to convince us of the merits of the evidence or the history of some of the government members, but the fact that there had to be that discussion, that debate—the fact that, during this session here, the Manager of Opposition Business has come up to the member for Mayo and repeatedly discussed, even debated, the circumstances in which someone would inherit American citizenship—means there's uncertainty. The fact that the two sides are debating over the eligibility of any one individual means there's uncertainty. The fact that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House have all spent so much effort today trying to persuade us of the merits of evidence means there is uncertainty.

Surely, when there's uncertainty, we then seek to have that uncertainty resolved, and the only way to resolve that uncertainty is to refer that member or those members to the High Court. It's not our job to understand foreign law. We don't have the competency to examine a copy of a document from another country or excerpts from the legislation of another country and make a decision about it. It's the High Court's job, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. It has the competency to examine that evidence and to make a decision. It's as simple as that. For all those reasons I will, as will the member for Melbourne and the member for Kennedy, support any effort in this House which is a genuinely fair and bipartisan approach. Because of that, I think the opposition motion which we are debating right now is a good motion.

For sure, it might well need some amendment. It might need some extra members added. We might even consider removing a member or two. But the approach is the right approach. It is a bilateral approach which seeks to bring fairness to this matter and which seeks, I think, to demonstrate to the Australian community that the parliament has come together and is acting collegiately to clean up our mess. I will support that sort of attempt to resolve this issue.

I will not support any move by any party which is basically some sort of hostile attack on individuals. I would not support, and I don't think any of my colleagues would support, any attempt to turn this into a succession of motions focusing on a succession of individuals. I would be quite concerned that that would become effectively a government hatchet job on the opposition.

I am not in the opposition and I hope I never am. I always want to be an independent, and I want to be the independent member for Denison. One of the roles of us here on the crossbench and us independents is to be the honest broker and, where there is unfairness or some improper conduct in this place, to stand up here, to speak about it and to try to rectify it. That's why we on the crossbench will only support referrals which are done in a bilateral way, in a fair way and in a way that can give the community some confidence that we are dealing with this effectively, decisively and unambiguously. So it is really up to the government, I suggest, to shift their position and to come around and understand that they need to work with the opposition. To the opposition I say: you need to work with the government and be open-minded to the requests of the government to come up with a consensus. That is the way to get the support of the five crossbenchers and the way to resolve this matter quickly.

It is simply not an option to leave this matter unresolved in this period before Christmas. It is simply not an option for the Australian community to stand around for the next couple of months, laughing at us, getting more and more angry with us and getting more and more disgusted with us, with some idea that we might come back next year. That is not an option.

See this speech in context