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

by leave—I move:

That pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Senate refers to the Court of Disputed Returns the following questions—

(a) whether, by reason of s 44(i) of the Constitution, there is a vacancy in the representation of Tasmania in the Senate for the place for which Stephen Parry was returned;

(b) if the answer to Question (a) is "yes", by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;

(c) what directions and other orders, if any, should the Court make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and

(d) what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.

Mr President, I'm not going to detain the chamber for very long this morning, because we are aware of the circumstances in which your predecessor, former senator Stephen Parry, took the course he did and resigned the office of President and resigned his place as a senator for the state of Tasmania.

In brief, the High Court of Australia delivered its decision in the reference of seven members of this parliament, six senators and one member of the House of Representatives, on Friday, 27 October. Senator Parry rang me the following Monday morning shortly after 9 am Queensland time—I assume it was shortly after 10 am where he was at the time—to advise me in words to the effect that, having studied the High Court's decision, he considered that it applied to him by reason of the fact that his late father was a UK citizen, and, as we know, he resigned his place. Although Senator Parry resigned his place, it is nevertheless appropriate to make this reference under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act so that the court can make orders, as the motion indicates, for the filling of that place. The usual course, as we know from the previous cases involving Senator Nash and Senator Ludlam and Senator Waters, is by a special count conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, but that must await an order by the Court of Disputed Returns.

Given that the High Court has recently and famously delivered a unanimous judgement on the proper interpretation of section 44(i) of the Constitution, there would not seem to be any room for legal controversy about the principles to be applied, they having been recently and emphatically settled, nor would there appear to be any factual controversy about the fact that Senator Parry, the son of a UK citizen, would appear to be ineligible to have been chosen, following the reasoning the court adopted in the earlier cases to which I have referred. Therefore, the government wouldn't anticipate that the matter would be the subject of fresh contentious argument before the High Court—but that remains, of course, entirely a matter for it.

It is our role, and our role only, to exercise the power we have under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which is itself derived from section 44 of the Constitution, to make this reference. I would submit to the Senate that, plainly, the grounds for the making of the reference do exist. The terms of the reference are the same as the terms in which the other six senators recently referred to the High Court were referred, and it is an appropriate exercise, and indeed a necessary exercise, of the Senate's power to make this reference. I commend the motion to the chamber.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, this is the first occasion I've had an opportunity to speak since your election this morning, and I wish to congratulate you on your election. I was very pleased, during the statements made today, to hear about your knowledge of the proceedings in the Senate, and we look forward to a continuation of a very fair exercise of power in your new position. As you well know, we had some significant dealings in your ministerial portfolio and my own shadow portfolio, and you certainly impressed me with your ability, your diligence and your sincerity in upholding the best of the traditions of the Senate. So good luck in this new position. That's about all I'm going to say nicely about you from now on!

We shouldn't be here today, Mr President, dealing with the issue of former President Parry's position. We should have done this months ago. We should have done it the day that the Attorney-General referred Senator Canavan, Senator Nash, Senator Roberts, Senator Ludlam, Senator Waters and even Senator Xenophon to the High Court. I have to say I thought President Parry was a good man. I thought he was a fair man, and I thought he did his absolute best to uphold the traditions and the obligations of the Senate. Yet today we're referring him to the High Court to seek, in all probability, a replacement. The question is: why didn't he add himself to that list that I referred to a moment ago? Of course, your Prime Minister, when he found out about this—and I'll say a little bit more about the circumstances of his acquiring knowledge of Senator Parry's resignation—said:

He chose to delay his reporting of it. He should have reported it much earlier …

They were the words of Mr Turnbull. I will repeat them just in case you didn't get it:

He chose to delay his reporting of it. He should have reported it much earlier …

The implication, of course, is that he knew about this, he kept it quiet, he didn't tell anybody and now he finds himself, as a result of the recent High Court case, in a situation where he was clearly in breach of section 44.

But I put to you, Mr President, that in fact President Parry did all of the right things that you would expect of somebody in his position. He obviously knew about his own family circumstances—the history of his birth and his father being born in the United Kingdom—so he went to a minister in your government. We understand now that he went to Minister Fifield and alerted Minister Fifield to the fact that he thought, based on his studies of his own citizenship, his ancestry, that he was potentially in breach of this clause in the Constitution. Now, we don't know exactly what he said and we don't know exactly what Senator Fifield's reply was. But let's be clear about this: Senator Fifield is a minister in this government. He's been told by the President of the Senate, 'I've got a problem with my citizenship.' What does he do about it when he gets that information? Does he go to the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, and say, 'Look, I know we've got a problem with Nash, Canavan and Joyce, but I think we've got a problem with Parry as well'? No, he doesn't do that, and I think the first question that this Senate has to consider is: what were the obligations of Senator Fifield to report this? If he wasn't going to report it to his Prime Minister, did he report it to other people? Did he report it to the Attorney-General?

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

No.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did he report it to Senator Cormann?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did he report it to whip Bushby? Well, we don't know. My understanding is that, in addition to reporting it to Minister Fifield, he reported it to other members of the government. I'd ask those members of the government to come forward and indicate what their knowledge is about this, what they knew about it and when they knew about it. I think the issue that this raises is the fact that when Senator Fifield became aware of this information he did not seek to contact the Prime Minister. I think we have to ask the question: why did he not? I mean, this was a hot topic. Everybody was talking about it. In fact, every conversation that you have at the moment is, 'Is your citizenship okay?' So, it can't have been that the issue was a low priority. It must have been a high priority for Senator Fifield, but he hasn't told the Prime Minister.

Now, why didn't he tell the Prime Minister? Did Senator Fifield deliberately decide to keep this to himself and not disclose it to other members of the government or to the Prime Minister? Did he think it wasn't sufficiently important that the President had just told him, 'I've got a problem with my citizenship'? We need an explanation as to why Senator Fifield didn't report this significant event for our constitutionality.

Senator Brandis, both in introducing this reference and earlier today, said that the circumstances surrounding Senator Parry's resignation and referral to the High Court are well known. Well, I don't think that's right, Mr President. I don't think we know even a fraction of what went on in this circumstance. But we do intend to find out. And we do intend to continue to pursue this matter until we get some answers from the government.

But I return to the question as to why Senator Fifield didn't tell Mr Turnbull. Why didn't he tell him? Because he didn't think he had to? There were no obligations? Well, of course, one of the obligations of all ministers in the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards—I refer to clause 1.3(iv)—is to uphold the laws of Australia. Now, if there were a potential breach of an important law—section 44(i) of the Constitution—why wasn't the first thing that Senator Fifield did to go to the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, and say: 'Hey, we've got a problem here. How do you think we should handle it?' And so far, Mr President, I don't think we've had a satisfactory answer to that question.

Was it because he didn't trust the Prime Minister? I note the polls today. I don't go much on reading the polls; I don't take that much notice of them. But was it because the Prime Minister's standing within his party is so low that Senator Fifield didn't think he needed to tell the Prime Minister about this matter? Because after all, what did the Prime Minister say when he found out about this? I'll go back to that, Mr President. He was quite clear. He said: 'He chose to delay his reporting of it. He should have reported it much earlier.' Well, Senator Parry did report it. He reported it to Senator Fifield.

Now, Senator Parry, as you would know, Mr President, was a very good president. But also, before he went into parliament he was a policeman—he was a copper. Of course he knew the difference between right and wrong, and the right thing for him to do was to tell a senior member of his government, 'Look, I think I've got a problem here.' Why that senior member of government didn't then proceed to tell the Attorney-General or perhaps the Deputy Leader in the Senate or, more importantly, the Prime Minister of this country is a mystery. I think it reflects badly not only on the minister that he didn't report this matter to the Prime Minister but also on the Prime Minister that he didn't think it was of sufficient importance that the President of this place refer the matter to the Prime Minister. I think it's not only the minister's standing that gets downgraded as a result of this, and that of the Prime Minister; the fact of the matter is that everybody is talking about this out in the community. They'd prefer us to be talking about other things—a whole lot of other things, like energy policy, the cost of living or even same-sex marriage. They would prefer us to be talking about all of those things, but what are we focused on? We're focused on citizenship and the citizenships of MPs.

Now, there is a developing pattern in this government, and we saw it during estimates week. Senator Cash thought she would get a jump on the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, referring to the new Registered Organisations Commission. Somehow the media found out about the fact that the Federal Police were going to launch a raid on the Australian Workers' Union office. In fact, at one stage there was this farcical scene where the media turned up before the AFP and thought perhaps they had got the wrong information and had to ring their media source just to confirm that the raid was going to take place. As we know, the media were tipped off about this raid.

Senator Cash and one of her staffers, Mr De Garis—I don't know if he's in any way related to Mr Ren De Garis from the South Australian Legislative Council—had a meeting with Mr Turnbull to discuss how it might have been that this information was leaked to the media. What happened at that meeting with Mr Turnbull? Well, nobody mentioned to the Prime Minister that they had leaked the information, that Senator Cash's office had leaked the information. Nobody thought to tell the Prime Minister. So here we have Senator Fifield not thinking to tell the Prime Minister: 'Hey, we've got a problem with Parry. We're going to have to refer him because he's in the same situation as Nash.' It must have dawned on Senator Parry at that point that there was a problem.

