Senate debates
Monday, 13 November 2017
Parliamentary Representation
Qualifications of Senators
12:20 pm
Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Hansard source
I rise briefly to support Senator Farrell and Senator Di Natale on this issue, because, in the case of Senator Fifield, to use the old Watergate line, 'What did the senator know and when did he know it?' he said, 'A few weeks before the High Court came down with its decision.' I think it's too cute for Senator Parry to say that on the Monday after the High Court handed down the decision he decided he was probably in breach and therefore had to go. The inference to me is that Senator Fifield, Senator Parry and some other members of cabinet of the government obviously thought and conspired—it's not too strong a word to use—to say, after Senator Nash was sent up to the High Court: 'Keep your head down. The Prime Minister has said that the High Court shall find out that we're in the right. Keep your head down. If the High Court rules that Senator Nash can stay, keep your head down, because you won't be thrown out, and no-one will ever know that you were even under threat.'
I echo what has been said before, and I said earlier today: I thought Senator Parry was a fantastic President. If you do as well as he does, then you can walk away with your head held up. I think he was a fantastic President, and very fair, but in the end he let himself down terribly, because I believe Senator Parry, in the end—maybe with connivance of his colleagues—got seduced by the trappings: the President's dining room and the President's garden and the office. All those trappings got to him. He knew he was wrong. He knew, as he sat in that chair where you are, Mr President, and as he handed up the papers of Senator Nash to the High Court, that it was an exact mirror of his own situation. He knew it then, he'd known it for weeks but he sat there and did nothing, and that was despicable.
I also wonder why Senator Fifield didn't tell the Prime Minister 'Houston, we've got a problem'? You see others dropping like flies, other dominoes going. Why wouldn't he at least alert the Prime Minister to say something was going on and some dirt may be in there? Also, don't let the Attorney-General off the hook. Senator Brandis, you knew, 24 hours before the Prime Minister did, that Senator Parry was illegitimate. I go by what I've read in the newspapers and the media. You said you found out on the Monday and you told the Prime Minister on the Tuesday. Why would the highest legal officer in the land not tell the Prime Minister, 'We've got a problem here', that we may have a legal problem here? It wasn't done. Correct me if I'm wrong, Senator Brandis, but I go by what I've read: that you knew on the Monday, that Senator Fifield knew, probably, a month before, and that other cabinet members probably knew as well. But you kept it private, you kept it quiet and you kept it from us, your colleagues. You knew something was rotten in the state of Denmark, and you did nothing about it. I'd love to hear an explanation from the Attorney-General.
No comments