Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and the other appropriation bills before us today demonstrate the stark choice which is going to face the people of Australia at the next election. It will be a choice between a Turnbull government which delivers sober reform and a strong economy, and an opposition that arrogantly parades its false and vacuous promises. It will be a choice between responsible government for all and naked self-interest. On this side of the House, we have delivered a million more jobs and record bulk-billing rates, and we're delivering $75 billion worth of infrastructure our nation desperately needs. On that side, they have kowtowed to law-breaking unions, shielded members who should never have taken a seat in this place, and tried to set Australians against each other in an outdated and divisive class war—wait, I've got more about that.

And why? Because on this side of the House we have real leaders who have shifted the debate on everything from stopping illegal immigration to fixing our declining school standards. The Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand—well, he's just shifty. Three years ago, the Heydon royal commission saw straight through this Leader of the Opposition. The commission's counsel assisting called him evasive on the witness stand, while the commissioner himself said that his non-responsive approach to giving evidence called into question his very credibility. Since that royal commission, we've had the question of this Leader of the Opposition's credibility settled once and for all: he has none. You simply can't trust a word he says. Sadly, to the detriment of this House and our nation's democracy, we have seen ample evidence of that over recent months.

There's no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition read the same court decisions as the rest of us when it came to the test for eligibility under section 44 of the Constitution. He knew what it meant as well as the rest of us. He knew that there was a two-stage test for those who held dual citizenship and that the 'all reasonable steps' that they parroted on about applied only when a foreign law operates irremediably to prevent an Australian citizen from renouncing his or her citizenship.

Ms Madeleine King interjecting—

And they still can't accept the High Court's decision. He knew that the law was firmly established, just as the court has held in Sykes v Cleary and later reaffirmed in Re Canavan, delivered on the 27 October 2017. Yet for six months he misled the Australian public and dishonestly maintained that no fewer than four of his members of parliament were eligible to represent their local constituents when clearly they were not. Months of Labor parliamentary salaries and perks were paid out, while my colleagues on this side of the House in fact did the right thing and resigned or referred themselves to the High Court immediately.

Ms Madeleine King interjecting—

He went further, of course. Famously, he gave no less than a 'rolled-gold' guarantee that all Labor members were eligible. The people of Australia and the unfortunate constituents of Fremantle, Braddon and Longman know what that guarantee was worth.

Ms Madeleine King interjecting—

See this speech in context