Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the government response to an order for the production of documents.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McKim moving a motion relating to the Government's failure to provide a response to an order for production of documents concerning the Member for New England.

The reason I'm doing this in this way is that the Attorney-General is failing to provide the legal advice that the government is relying on in its quite abject defence of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce. Certainly the Attorney-General has a right to decline to provide that legal advice, but it is the Senate's right to insist that the documents be produced irrespective of the claim for public interest immunity, because all we've got so far is a claim for public interest immunity made by a minister of the Crown. It is up to this place, the Senate, and all the senators in this place to determine whether it will accept that claim or, on the converse side of the discussion, to insist on the production of the legal advice. This suspension of standing orders will be, in effect, this Senate insisting that the Attorney-General provide the advice.

We've got a crisis in our democracy happening right now, as we speak. This is not just a crisis that is contained within the walls of this parliament or this chamber; it is a crisis of confidence in our democratic process out on the streets; in the pubs and the clubs, whether they be sporting or otherwise, of our country; and particularly around the dinner tables of ordinary Australians. We have a number of members of the Senate referred already to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, and I'd bet my bottom dollar we will see more MPs referred to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, as we move through the coming weeks and months.

What the Australian Greens want is evidence of two things, and really two things only. I am sure that the Senate will be prepared to compromise so that other matters can remain protected by a claim of public interest immunity. The first thing we want to see is the part of the legal advice that the Prime Minister was relying on when he issued his riding instructions to the High Court earlier this week and gave an absolute 100 per cent guarantee of certainty that the High Court would rule in favour of Mr Joyce remaining eligible to sit in this parliament, and that is that part of the legal advice that shows that the advice is unequivocal—in other words, that bit of the advice that allowed the Prime Minister to proceed with the 100 per cent level of certainty that he did earlier this week in the House of Representatives. What gives him and the Attorney-General such confidence that the High Court is, with absolute certainty, going to rule that Mr Joyce was eligible to be elected and therefore is eligible to remain as a member of parliament?

Remember, this isn't a humble backbencher we're talking about—I know humility's not a strong suit of Mr Joyce. This man is the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, and within a couple of weeks he's going to be the Acting Prime Minister of Australia. He's going to be running the show at the same time as the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, is going to be considering how to respond to the reference by the House of Representatives of the Deputy Prime Minister, who will soon be running the country when the PM is overseas.

So let's have a look at that part of the legal advice that the government, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister are relying on that shows that the advice is unequivocal. It's worth placing on the record that government experts and their own legal counsel have told us that it's pretty much black and white, as Mr Joyce said. The second element we're after is the part of the S-G's advice that demonstrates that the member for New England is legitimately authorised to remain and vote in the parliament. That is what we are demanding. (Time expired)