So Senator Fifield didn't refer to Turnbull, but now staffers in this government have decided they don't need to tell the ministers or the Prime Minister. Even in personal meetings with the Prime Minister, they decide they don't need to tell him things. What does it say about this Prime Minister that his ministers decide they don't need to tell him anything? Is his standing so low not just in the polls but among all his colleagues that they don't think they need to tell him anything? But staffers in this place have decided they don't need to tell their Prime Minister information! How much worse does it get than that? You understand the Senate, Mr President, as we've heard this morning. I don't think it gets much worse than that. And there is a pattern in this government. If you know something that should be reported to other more senior people in your party, you keep it a secret, you don't tell anybody. My problem with this procedure is not just that it reflects bad governance on the part of the government; it reflects badly on all of us in this place.

I think at some point the Prime Minister must say, 'I'm the Prime Minister of this country and I need to know these things.' I'll repeat what he said—and I can understand why Senator Parry would have been pretty upset when he saw the Prime Minister on TV. I think Mr Turnbull was overseas; he seems to spend more time overseas getting selfies with Mr Trump, Mr Putin and all those sorts of characters. But what did the Prime Minister say when he found out about Senator Parry? It must have been a shock to him. He thought he'd got this out of the way; he thought the High Court had dealt with it and it was back to business as normal. What did he say of Senator Parry? He said:

He chose to delay his reporting of it, he should have reported it much earlier …

Well, he did report it! He reported it to that bloke over there. He said: 'Mate, I've got a problem, I'm in the same situation as Nash.' So what did Senator Fifield do about it? I hope at some stage we get to find out. I hope we do get to find about it, because at some point in this government ministers have to realise that there are standards which ministers have to be held to.

In the Westminster system there are standards that ministers have to satisfy. I don't think Senator Cash satisfied those standards when she decided to throw one of her staffers under a bus instead of herself taking responsibility for the nondisclosure to the Prime Minister. At some stage, you've got to say, 'Look, there is some level of accountability in this government.'

Senator Fifield knew about Senator Parry's situation for months. We don't know exactly when he knew about it but we know he knew about it for months and took the decision not to—it would appear he hasn't told the Prime Minister. Senator Brandis has indicated that Senator Fifield didn't tell him. Senator Cormann has indicated that Senator Fifield didn't tell him. We do know that Senator Parry told other members of the government, so somebody else over there knows more about this than they are prepared to say.

When you evaluate all of that—and the community is going to think about this over the coming week while this issue is being discussed in the Senate—it will become increasingly clear that Senator Fifield's position is untenable. You can't get that sort of information—

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

Ridiculous!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't laugh, Senator Brandis. His position is simply going to be untenable. He can't keep this information to himself. He's got obligations—I'll read his other obligations, just in case you haven't taken them in, Senator Brandis. Under clause 1.3(iv) of the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards, he is required to uphold the laws of Australia. You've been advised that there's a potential breach of our most fundamental document, our Constitution, and you've done nothing about it. Not only have you done nothing about it but you've embarrassed your own Prime Minister, because you didn't tell him you knew about it and therefore explain why Senator Parry hadn't raised it earlier.

This government must at some time be held to account. It can't continue to embarrass Mr Turnbull by not telling him things. That's the worst thing you can do. At least if you'd told him, the government could have had a response, it wouldn't have been embarrassed and, more importantly, this Senate would not have been embarrassed.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, let me begin by saying that, as I said during your recent election, Senator Parry was a very good President. He acted impartially. He was always prepared to take questions and issues that were raised from the crossbench, from the opposition and from his own party with an extremely impartial hand. But I think Senator Parry made a grave mistake when it came to his citizenship and the way in which he acted when he became aware—at least by mid-August—that he may have been a dual citizen. We know this from the statements that his colleague Senator Fifield has made. We know that advice was provided by party colleagues—we don't know who they were—to Senator Parry that he should not reveal the details or the circumstances of his situation, and that was advice that he heeded. Clearly, Senator Parry had some agency in this. He could have ignored that advice, recognising that to follow it wouldn't be upholding the integrity of this parliament, but he chose to accept that advice, and here we have shared responsibility.

I find it remarkable that we could have a situation where the former President was sitting in the chair when referral after referral after referral was being made to the High Court. In some circumstances, those referrals mirrored his own circumstances, yet Senator Parry chose not to disclose them until very shortly after the High Court ruling. The inescapable conclusion is that he was hoping that the High Court ruling would find in favour of Senator Nash and others and that his situation would no longer be a problem for him. But that's not the standard we should accept from the Presiding Officer of the Senate. The standard has to be that when an individual is aware of those circumstances and they are something that can be verified very quickly then as soon as that verification of dual citizenship is made it should be disclosed to the parliament.

I've said this already. Senator Waters first called me on a Friday to say she was concerned that, by virtue of her birth in Canada and the law changing shortly afterwards, she may in fact be a dual citizen. We contacted our legal team, we got legal advice over a weekend and we had confirmation by the high commission, I believe, on the Monday. Within a space of four days we had that confirmed and Larissa Waters tendered her resignation. That's the process as it should work when you're relying on the integrity of individuals. That's exactly what should happen. These aren't difficult cases. We know that assessing someone's citizenship is something that can be verified by a number of facts, by a legal review and by confirmation from the relevant high commission. You can have that done in a matter of days, and we demonstrated that that's exactly what could happen. Instead, Senator Parry decided to sit on his information after receiving advice from senior ministers in the cabinet. He could have done a number of things. Even if he didn't choose to resign, which would have been the honourable course, he could have done what Senator Canavan did and step down from his position as a Presiding Officer. Instead, he remained silent, based on the advice of his colleagues.

Senator Fifield has admitted that Stephen Parry told him about doubts over his eligibility weeks ago. We do know from a number of reports that he was advised to keep quiet until the High Court ruling. Let's remember that the Presiding Officer of the Senate is somebody who plays a very important role in upholding the integrity of this parliament. Let's also remember that when we're talking about ministers who are responsible for critical decisions and for financial decisions, as we know Senator Fifield is and as we know many others who sit in the cabinet are, we expect a level of integrity and decency when these issues are raised. We do need to have trust with our elected representatives. Right now, trust in politics is at an all-time low. Who could blame people for not trusting that people in this place are acting in their very narrow self-interest, rather than in their party's interest and rather than in the nation's interest?

It appears, for all intents and purposes, that there has been a cover-up here. There are questions about who else knew. Who else did Senator Parry confide in? Who else was told about the circumstances around his dual citizenship? Was anyone within the Prime Minister's office aware of this situation? We do need to ensure that we get to the bottom of this. We do need to ensure that this issue is dealt with in a timely manner, because the stakes are extremely high. We currently don't know whether the government has the numbers on the floor of the lower house of parliament to form a majority. We don't know whether all ministers in this place are making decisions that are constitutionally valid. We don't know whether those decisions will be challenged in court. We already know that there's a possibility that that may happen with some of the decisions that Barnaby Joyce has made.

This is proving to be a huge distraction from the business that we're paid to do, which is to govern in the interests of people. This has consumed the parliament. It is absolutely critical that we reach a speedy resolution and it is absolutely critical that we get to the bottom of what happened in terms of ensuring that ministers of the Crown acted with integrity when they became aware of their circumstances. Obviously the Greens have been supporting a thorough, comprehensive independent audit. I note that the crossbench have also supported those calls. I know Senator Hinch has been a strong and vocal supporter of a thorough, independent audit so we can get on with the business of governing. As I said, this is a huge distraction. It is something the Australian community are sick to the back teeth of; they just want to see it fixed.

None of this is to say that we think section 44, in this aspect relating to foreign or dual citizenship, has any place in modern multicultural Australia. In fact, it is the Greens' view that section 44, when it relates to dual citizens, is a relic of the past. It excludes many people from participating in their democracy when you consider that half of the Australian community either are born overseas or have a parent born overseas. We know that this is a law, or a part of our Constitution, that needs to be addressed. That's why we do support a referendum to ultimately deal with it, or at least interim steps to ensure that this never happens again.

Until that happens, it is our responsibility to uphold the founding document. Everything that flows from this place is based on our Constitution. It is our responsibility to uphold it, to ensure that we recognise that as democrats, whether we are on the progressive side of politics or on the conservative side of politics, if we respect democracy then it is our duty to uphold the Constitution—and the Constitution on this matter is very, very clear. That's why, when it comes to presiding officers—who should be exemplars of integrity, of accountability and of transparency—we have been so disappointed not just with the actions of a decent person who made a bad mistake in Senator Parry but also with the actions of ministers of this government who were aware of this information and advised the then President to keep his head down and to be quiet.

We will be pursuing this issue. We intend to continue to ensure that we get to the bottom of what happened. This is a very serious matter. It goes to the integrity of the government, and we will ensure that the truth, as it relates to this specific issue, is ultimately revealed and we will make sure that we put this crisis behind us by pursuing action for a thorough and independent review of all of the information that determines whether somebody may or may not be a dual citizen, that those individuals are dealt with swiftly through the High Court and that we get on with the business of doing what people pay us to do—that is, to start governing in the national interest.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President, and can I take this opportunity to congratulate you on assuming the high office that you hold.

Mr President, former Senator Parry was a valued colleague and a friend to many in this place. I regret that he will no longer be serving this chamber and the people of Tasmania. I acknowledge the service he rendered in this place. Like many colleagues in this and the other place, I have engaged in discussions about citizenship. These discussions have traversed the complexities of the citizenship laws of other countries and questions such as, 'What would be the effect if North Korea granted citizenship to all in this chamber?' Being colleagues and friends, former Senator Parry and I were no exception when it came to such discussions. Given the varied and casual nature of these, I can't be definitive as to when former Senator Parry started to reflect about his particular circumstances. While it would have been more than a couple of weeks before the High Court decision, it was not months. He indicated that he was endeavouring to check his family's own records.

Former Senator Parry always recognised that it was the responsibility of each senator and member to determine and be satisfied about their own circumstances, and I encouraged him to do so. This duty is individual and personal. It cannot be abrogated, outsourced or transferred, and former Senator Parry never sought to do so. Suggestions I directed the former senator are wrong. I did not speak to others about a private discussion with a colleague on a matter of their responsibility about which they had not, to my knowledge, reached a concluded view. On the Monday after the High Court decision, former Senator Parry let me know that he had sought advice from the British Home Office, had advised the Attorney-General of this and had thought it unlikely he would return to the parliament. Former Senator Parry has subsequently resigned his office. We are each responsible for assessing our own circumstances regarding eligibility to sit in this place.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Might I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment, Mr President, and indicate to you that I thought the previous President did a very good job in the chair. I wish you well. I note that your interest in constitutional law won't go astray with this government. I trust they will actually ask you on certain matters, because clearly there is need for substantial improvement in the advice that's being tendered to this government. I also note that you're a student of the IPA in Victoria, which puts you at odds with me in many respects, but I might suggest that you're part of the minority in the Liberal Party that's actually read a few books! I trust that you're still able to communicate to your colleagues on a range of matters, even though you are in that chair. I thought Senator Parry acted properly as the President of the chamber while in the chair. Unfortunately, the way in which he was treated and the manner of his departure has cast a serious stain upon his legacy, and that is a matter of some regret. It has also cast a serious stain upon the sincerity with which this government has dealt with the handling of the dual citizenship crisis.

If you look at the development of this question in recent times, it started of course with the Greens senators. It was said initially that this event occurred because of a vendetta that had been pursued by a legal eagle. It was suggested that there'd been some sort of search done to identify the citizenship entitlements of senators, particularly amongst the Greens. When that was first revealed, I remember it was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time who said that these were black and white questions, that this was carelessness on behalf of the Greens and that their failure to deal with these questions demonstrated, essentially, a recklessness on their part. He went on to say that this was a straightforward matter and it was just a question of them not being competent to deal with their paperwork.

The government went through a transformation in its approach as it became clear that there had been a few in the government whom that same opprobrium could be directed at, in terms of the failure of government senators to actually undertake the due diligence that's required when one fills in the nomination forms that are required by the Australian Electoral Commission, in terms of your requirement to state that you are in fact eligible to stand for parliament as a candidate in accordance with the Australian Constitution. We are all asked, in the process of nominating, to actually identify whether or not we are compliant with the Constitution.

I know that, on our side of the political divide, there is a rigorous process of vetting, including the production of birth certificates, to verify the claims made about people's right to stand—a vetting process that goes to these issues of section 44, in terms of both citizenship requirements and the other requirements of section 44 in regard to holding any office of profit under the Crown. This is a process which I think has been in place in the Labor Party now for many, many years. In the many elections that I've now contested, this has been the process that I've had to conclude on every occasion. It arose during the Cleary case, which is now 25 years ago, so it's not new. The requirements to fulfil one's obligations are not unknown, and have not been unknown for a very, very long period of time.

In fact, the transformation within the government went so far as to suggest that it was the Liberal Party that was able to get its paperwork in order but that the National Party—Senator Williams, you will recall this—were the country bumpkins and the fools who couldn't even fill in a form properly. That was the suggestion that was being made, until of course we discovered the event with Senator Parry. Then Senator Parry was criticised by the Prime Minister. He was vilified, I thought, by the Prime Minister, by suggesting, from Jerusalem, how disappointed he was that Senator Parry had not made his predicament public some time ago. They were the Prime Minister's remarks.

We can understand the difficulty Senator Parry would have had in being the person signing the referrals to the High Court for six of his colleagues in this chamber and knowing, as he would have, his own personal circumstances. So I was surprised when I saw that this man, whom I regard as being honourable in his dealings, a man no-one could describe accurately as a stupid fellow, could be signing off on these declarations to the High Court when his own personal circumstances were in such a contradiction, and that he hadn't taken any action. When he was vilified by the Prime Minister from Jerusalem, I was not surprised that, very shortly thereafter, there came the riposte that he had in fact discussed the matter with colleagues in the government. Senator Fifield, of course, knew for weeks.

Now we are told, 'Well, of course, it was a private conversation,' and that a private conversation absolves you from upholding the law. That's what we're being asked to consider today: that Senator Fifield was given this information in a private conversation and had no obligation to tell the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate because it was a private conversation and, under the ministerial code, information that comes to you in a private conversation is to be kept secret. That's the proposition that we're asked to accept here today. What an extraordinary notion—that breaches of the law are to be kept secret if they're given to you on a confidential basis! I'm sure Senator Parry, as a former policeman, would appreciate the irony of that proposition. I'm sure that proposition, down at the Centrelink office, would be understood every day of the week: 'Oh, I can't possibly take that forward, because it was given to me in a private capacity, in a private manner. I don't tell anyone about breaches of the law.' Ignorance is suddenly an excuse? You imagine telling the copper, 'Oh, I didn't realise the light was red; I thought it was green.' That seems to be the defence this government's presenting, and when people know differently they say, 'Oh, it was given to me in a private capacity or in a private conversation.'

Well, Minister, under the ministerial code, that won't wash. You have an obligation to share that information. The manner in which you share it is up to you, and anyone in any ministerial school will understand that proposition. You have an obligation. What did Senator Brandis do when he was told about it? Straightaway he directed his chief of staff, 'Get onto the Prime Minister.' That's the information that's on the public record. Senator Fifield, why didn't you do that? Why didn't you provide that information to other people within the government? Under the ministerial code you are required to do so. There is no exemption in the ministerial code to say, 'Oh, private information—I can't do anything about it.' At law, that's not a defence that you're able to pursue.

In fact, what I suspect you did say when you were given the information, Senator Fifield, is: 'Let's wait and see. We've got this legal advice here that says, "Don't worry; it'll be all right." The Prime Minister has got up in the parliament and he's directed the High Court to come to a conclusion. "It shall so rule," is what he said. We've got this red-hot opinion from the Solicitor-General that says, "All of this will go away."' My bet is your advice effectively was this: 'Wait and see.' So, when Senator Parry raised his concerns with you, you said, 'Just wait and see, and it might just all go away.'

The fact that the High Court made a unanimous decision made Senator Parry's position completely untenable. What he knew, and what I suspect he had known for some time, was that the letters that he'd been signing off meant that he too was in a totally untenable position. What I can't follow, Senator Fifield, is why you didn't understand that, given your political experience and given your understanding of what actually goes on in the real world of politics and what the dangers were for the government in having the President of the Senate placed in these circumstances.

We know the situation is such that the Australian people are having great trouble coming to terms with this issue. They can't understand why it is that, if you're on the pension and you're out by a dollar, you're hounded by the Department of Social Services and Centrelink's onto you like a shot, and, if you fill in your form incorrectly, you're in trouble with the taxation department, yet, when you stand for this parliament and you fill in your form incorrectly, we say, 'That's all right; we've got some smarty legal opinion that says it will be all right.' Furthermore, repaying all the back pay and all the other entitlements you had will be waived when you get caught out. People are worried about that. They think you should actually pay a bit more attention.

Now, I understand that not everyone does know who their father or their mother is. But I tell you what: most people in this place do. To suddenly discover, 'Oh, I didn't realise they were born overseas'—that's nonsense. To suddenly discover that, and you didn't realise there was a problem, is nonsense—complete nonsense. And the Australian people know it. Ignorance is no excuse for anybody else in this country, and it's no excuse in the parliament; particularly when we had these propositions put to us by the High Court 25 years ago. This conservative government has been only too keen to appoint black-letter lawyers to the High Court and now complains bitterly about a black-letter interpretation of the Constitution.

This is not really about whether or not we've had senators and members of parliament filling in their forms. For the government we had two different points of view. The treatment of Senator Canavan was entirely different from the way Mr Joyce was treated. There was the approach taken by the senators, with the exception of Senator Parry, and the approach taken by Mr Joyce. What this is really about is a government that's just desperate to hang on to the last vestiges of office. I actually think it was quite unfair and unreasonable to make the point about former Senator Parry's garden and dinners. It was nothing to do with that. It was about the government's desperation to hang on to political office.

This is an issue for the Australian people, who understand that this is shambolic because the government is without authority, without direction and without principle. It's the Prime Minister who built his whole repertoire around the issue of being committed to one thing but has now come into office and abandoned all of that. The government's adrift. The government doesn't know what to do except to desperately hang on. It will duck and weave at every possible opportunity. So what do we find? The government is now crumbling. Every day there's further evidence of it. There are leaks within the cabinet suggesting that the authority of the Prime Minister is evaporating, to the point where the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, has been attacking the Prime Minister's proposals in regard to citizenship disclosure. He says, 'It would be such an own goal.' He opposed it because it would cost the government the next election. Mr Morrison is saying that the government's handling of this matter makes him think its very survival is at stake. That's very much the case, because the government really has very little else to defend anymore other than its own survival.

We know, however, that public trust is actually very, very important. Trust in democracy is very much at stake. I don't mean that in a petty way about the way in which we elect institutions. It is about the institutions themselves and the authority of those institutions. It's not about whether a Liberal or a Labor government is in office but that the institutions of the parliament remain central to the Australian understanding of democracy. The method by which we elect people here and the fact that so many people had to be replaced highlights the enormous damage that's done by this issue. It goes, however, much, much further than even that, because we're now beginning to understand the impact that it's having in terms of the economy at large. Increasing numbers of people are saying it's beginning to affect this whole issue about confidence and the way in which our society is able to be managed, and it's going to the ability to drive investment and decisions about the future of the country itself.

I know that there has been this difficulty emerging about the aura that develops within a government. Senator Fifield, if you're not prepared to tell the Prime Minister or even the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the government has a problem with what's happening with Senator Cash—and I think Senator Farrell's point here was very valid—then it affects everything else. You had staffers sitting there at Senate estimates all day watching a minister say things which they knew to be untrue. We all know how closely ministerial offices monitor Senate estimates. On at least six occasions Senator Cash was asked a direct question about the role of her office in briefing the media about a raid on a union office. We know the politics behind it—there was an Australian Newspoll that week—and the games in trying to salt the evidence. But what we also know, this suggests to me, is that ministerial advisers take it upon themselves to not tell the minister that she is misleading. That becomes a defence, doesn't it? 'Oh, I didn't know. I didn't know.' Yet people sitting there watching, who of course do know, choose not to tell—and that's the problem. Senator Fifield, that's why ministerial codes are there. You actually have to have leadership whereby people actually look to the minister and say, 'That's the example we should follow.' The consequences of not doing that are profound. They're profound for the body politic, they're profound for the trust in this place and they're profound in terms of the consequences for people's confidence in the future of this country.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only begin to imagine what it would be like to one day be an active, constructive member of this chamber and this parliament and have a political career and then the next day have that taken away from you. I've seen the impact on my colleagues Senator Ludlam and Senator Waters. And I say here today that I feel for all senators and MPs who have lost their positions because of this constitutional crisis that we're in. I can only begin to imagine what it would be like to lose that part of your life. But to actually also lose your reputation and have your integrity questioned, particularly when you've done such a good job as President of this chamber, would be something altogether different and monstrous.

I'm quite conflicted when I stand here and speak today because I did speak to ex-Senator Parry the day after he resigned. I did discuss this issue with him in my home town of Launceston. I'm not going to stand here today and talk about our private conversation. But I will say it was my view at that time that Senator Parry needed to speak out on this issue as to who in the government he had spoken to. All the money in the world—all the trappings, all the power—is not worth your reputation and your legacy being questioned. Politics is a brutal business. It's been often said that it is a blood sport. And there's a lot at stake when you're in power and when you're in government.

It sickened me to see an honourable man, who I think, as Senator Di Natale said, is a good person who made a bad decision—along with a government that made a bad decision—being dragged through the mud or, for want of a better term, being thrown under a bus because, somehow, an ex-President of this chamber was expendable. He was no longer of use to the government because he wasn't a senator or the President of the Senate. That's what actually disgusts me the most: the political cynicism of throwing someone under a bus. The only interviews I saw were with the Prime Minister and Senator Cormann clearly questioning Senator Parry's integrity on this issue. I think they owe it to Senator Parry to give us the details of exactly who knew what.

I reflect on the confidence that this government had in its legal advice from the Solicitor-General the whole way through this process—the Prime Minister standing up in question time dictating how the High Court would vote: 'You shall hold that these senators and MPs are eligible'—and I compare that to the Greens' independent advice on this issue from two QCs, who said to us: 'It's black and white. You can't be a dual citizen and be eligible'. That was difficult for us to take, to see two of our very best senators leave our team. But they did. They fell on their swords. This wasn't about them or our political party. It wasn't about hanging onto power. It was about doing the right thing.

I think broadly, right across this country, people respect the Greens for the position that we've taken in relation to this issue, as they respect the view we've taken in calling for an audit—an independent process that we can all trust that gets to the bottom of this and allows it to be solved so we can all move on. The key thing that they want is to restore trust and confidence in the institution of parliament, in this Senate chamber and in the decisions that we make.

I'm also of the belief that there are senators in this chamber who know they're dual citizens and haven't yet fessed up. How can we sit here and vote on legislation, controversial or not, while we know that's the case? It really has become a circus, and it's the government, the Liberal and National parties, that have allowed it to get to this point.

I can remember when I was contacted about Senator Ludlam's situation. The first thing our party did, immediately, was that everybody had to check everything—double-check, triple-check, quadruple-check—within days, within hours, going back to July. I was at the Torquay Caravan Park with my son surfing. But we all did it. How can it be that, three months later, people are still saying they're just checking now or they didn't know that they were a dual citizen?

I can't help but draw the conclusion that it was a political decision made by the Liberal Party that Senator Parry should wait to see the outcome of those already referred to the High Court. At a level, I can see why that strategy might appeal to some people: 'It's not necessarily going to do any harm. Let's wait and see, and then let's fess up.' But Senator Parry was the President of the Senate, one of the top five positions in this country. That carries with it so much weight and so much responsibility. This government, in my opinion, knowingly allowed Senator Parry—and he was complicit in this too; he could have, on a personal level, fessed up to this—to sit there, because it was so confident in its legal advice that he would be fine. That beggars belief from my point of view and from the Greens' point of view, based on the legal advice that we had.

I know that hindsight is 20/20 vision and that, looking back on this now, Senator Parry should have said: 'Well, I'm in doubt. I need to be referred to the High Court as well. I will step down as President but remain as a senator in this chamber.' I really wish Senator Parry had made that decision. I wish he'd made that decision, because his legacy, his integrity and his reputation have now been tarnished. They have been tarnished by a brutal political process, by a lack of due process on behalf of this government and by a political decision, all designed to save the scalp of this government. That's what this is about. This is about the Liberal and National parties hanging onto power at all costs.

This is not a crisis any of us wanted. We've all been drawn into this. We've all suffered, or are likely to suffer, because this has undermined the confidence in our institution. At a personal level, it's impacted all of us, and that includes the government and everyone in this chamber—all of us. Every single person in this chamber has been impacted by this. We now need to clear this up. We need to move on and do what we were elected to do and what the Australian people put us in parliament to do, whatever that takes. We have to have confidence in the process, we have to have confidence in your position, Mr President, given what's happened with Senator Parry, and we need to have confidence in the government and the decisions they make here. It is extremely important that we get this done now. I urge you, Senator Fifield, and any other members of your party and your government, to say exactly what happened and get that on record, for your sake, for the country's sake and for Senator Parry's sake.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, congratulations on your new role. It brings me no great joy to take part in this debate, because we hear, time and time again, that what the Australian public want us to do is debate the issues that confront them in their daily lives, and I do wish that we were spending more of our time in this chamber talking about those questions. However, we need to have this debate and we need to do so despite the fact that the facts which drive today's debate were entirely avoidable.

This debate is a direct result of senior members of the government deciding that it was better to damage the institution of the Senate than to face the public embarrassment of having to refer a member of the Liberal Party to the High Court. The government and members of the government sat quietly and watched other parties' MPs being referred off to the High Court. This issue was discussed in this chamber for months. It is difficult to think of a recent sitting week, when we were all here, when citizenship wasn't on the agenda. Senator Parry was in the President's chair as this chamber referred six of its own senators to the High Court, and the facts of those cases were almost exactly the same as those of Senator Parry's. It now seems likely that, as those referrals were being made by the President, he was aware that his own name should have been added to the list.

As other people have said this morning, he was a good man who made a bad decision. But the point I would make is that he was a good man who made a bad decision on the basis of terrible advice from his colleagues, who really ought to have known better. He was actually put in quite an invidious position. He found out he had an issue—it must have been quite worrying for him—and he went to his colleagues for advice on how to handle it. From what's been reported so far, the only conclusion that I can draw is that he was told that it was better for him to remain silent and wait for the outcome of the High Court cases. What's now clear is that he should have come forward right away. Even the Prime Minister thought this, before he worked out what a tangled web had been constructed over here on this side of the building. What did the Prime Minister say? He said:

He chose to delay his reporting of it, he should have reported it much earlier …

The Prime Minister's comments should now be seen as a rebuke not, actually, of Senator Parry but of those colleagues who did not urge him to step forward with his own concerns. They were complicit in their silence.

Senator Fifield made a brief statement earlier in this debate, and it's striking in its lack of detail. Senator Fifield gave a vague indication of the date on which his conversation with Senator Parry took place. He needs to provide a great deal more information. He needs to tell us when Senator Parry communicated his concerns to Senator Fifield—a date, not just a range of weeks around a High Court decision. He should communicate what exactly Senator Parry told him and what facts were provided about Senator Parry's own circumstances. He should tell us what advice he gave Senator Parry, not merely the conclusion of their conversation, which apparently was that they both agreed it was Senator Parry's burden to carry alone. He should be more specific about the nature of the advice that he provided, and he should explain on what basis he provided that advice to the President. He should explain who else he spoke to—something else he was silent on in the statement. He should explain if he spoke to the finance minister, to other senior colleagues or to the Prime Minister, and, if not, why not.

If I were a backbencher in this government, I would be fuming. The Nationals have been rightly upset about the Liberals hanging them out to dry in this first set of citizenship referrals whilst sitting very quietly on their own troubles. But the spectacle of senior members of the government ducking responsibility in ways that strain the credulity of the ordinary person should trouble backbenchers. If I were them I would be thinking: what else are they hiding from us? What else are they hiding from each other?

It is really odd that this was not communicated to the Prime Minister. I find it very, very hard to believe, in fact. This would never have happened under Prime Minister Howard. If the story that has been put to us is to be accepted as true, it suggests an absolute breakdown of control by the Prime Minister. If it's true, I would be very worried if I were a government backbencher. What other time bombs are members of cabinet sitting on? Are there other problems out there that even the Prime Minister doesn't know about? For months Senator Parry, the Minister for Communications and who knows who else sat and talked about the citizenship dilemma with their colleagues in the party room, here in the chamber, elsewhere and on telly and said nothing about the dilemmas confronting the President. The question I would be asking, if I were a member of the backbench, is: what other secrets are the members of my party keeping from me?

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

I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate. Two things have emerged from this debate very clearly. The first is that, as no senator has actually spoken against the motion, it is plain that it is the unanimous view of the Senate that the government is taking the right course in moving this referral motion under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. There has been a lot of innuendo and there has been a lot of rhetoric and bombast from people like Senator Carr and Senator Whish-Wilson, but nobody has actually criticised the course the government is taking.

The other thing that emerges very plainly from this debate is the very high personal regard in which our former colleague Stephen Parry is held by all, because all who have risen in this debate to criticise him have at least had the decency and good grace to say words to the effect that he was a very good President of this Senate and a very good man, although there has been some criticism of the way in which he chose to deal with a situation with which he was confronted. As a friend of Stephen Parry's who passionately believes him to be a good, honourable and decent man who graced the office of President splendidly, let me merely say that those who wish to criticise how Senator Parry may have acted under pressure might do well to remember the advice of our Lord in John 8:7 and reflect upon the perfection or otherwise of their own conduct in difficult circumstances.

Lastly, because I don't want to delay the chamber, let me deal with an issue that only Senator Hinch has raised. As I said earlier, the first I knew of these matters was when Senator Parry rang me on Monday, 30 October. I've checked my mobile phone log: it records an incoming call from him at 9.11 am, Queensland time. Contrary to what Senator Hinch has said, Senator Parry didn't tell me that he had discovered that he was a dual citizen. What Senator Parry told me was words to the effect that, having studied the High Court's decision, he thought he might have a problem and that he had taken urgent steps to clarify the position with the British Home Office, but he had concerns. That's what he told me. As soon as that conversation was finished, I immediately rang my chief of staff, at 9.22 am Queensland time, and related to him what Senator Parry had said to me—namely, that he thought he might have a problem but he was checking to see what the position was and seeking urgent advice from the UK authorities. I asked my chief of staff to convey that to the Prime Minister's office, which he tells me he immediately did. I think—don't hold me to this—the Prime Minister was actually in the air at the time on the way to his visit to commemorate the centenary of the Light Horse charge at Beersheba.

Senator Hinch, you seem to misapprehend, if I may say so with respect. I'm not saying Senator Parry told me that he had concluded that he was a dual citizen. He told me that he had appreciated, having read the High Court's decision, that he may have a problem, and that is the information I caused to be conveyed immediately to the Prime Minister's office. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

(1) That not later than 5 pm Friday, 1 December 2017 (and within 21 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation as a Senator) each Senator shall provide to the Registrar of Senators' Interests a statement containing the following:

(a) a declaration by the Senator that, at the time the Senator nominated for election to the Senate in this 45th Parliament he or she was an Australian citizen;

(b) a declaration that the Senator is not a citizen of any country other than Australia;

(c) a declaration stating:

(d) so far as the Senator is aware:

(e) whether the Senator has ever been a citizen of another country and if so which country or countries;

(f) what steps the Senator has taken to assure him or herself that they have not inherited citizenship of another country from a parent or grandparent;

(g) if the Senator has answered the question in e) in the affirmative, then provide details and evidence of the date and manner in which the Senator's citizenship of that other country was renounced (if it was renounced) or the date and manner in which it came to an end in accordance with the laws of that other country;

(h) if the Senator's citizenship of that other country had not come to an end at the date of his or her nomination for the Senate, detail and provide evidence of any steps the Senator has taken to renounce the citizenship of that other country prior to the date of nomination; and

(i) if the Senator has declared that he or she was at the time of nomination or is now a citizen of a country other than Australia, on what basis the Senator contends that he or she is, nonetheless, not disqualified under section 44(i).

(2) If at any time the Senator becomes aware that information provided in their statement is no longer accurate they shall update their statement as soon as practicable but not later than 21 days of being so aware.

(3) Statements shall be made in accordance with this resolution and in a form determined by the Committee of Senators' Interests. The Registrar shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the committee, maintain a Citizenship Register comprising statements provided under this resolution. Other than as specifically provided for in this resolution, the committee has the same powers and functions in relation to the citizenship register as it does in relation to the Register of Senator's Interests.

(4) The Registrar shall, upon the expiry of the time for providing statements under this resolution, and at other times determined by the committee, publish the register and any alterations or additions to the register on the Parliament's website.

(5) Any Senator who:

(a) knowingly fails to provide the statement required by this resolution to the Registrar of Senators' Interests by the due date; or

(b) knowingly fails to correct an inaccuracy in his or her statement within the required timeframe; or

(c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Senators' Interests;

shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly, but the question whether any senator has committed such a serious contempt shall first be referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report.

The purpose of the motion is to require honourable senators to provide to the Registrar of Senators' Interests, not later than 5 pm on Friday, 1 December 2017, a statement containing a declaration by the senator that at the time the senator nominated for election to the Senate in this parliament he or she was an Australian citizen; a declaration that the senator is not a citizen of any country other than Australia; a declaration stating the place and date of the senator's birth, the citizenship that the senator held at the time of birth, and, if he or she did not obtain Australian citizenship at birth, the date he or she was naturalised as an Australian citizen; so far as the senator is aware, the place and date of birth of the senator's parents and grandparents; whether the senator has ever been a citizen of another country and, if so, which country or countries; and what steps the senator has taken to assure himself or herself that they have not inherited citizenship of another country from a parent or grandparent.

If the senator has answered the question of whether they were a citizen of another country in the affirmative, the senator is required to provide details and evidence of the date and manner in which the senator's citizenship of that other country was renounced, if it was renounced, or the date and manner in which it came to an end in accordance with the laws of that other country. If the senator's citizenship of that other country had not come to an end at the date of his or her nomination for the Senate, the senator is required to provide details and evidence of any steps he or she had taken to renounce the citizenship of that other country prior to the date of nomination. Finally, if the senator has declared that he or she was at the time of nomination or is now a citizen of a country other than Australia, the senator is required to state on what basis he or she contends that he or she is nonetheless not disqualified under section 44(1). Of course, statements made to the Registrar of Senators' Interests in obedience to this motion can be made only to the best of the senator's knowledge or belief. I think that goes without saying.

This has been a difficult time for the Senate as an institution and indeed for the House of Representatives, and it is important that all senators and indeed members act with integrity. In my belief, certainly those government senators and members who have been affected by these issues have done so. Might I point out that, in the case of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, and in the case of the member for Bennelong, Mr Alexander, both of those gentlemen resigned from the parliament, causing by-elections in their constituencies, because they had themselves declared to the Australian people facts which, on the view taken by the High Court of section 44(1) of the Constitution, made it appropriate that they do so, just as Senator Canavan came forward, just as Senator Nash came forward and—although there's been some controversy about delay on his part—just as Senator Parry came forward when he appreciated the effect upon him of the High Court's decision. And, seldom though it is that I commend the Greens, I've said before and I say again that I cannot fault and do not criticise the way in which Senator Ludlam and Senator Waters dealt with this matter.

The one political party represented in this parliament which has not adopted the appropriate course is the Australian Labor Party. We know—and we now have the advice of an eminent constitutional lawyer, no less than the former Solicitor-General Dr David Bennett QC—in relation to at least two Labor members of the House of Representatives—the member for Braddon, Ms Keay, and the member for Longman, Ms Lamb—that, on the proper construction of the High Court's decision, they are also disqualified from sitting. But there is this difference: whereas Mr Alexander last Saturday came forward and said, 'In view of what I appreciate now to be the position, I believe that I should resign,' the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, remains insistent, in the face of all the evidence, that his members of parliament—in particular Ms Keay and Ms Lamb, and there are others as well who may potentially be affected—will not budge. That is unsatisfactory and it is unacceptable, and it falls below the standards which the government has set.

When this issue first arose in the Senate, on 9 August this year, when the motion by Senator Di Natale concerning Senator Roberts was moved, I had this to say:

I caution the Senate that it is a very dangerous course for this chamber or any parliamentary chamber to decide on what might be a party-line vote in the absence of clear evidence that a member of this chamber is not eligible to be here.

Of course, that statement does depend upon both sides of politics, all elements of the chamber, having a common appreciation of their legal and, dare I say, moral obligations in circumstances of this kind. Certainly in the case of the member for Braddon and in the case of the member for Longman, there is clear evidence. And it demonstrates a significant failure of leadership on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, that he has not been prepared to insist that members of his caucus observe the same standards that members of the government and members of the Senate crossbench have themselves observed, particularly now in the light of the High Court's very clear decision and in the light of the advice that has been obtained from Dr Bennett QC.

What do we know about the case of the member for Braddon, Ms Keay? We know that the member for Braddon, Ms Keay, was preselected to be the Labor Party candidate for that seat on or around 26 June 2015—more than a year before the 2016 election. We know—because this is a publicly admitted fact—that Ms Keay completed the UK Home Office declaration of renunciation of British citizenship form on 9 May 2016. She delayed by almost 11 months after she knew that she was going to be the Labor candidate for Braddon to even initiate the process of renunciation of her UK citizenship. She waited until the day after the election was called to even initiate the process of renouncing her UK citizenship.

At the time Ms Keay was preselected, in June 2015, nobody knew when the next federal election was going to be, though it was expected to be sometime in 2016. But one thing Ms Keay did know from the time of her preselection was that she was going to be the Labor Party's candidate for Braddon. And she knew that, in order to be validly elected to this parliament, by the time of the next election she would have to have renounced her UK citizenship. And she didn't. She took no steps whatsoever for almost a year. Indeed, she delayed until after the election had been called before she even initiated the process. We know—this is not a controversial fact—that the process for renunciation of her UK citizenship was not complete until after the election had been held.

Under no circumstances could anybody possibly maintain, if they were being honest, that to delay for almost a year after you're preselected, to wait until the day after the election was called even to initiate the process, is taking reasonable steps to renounce the foreign citizenship. Indeed, Ms Keay had the boldness even to say that she wanted to wait and see whether she was elected or not. That was her explanation. But on no view could it be said that Ms Keay had taken reasonable, or indeed any, steps to renounce her foreign citizenship before the election was called.

Then there is the case of the member for Longman, Ms Susan Lamb, who was also a British citizen by descent from her father, as was Ms Keay. Ms Lamb, the member for Longman, was preselected on or about 10 July 2015, but she completed the UK Home Office form of renunciation on 23 May 2016. Like Ms Keay, she waited for almost a year—in her case 10 months—before completing the form. Like Ms Keay, she did not lodge the form until after the election had been announced and in fact she did not complete the form until some 15 days—more than a fortnight—after the election had been announced. Yet, like Ms Keay, Ms Lamb knew from the time of her preselection in July 2015 that she would be the Labor Party's candidate for Longman at the election likely to be called in 2016 but which, theoretically, could have been called at any time from after the date of her preselection. So in these two cases the Labor members—Ms Susan Lamb, the member for Longman, and Ms Justine Keay, the member for Braddon—delayed by almost a year in initiating the process of renouncing their foreign citizenship. In both cases they didn't complete the forms—in the case of Ms Lamb—or even begin to initiate the process—in the case of Ms Keay—until after the election had been called. Yet Mr Shorten expects us to believe that these two members took all reasonable steps to renounce their UK citizenship. The facts and the chronology of events plainly suggest that they did not.

There are other names that have been mentioned: Mr Wilson, the member for Fremantle; Ms King, the member for Brand; and there may be others. I have confined my observations this afternoon to the cases of the member for Braddon and the member for Longman because their cases are just so clear: preselected almost a year earlier; don't renounce their citizenship or even initiate a renunciation of their citizenship until after the election has been called; and still a foreign citizen on the day the election is held. The member for Longman and the member for Braddon are certainly in no more favourable a position from the point of view of section 44 of the Constitution than is the member for Bennelong, Mr Alexander, or the former member for New England, Mr Joyce. But Mr Joyce and Mr Alexander did the right thing, while Mr Shorten continues to protect the member for Braddon and the member for Longman, and we do not know how many others he continues to protect.

There has been a lot of sententious rhetoric from Mr Shorten, from Senator Wong and from others in the Labor Party, like Mr Burke, in recent days. But the truth of the matter is that the only political party—the only major political party—in this parliament which has refused to be observant of the process is the Australian Labor Party.

Now, late in the piece, we understand that the Australian Labor Party will support a process. They will support a motion moved, as I've done on behalf of the government, to enable there to be a public system of declaration so that the various inquiries set out in the steps that I've outlined in the motion can be satisfied. It is a shame that it has had to come to this. As the High Court has said by implication, it's a matter for this parliament to sort this issue out, and we are doing so. A similar motion will be moved in the House of Representatives as well.

Let me conclude where I began: when one exercises the jurisdiction under section 326 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and section 47 of the Constitution to protect the integrity of the parliament against the presence within its chambers of people who—perhaps only for technical legal reasons and reflecting no bad character on themselves, by the way—were not validly elected, it does require both sides, and leaders on both sides, to act with integrity. That integrity has been singularly absent from the way in which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, has dealt with this matter to date.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I'm very glad we end on the lack of integrity, because I can tell you where the lack of integrity is: it's here. It's right here, with a government that has been dragged kicking and screaming to having any disclosure on this issue. Do you know why we've got this motion agreed to today? Because the government's picked up the Labor Party's proposal. That's why we've got this here.

I like the fact that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is telling me otherwise. Well, he wouldn't know, because he wasn't in the negotiations! He wasn't part of it; he was left out. The reality is this: the Prime Minister has been dragged kicking and screaming to this point—kicking and screaming to the point of requiring appropriate disclosure. We weren't able to come to agreement in the meeting. He, appropriately, asked Senator Cormann to deal with Mr Shorten, and now we have an agreement which reflects two important things. The first is a higher standard of disclosure than the government proposed. Mr President, you don't have to take my word for it. Have a look at what Mr Turnbull put out on the Monday and have a look at what we're voting on. The second issue is the date. The date is 1 December. I went out and did a press conference after the Prime Minister put out his proposal, and I made the point that under the dates he was proposing he was going to try to skate through past Christmas before he actually told people anything. And they want to talk about a lack of integrity! The Prime Minister put out a test that had a subjective test, had limited disclosure and had a date that kicked this off until after Christmas. Well, we are pleased that they've seen some sense.

The Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to this. It's a good deal, because it's what Labor proposed, and the government has signed off on that. But it says everything about the Prime Minister that he had to find someone else to negotiate it with the opposition. I'm not sure, frankly, that we would have been able to get a stronger process in place if he were still negotiating. But leave that to one side.

What have we seen since this motion was first tabled today? I really enjoyed Ms Bishop and Mr Pyne going out there and claiming credit for it. I know that Ms Bishop is quite good at creating fantasies—a bit like the New Zealand conspiracy—but somehow, although she's had no involvement, she's now claiming credit for it. But I suppose that if you looked at Newspoll today it might give an indication about the agenda there!

The reality is that this would not have occurred if Labor had not proposed a universal disclosure regime. The reason we did is once it became clear that the President of the Senate had sat on information—with the knowledge of a cabinet minister—which rendered him ineligible, the cover-up meant that the usual process around the parliament dealing with these matters appropriately had to be enforced with a more stringent procedure. That is why Labor proposed a universal disclosure and that is why we will be supporting this motion.

I do enjoy Senator Brandis's lectures—I'm sure we all do! 'Mendacious' might be an unparliamentary term so 'inaccuracy' might be the term I use, in deference to you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I like the way he told Senator Di Natale and Senator Whish-Wilson that he'd never said anything negative about the Greens. I don't think that's true. He actually said in the chamber on 15 August that he thought former Senators Ludlam and Waters had 'acted a little prematurely'. Do you remember that? He was all, 'We know better. They acted prematurely.' It is enjoyable to get a lecture from the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth about the operation of the law when he was assuring anybody who spoke to him, privately or publicly, that the legal advice the government had was very strong and all of the government senators and MPs were going to be fine. It's good to get a lecture from the government, isn't it, about its understanding of the law when we had a Prime Minister who, on the floor of the House of Representatives, said that the Deputy Prime Minister was going to be fine, that he was going to be eligible, 'and the High Court will so hold'. That's what the Prime Minister said. Now he wants Australians to accept his word about what the High Court means.

It must be interesting being in a meeting with Mr Turnbull and Senator Brandis about who is the smartest person in the room, in their own minds. But I know both of them regard themselves as extraordinary legal minds and are engaging in this lecturing of us about legal precedents. Let me make one thing very clear: every Labor member and senator who they have referred to took steps to renounce. Not one of their members or senators who have been referred to the High Court took steps to renounce—not one. Mr Joyce didn't, Senator Nash didn't, Senator Parry didn't, and it doesn't sound like Mr Alexander did. or the others, and I'll come to some of those. So the reality is that every single Labor member and senator took steps to renounce because that is what our vetting process ascertains and requires before nomination. The proposition that Mr Turnbull is putting to the Australian people in some desperate attempt to hold onto power, as his popularity externally and internally recedes, is one standard for the ALP and one standard for the government, one standard for the Labor Party and one standard for the coalition. Well, we didn't actually do anything, but we're okay. You did something, but it's not okay.

I want to be clear—and I think this has been on the public record, and I'll get some instructions on this—that we've got legal advice that goes directly to the advice that the Attorney-General spoke about that says that Mr Bennett is wrong, quite clearly. I do think it's interesting, don't you—just a side point, and this is for Senator Di Natale to consider as well—that the government won't provide the Solicitor-General's advice that enabled the Deputy Prime Minister and cabinet minister Nash to continue but somehow is able to provide legal advice on the Labor Party. Isn't that amazing! All of a sudden, some legal advice is okay to be released and other legal advice is not. You wouldn't think there was any partisan agenda here, would you? This is what this has come to. This Prime Minister is not behaving like a leader. He's behaving like a man desperate to retain power, and that desperation is there for all to see. I seek leave to table the opinion from Peter Hanks QC, which responds directly to Mr Bennett QC's opinion.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate.

I hope that Mr Turnbull had a chat to some of his backbench MPs before he decided to try and blow up the House of Representatives and use his numbers to refer Labor members who've sought to renounce their citizenship. It is actually a dangerous new precedent in Australian politics that the executive would seek to use its numbers on such an important issue in such a partisan way. It really demonstrates the desperation that Mr Turnbull is engaged in. He has become a diminished and desperate man. In fact, many Australians, when he was elected and when he took over the leadership, thought that he might be a leader whom they could respect; I think it has been a continuity of disappointment.

Let's remember the questions which have been raised about coalition MPs. Unlike Labor MPs, who took steps to renounce and have been public about that, we haven't got any information from these people. Questions have been raised about Ms Marino's potential Italian citizenship as a result of her previous marriage. They have not been answered. Questions were raised about Ms Julia Banks's Greek heritage and, frankly, her answers have not been consistent with what we understand to be the law. We have members with Greek parents who have taken active steps to renounce, because Greek citizenship doesn't, as we understand it, require an active step in order for you to be entitled, but Ms Banks says, 'I never took any steps.' Well, I don't think that's the test. What's the answer? Alex Hawke also has parents with Greek citizenship. Tony Pasin potentially has parents with Italian citizenship. Ann Sudmalis potentially has parents with UK citizenship. If Mr Turnbull wants to start using his numbers to refer Labor MPs who have taken reasonable steps to renounce, I assume he has spoken with all of these MPs and any others from the coalition side and informed them that they are likely to have to be referred as well. If he hasn't, he's certainly hung them out to dry. It would have been nice, I suspect, for them to have had a chat prior.

We will support this motion because it deals with the issues that we demanded be in the motion. We wanted a more stringent disclosure and we wanted an earlier date. But what we say is this: do not be distracted by the desperate lashing out of a Prime Minister who, frankly, seems to be beyond his use-by date trying to point attention to others. The fact is that he has not dealt with those on his side, and he has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to a position that is now reflected in the motion before the chamber.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing is certain: we have a constitutional crisis that is engulfing this parliament; and another thing is certain: this motion before the parliament will guarantee that this crisis will continue indefinitely. The shadow that's hanging over this parliament will continue. This motion does nothing to resolve the uncertainty, the huge lack of trust that we've seen displayed by members of this parliament and the lack of integrity—and, of course, that results in the erosion of trust from the community. This is a motion that will delay any action until the new year, and one thing's for sure: we can guarantee that we'll be talking about this issue well into next year.

It's a crisis that's been grinding on for months and months and months. People are looking at this place and they think this parliament is a joke, that it's a laughing stock and that people can't get their act together, work out whether they're eligible to be here, sort it out and move on. This proposal's not going to fix it. It won't. It can't. The Australian community are exasperated at what they're seeing unfolding in this parliament right now. What they wanted was swift and decisive action, and they're not getting it. They want MPs to put this matter behind them, to sort it out and to get on the business of governing, yet what we've got is a proposal that will continue the uncertainty and the chaos until well into next year and—who knows?—all the way up to the next election.

From the beginning of this crisis, which was precipitated with the resignation of Senator Ludlam and Senator Waters—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You started it.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right: we did. We accept that we initiated the cascade of events that have now befallen a number of other members of parliament, but look at the way that both Senator Ludlam and Senator Waters acted. They acted with integrity. They took it on the chin. They didn't blame their mum. They didn't blame anybody else. They said, 'We made a mistake, we should have done better, and we're going to accept full responsibility and resign.' That's what they did. They did it immediately.

They didn't do it because they agree with section 44 of the Constitution. We don't like it. We think it's a relic of the past. We think that it does need to be changed. We think that in a multicultural country like Australia, where so many people were born overseas, it has no role in modern Australia, and we'd like to change it. But you know what? It's in the Constitution. It's in our founding document, and, if you believe in representative democracy, you believe in upholding the founding document. You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand say you believe in democracy and on the other hand trash the Constitution when it's convenient for you. You can't on one hand say, 'We expect other people to abide by our Constitution,' and on the other hand, when it comes to politicians, say, 'We'll ignore it when it's convenient.' That's where we are at right now: we have a constitutional crisis, a cloud hanging over this parliament that will continue well into next year.

Very early on in this process we called for an independent audit. We said, 'It's time to have an independent and transparent audit.' We called for that months ago. We had the support of every member of the crossbench. I know Senator Hinch has been very vocal in his support for an independent audit. If the Senate—that is, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party—had agreed to that audit three months ago, we wouldn't be here right now. The whole thing would be sorted out. We'd have fixed it. Where there were doubts about MPs, those cases would have been heard, and we'd actually be here talking about how we're going to legislate for marriage equality and what it is that we're going to do to help those poor souls on Manus. That's what we should be talking about, yet right now this is a parliament consumed with itself, not with the business that affects people right around the country.

Of course, right through this, what it has revealed is a total lack of integrity, and Senator Wong is absolutely correct when she says that the government and this Prime Minister have acted shamefully, appallingly. Of course, when Senator Ludlam and Senator Waters resigned, that was incredible sloppiness! It was extraordinary negligence! It was a party not capable of governing! Yet, of course, what we now know is that there were members of the coalition sitting on this, not having the guts to come forward, own up to their mistakes and recognise that they too needed to do the right thing. We saw the incredible double standards when there were question marks over Senator Canavan and the decision was made for him to step aside from the ministry, yet when his Deputy Prime Minister got in trouble there was a totally different standard for him. He continued on as a minister, despite the fact that Barnaby Joyce knew in his gut he'd lose. He said that once the High Court handed down their decision. Double standards and hypocrisy—of course, this government is racked with it.

We saw an undignified end to the distinguished career of the former President of the Senate, Stephen Parry, who confided in his colleagues and was told to keep his head down, to shut up. He suppressed information in the hope that somehow the High Court would rule in their favour. We don't know whether members of the Prime Minister's office were aware of it, or indeed whether the Prime Minister himself was aware, but, if he wasn't, what does that say about the dysfunction in the heart of this government—that the President of the Senate could have been ineligible to stand and that information wasn't communicated to the Prime Minister? That speaks to a dysfunctional, divided government.

Then we have the extraordinary comments from Senator Brandis, who said that it's unthinkable that members of one party would refer members of another party to the High Court, yet that's exactly what they're proposing to do right now—again, more hypocrisy. We had the lecture from Senator Brandis about the information from the Solicitor-General—he was confident in the advice that was provided but so confident that he didn't have the guts to release it, to make it public. We called for an order for the production of those documents. We're still waiting. And we have the arrogance of the Prime Minister to instruct the High Court—'the High Court will so hold'. Well, it didn't. It was a seven-zip ruling. Now we are expected to believe that this motion, agreed to in a back room, is somehow designed to try and resolve this. Forgive me for not accepting the government's word that they are keen to put this behind them. It is a stitch-up; it is a fix. Nothing brings the two old parties closer together than the threat of losing people from their own side. That's what this is about. In an effort to avoid referrals to the High Court, we've seen this last-minute stitch-up to continue the protection racket that benefits Labor, Liberal and the Nationals. They're colluding today on this register in an attempt to be doing something when the reality is this is a smokescreen for inaction.

Let me get to the details of what is being proposed. There are four key problems with what the government has put forward. The first thing is that many of the so-called requirements for the register are based on belief or awareness. That is the reason we are in this mess. When we nominate, we declare on our nomination form to the Australian Electoral Commission that we believe we are not dual citizens. This is effectively asking us to do what we are asked to do when we nominate. That's all this does. Mr Shorten, in his letter to the Prime Minister, was absolutely correct when he stated that statements of knowledge and belief as to citizenship status are meaningless. They are meaningless. The High Court has made it clear here that it is the underlying facts that matter. What's the point in asking people to repeat on their declaration of interest the same information that they provide when they nominate for election? That's the reason we're here, for goodness sake—because people are either incompetent, or ignorant of the law, or in some cases have made genuine mistakes, and are found to be dual citizens. Yet paragraph 1(e) of the motion says that the senator must declare 'whether the Senator has ever been a citizen of another country and if so which country or countries'. It is asking the senator to make the same declaration that was made on the nomination form when they stood for election. By now we should recognise it is not a matter of individual senators (a) being trusted or (b) knowing whether they are dual citizens. That is the whole point of this issue, and simply asking them to declare it repeats the same mistake. Instead of making declarations, parliamentarians should be required to disclose the facts from which conclusions about citizenship can be drawn. This is a question of law determined by facts, not by belief, and that's what this register needs to include—facts, not questions of belief.

The second problem with this process is that there is no action to take this information forward—no active process of an audit or review or scrutiny of the information that is put on the register. It somehow leaves that work up to somebody else. So it's designed to provide information that's so vague, about a Senator's personal belief, and then ask somebody else to follow that up. Well, that's what's happening right now. That's why we're in this mess. We've got information that has been selectively disclosed, through the court of public opinion, with no process for independent scrutiny or review. Again, I come back to that single point: these are questions of law to be determined by the facts of the case, and unless we start instructing individual senators to be clear about the facts of their circumstances rather than making declarations of belief then this can't solve the problem. And there has to be an active process of audit.

The third problem is: what happens when question marks are raised? We know from today that nothing will bring the two parties closer together than a threat to their own numbers. So how do we know that these individuals will end up being referred to the High Court? You're asking the Senate to believe that, should questions be raised around an individual senator's eligibility, somehow, miraculously, the parties to whom those senators or members belong will refer them to the High Court. Well, that's just not how it works. The only reason former Senator Malcolm Roberts was referred to the High Court was that the Greens threatened to refer him and gained the support of the crossbench and, indeed, the Labor Party. That's why Senator Roberts ended up being referred to the High Court. We can't trust individual parties to act in the national interest, because we know that, to date, they've acted only in their own narrow self-interest.

The fourth problem with this is the time frame. We think that, at the very least, this could be dealt with. The information that's required should be provided within the next fortnight, and I will get to the sort of information that's necessary. But you can bet your bottom dollar that, if any one member of this place got a phone call to say, 'You know what? On that lottery ticket you bought you've just won a million bucks, but we need you to provide a bit of information here, and you need to have it within the next couple of weeks,' they'd find the time to provide that information. It'd probably take only a few days, not weeks. And now we've got a time frame to 1 December. I mean, you would have had to be hiding under a rock not to understand that this information needs to be made available and be made available quickly.

So the Greens will be amending this motion that comes before this Senate, and we'll be amending it in a way that addresses those four key points. Firstly, we're going to propose a shorter time frame so that we get a speedier resolution, and we've said that there is no excuse for this information not to be provided in the next fortnight. So we want to have this resolved much more quickly.

Secondly, we propose that, rather than asking senators what they believe to be the case—the Malcolm Roberts defence—which is what this motion does, matters of fact on eligibility be provided by senators. You know, declarations that just duplicate the declaration that each candidate made in signing the AEC nomination are totally meaningless. That's what this motion does. The High Court has said very clearly: 'It is the facts of the case that matter, and we will draw conclusions about someone's citizenship from the facts of the case.' So we've outlined what those facts need to be: the date and place of birth of MPs, their parents and their grandparents; whether individuals or their parents or grandparents have been naturalised as citizens of any country and, if so, when; some details around information on foreign passports and whether they've been renounced; and of course details of any other act by MPs under which they relied on foreign citizenship—that is, 'Have you voted in elections in another country?' They are basic facts that will help us determine objectively, in law, whether somebody is a dual citizen.

Thirdly, we propose an active process of audit by the Senate Standing Committee of Senators' Interests. When this information is provided, what happens next? Well, at the moment, the uncertainty will continue. We know that there is no process for doing anything with this information. We believe that, if we are indeed to have an independent audit, what it should look like is that the Committee of Senators' Interests are able to review the facts of each individual's circumstances; that they've got the power to send for and examine individuals and documents; that they can, as with other Senate committees, move to sit in public or private to provide that information; and that, if they need to, they can be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee—that is external, legal expertise. They can do all of that. That is the process of independent audit that is necessary here. And finally, where there is a question to answer, we propose a clear process for referral to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.

We have to put this mess behind us. It just seems that the government doesn't understand that the longer this goes on, the more this uncertainty lingers and the more this chaos continues, the more it undermines faith in our democracy. People have had a gutful, and this declaration, which is a smokescreen for inaction and which serves to benefit the interests of both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, is not good enough. So we urge all members in this place to look at those individual amendments and to recognise that we can't repeat the same mistakes that were repeated when individuals nominated through the Australian Electoral Commission forms—the facts relevant to each individual circumstance should be provided and provided in a timely way. We've already said that we would be prepared to refer all individuals who are put forward in a motion to the High Court, regardless of where those referrals come from, because we want to see this crisis end.

And it is a constitutional crisis, because, when we don't have the confidence that the governing party in this place has the numbers on the floor of the lower house of parliament, that is as serious as it gets. We need an effective resolution to this crisis and it needs to be done quickly. This resolution, this motion before the Senate, is not that. To use the Labor Party's own words, 'Statements of knowledge and belief as to citizenship status are meaningless,' and yet this motion duplicates those problems in most respects. We have to get it sorted. The parliament is looking like a joke—a laughing stock—and we continue to see more delay and a proposal that's a smokescreen for action, when the very last thing both the government and, indeed, the opposition want is serious action on this front. I move:

(1) That not later than 5pm Friday November 24 2017 (and within 5 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation as a Senator) each Senator shall provide to the Registrar of Senators' Interests a statement containing the following (along with any documentation):

(a) The date and place of birth of the parliamentarian;

(b) The date and place of birth of the parliamentarian's parents;

(c) The date and place of birth of the parliamentarian's grandparents;

(d) Whether the parliamentarian, his or her parents and his or her grandparents have ever been naturalised as citizens of any country, and if so, the country and date of naturalisation;

(e) Details, including dates of issue and, if relevant, cancellation, of any foreign passports previously held by the parliamentarian;

(f) Details of any other act by the parliamentarian under which they relied on foreign citizenship (eg voting in another country);

(g) Statement as to whether the parliamentarian, his or her parents and his or her grandparents have ever renounced citizenship of any foreign country, and if so, evidence of that renunciation and its acceptance by the authorities of the foreign country;

(h) The date on which the parliamentarian nominated with the Australian Electoral Commission for the 2016 federal election (or, for the House of Representatives, any more recent by- election).

(2) If at any time the Senator becomes aware that information provided in their statement is no longer accurate they shall update their statement as soon as practicable but not later than 5 days of being so aware.

(3) Statements and documentations shall be made in accordance with this resolution and in a form determined by the Committee of Senators' Interests. The Registrar shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the committee, maintain a Citizenship Register comprising statements provided under this resolution. Other than as specifically provided for in this resolution, the

committee has the same powers and functions in relation to the citizenship register as it does in relation to the Register of Senator's Interests.

(4) The Registrar shall, upon the expiry of the time for providing statements under this resolution, and at other times determined by the committee, publish the register and any alterations or additions to the register on the Parliament's website.

(4a) The Committee of Senators' Interests:

(a) commencing 24 November 2017, inquire into the citizenship status of each current Senator; and

(b) report to the Senate whether there are circumstances which may warrant a question or questions respecting the qualification of one or more Senators being referred to the Court of Disputed Returns under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; and

(c) present its final report on or before 6 December 2017; and

(d) during the inquiry:

(i) have power to send for and examine persons and documents;

(ii) to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives; and

(iii) have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit; and

(iv) be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President; and

(5) Any Senator who:

(a) knowingly fails to provide the statement and evidence required by this resolution to the Registrar of Senators' Interests by the due date; or

(b) knowingly fails to correct an inaccuracy in his or her statement within the required timeframe; or

(c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Senators' Interests;

shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly, but the question whether any

senator has committed such a serious contempt shall first be referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report or, if appropriate, the Court of Disputed Returns.

(6) A message be sent to House of Representatives to acquaint it with this resolution.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in this debate, and I welcome the fact that this government has finally come to its senses as to how to handle the citizenship fiasco that has completely engulfed this government.

Only a few days ago, the Prime Minister met with the opposition leader and Senator Wong to try to resolve this matter, and the very reasonable requests that Labor made at that meeting were rejected by the Prime Minister. We now, finally, see the government coming to its senses today. It recognises that Labor's requests were entirely appropriate and reasonable, and the government has now agreed to support this process. This is a sensible way forward, and it should have been adopted by the Prime Minister on the day it was put forward. Yet again, we've had to see Senator Cormann come in and save the day, talking the Prime Minister around to a commonsense approach here. It's notable that the government's leader in the Senate, Senator Brandis, was completely excluded from these negotiations. I think that everyone in the government has now recognised that everything Senator Brandis touches turns to something you don't want to touch, and the citizenship fiasco is yet another example of that.

This disclosure regime will deal with the various claims and counterclaims that have been thrown around over recent weeks regarding citizenship and involving numerous senators. What the Prime Minister and his representatives in the other chamber should do immediately is commit to following exactly the same procedure in relation to members of the House of Representatives. If this process is good enough for the Senate, it is good enough for the House of Representatives.

This resolution is good as far as it goes. It does put forward a sensible approach to deal with the range of questions involving citizenship that have arisen in relation to senators in recent weeks. But as good as this resolution is it leaves unresolved a number of other questions regarding other senators in this place and their eligibility to remain serving in this chamber. In fact it leaves unresolved similar questions in relation to various government members of the House of Representatives. While most attention about section 44 of the Constitution in recent times has focused on the matter of people's citizenship, there are other strands to section 44 that potentially leave a senator or member of parliament ineligible to sit in this place. The most obvious one is that if a senator has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth they are ineligible to sit in this chamber.

I'm very pleased to see one such senator—Senator O'Sullivan—in the chamber to hear yet again the issues surrounding his ineligibility, because he seems not to want to listen but to want to put his head in the sand about this. There have been three instances now where Senator O'Sullivan, through his family companies and their activities, appears very likely to have fallen foul of section 44(v) of the Constitution, which would make him ineligible to serve in this chamber. We've learned over the weeks gone by that Senator O'Sullivan's family company, Newlands Civil Construction, was making a dollar out of Commonwealth funding that was directed, first of all, through contracts to work on the Toowoomba second range crossing and, secondly, through a contract and funding provided to Central Highlands council in Queensland under the government's NDRRA program. What we learned in the last two weeks, when the Senate was not sitting, was that there is now a third instance where Senator O'Sullivan's private, personal companies have benefitted from contracts awarded by the Commonwealth and funding from the Commonwealth. It involves a contract of Commonwealth funding awarded to Balonne Shire Council in regional Queensland. The work that Balonne Shire Council contracted Newlands Civil Construction to perform was funded directly by the Commonwealth. The argument that Senator O'Sullivan has put up is that there is no state middle man in this contract. I don't accept that argument, but even if we do that argument does not apply here. This is a situation where Commonwealth funding is going through Balonne Shire Council and straight into the pockets of Senator O'Sullivan and his family through their family company.

What make it worse is that this Commonwealth funding program, the drought program, was absolutely lobbied for personally by Senator O'Sullivan. So we have the chair of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee out there lobbying for government funding to create a program and then with his family company putting his hand out to take benefit from it. If that is not an indirect pecuniary interest in a Commonwealth contract, I do not know what is. This resolution deals with citizenship issues. There are other senators, particularly Senator O'Sullivan, whose matters are unresolved. We intend to continue to pursue these matters, because he shouldn't think that just because we have dealt with the citizenship matters he is off the hook.

It's very unfortunate that neither the Prime Minister nor Senator Brandis seems to take this matter seriously. Some weeks ago I wrote to both the Prime Minister and Senator Brandis asking that Senator O'Sullivan be removed as the chair of the rural and regional affairs committee. To this date, I have not received a response to that letter from either Senator Brandis or the Prime Minister. That's how seriously they take these issues. That's how seriously they take an indirect conflict of interest involving one of their own senators who has his hand out and his family company's hand out to benefit directly from Commonwealth funding. They need to take these matters more seriously. It goes to the character of this government and what is appropriate behaviour from senators, but it also goes to the eligibility of Senator O'Sullivan to remain in this chamber.

Debate interrupted.