Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he has said about citizenship disclosures: 'I want everyone to make full disclosures of all the relevant material and I'm determined that Australians see there is full transparency'? If a government member has acknowledged the existence of documentation in their citizenship statement, but kept copies secret, will the Prime Minister refer them to the High Court?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the honourable member might reflect on her own disclosure. Her parents were born in Slovenia, and she has inquired of the Slovenian consulate, I think, which provided a statement that she was not a Slovenian citizen. And yet the Labor Party, when faced with statements from the Greek and Italian embassies and consulates, in respect of members opposite, says they are utterly inadequate.

The honourable member has to be consistent. She has relied on a statement from a representative of the Slovenian government to demonstrate that she is not a dual citizen, so why will she not accept statements in very similar terms from other governments? That's the reality.

The fact of the matter is very simply this: there are two questions in all of these cases. The first is whether a member is a citizen of a foreign country or not. That is a matter of the foreign law. Who best to state that than the foreign country itself? The next question is: if the person is a citizen of a foreign country at the relevant time—as a number of Labor members were and, indeed, as several of our members were—does Australian law disqualify them? That is something that can only be decided by the High Court. In the case of the Deputy Prime Minister, it was decided against him. He promptly went to a by-election, which he won, and he's back. John Alexander, recognising the approach the High Court set out and unable to demonstrate that the advice he'd had in the past was right, resigned and went to a by-election.

Our members have done the honourable thing, the right thing. What Labor is now seeking to do is to debase this House by not only covering up people they know should go to the High Court but wanting to refer people to the High Court who are not dual citizens, and they have no basis for claiming that they are. This is tit-for-tat. It's no substitute for justice, and the honourable members opposite should reflect on their duty as legislators. The member for Batman should go to the High Court and see how he goes. The other members should go to the High Court and make their argument. We wish them all the very best of luck. It's an uncertain environment down there, believe me. But there it is. The High Court makes the decisions, and it should be allowed to do so.