George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, you make a very good point about the consequences of section 44, as now interpreted by the High Court, for a multicultural democracy—and it's a point that I've made myself. Section 44, on the reading the High Court gave it, which of course we respect and accept, is not in my view appropriate for a multicultural democracy in which 51 per cent of people were either born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas. As soon as the decision of the High Court was delivered on 27 October, the Prime Minister announced that he was going to refer the matter of section 44 to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for it to consider what action might be taken to ameliorate or mitigate the effects of the operation of section 44 as found by the High Court.

We are not being prescriptive. There are a number of options available. One option that is favoured by some is to consider a constitutional referendum. That is not the government's policy but, plainly, it is an option that should be at least canvassed if there is a review by a parliamentary committee of this issue. Another option that needs to be canvassed or at least thought about is the possibility of legislative reform to Australia's domestic citizenship law, particularly in relation to the circumstances in which an Australian citizen might renounce an unwanted foreign citizenship. So that is what the government is doing about the matter, Senator Di Natale. There is one point, though, about which I differ from you: there is no constitutional crisis, there is no political crisis; there is the unexpected effect of a decision of the High Court which has resulted in both houses of the parliament now having had members resign or be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns.