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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by Senators Fifield and Brandis to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong, O'Neill and Farrell today.

I rise to take note of the answers—or non-answers—given by Senators Fifield and Brandis to questions asked by Senators Wong, O'Neill and me. You'll note, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, that the Attorney-General accepted a document that was tendered, and I'd like to refer to that document. It was a story by Michelle Grattan. I've known Michelle—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Farrell. Senators, could I just ask those who are not taking part in the debate to quietly move outside so I can hear Senator Farrell?

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

Thank you for that protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. I've known Michelle Grattan since she first interviewed me when I was a candidate in the Adelaide by-election in 1988.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the one Penny knocked you off on?

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

No, that was a different one.

An honourable senator interjecting—

I've had a few ups and downs in politics. But Michelle Grattan—

An honourable senator interjecting—

he's a relative now—is not known for writing inaccurate stories. In fact, she would be one of the most reliable journalists in this place. Senator Brandis, you might recall, tried to dismiss the references of Senator Parry about what he told and who he told it to. So I'd like to refer to this comment that Michelle Grattan made. She's directly quoting Senator Parry, former President of this place. She says:

He spoke to "various ministers". Though he wasn't ordered to shut up about his situation, the tone of the conversations suggested he say nothing until the High Court ruled in the "citizenship seven" cases …

I think that's pretty unequivocal as to the statements that former Senator and President Parry made. He was being honest. Why was he being honest?

It was because he'd been attacked by Prime Minister Turnbull for not coming forward earlier. Yet we know from Michelle Grattan's story that he did speak to various ministers, and the implication of those discussions was, 'Shut up about the issue.'

Senator Fifield said he's answered all the questions we have. Let me tell you, he hasn't answered any of the questions that we've got. His defence is the North Korean defence—'What happens if North Korea stops somebody from renouncing their citizenship?' We're not talking about North Korea here. We're talking about the United Kingdom. We're talking about a country from which, perhaps, 50 per cent of the Australian population has come. We're talking about a country that has a recognised and well-publicised method of renouncing citizenship. I happen to know something about it because, before I nominated for the Senate in 2007, I had to go through that process. My mother's father was born in Pontefract in Yorkshire to, interestingly enough, an Australian mother. But I had to go through that process. I had to pay my money. As it turned out, they said I wasn't a citizen after all. They did keep my money. But there is a very simple process you've got to go through. The problem here is that the people on the other side have chosen to ignore that process.

You might have seen Prime Minister Turnbull ramping up the issue today. He is going to refer all these Labor Party people to the High Court. Apart from being a complete waste of money, he's not relying on good legal advice. All of the people he's talking about have renounced their citizenship. These people are not like Barnaby Joyce, Fiona Nash or Stephen Parry, none of whom renounced their citizenship. All of the people that the Prime Minister is talking about today renounced their citizenship. Why did they do that? It was because the vetting processes—as you would be familiar with, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle—are thorough. In every case, if there is any doubt whatsoever, as I know from my own personal experience, you renounce your citizenship. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This whole kerfuffle, if I might call it that, has been the subject of a lot of comment around the place and a lot of discussion in this particular chamber and in the other place. The thing that I'm so curious about is why those Labor Party members of parliament who have been named and who have actually admitted certain inappropriate procedures as far as their citizenship goes have not referred themselves to the High Court. I'm particularly interested in a number of people here. I see Senator Gallagher coming into the chamber. I don't know what her position is.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read my statement.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think I have ever heard her indicate it. But I have read certain articles written by particular journalists as recently as 8 November and 10 November raising issues about Senator Gallagher's position.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She made a statement to the chamber. It couldn't be more transparent.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the interjection was saying that she's fine. If she is fine, can we see the evidence? Can we have a look at the evidence? If there is evidence, why would you not produce it? The same goes for other Labor Party people. It's an unfortunate saga in the annals of this parliament, I have to say. It's something that, I might say, has come completely from left field. Everyone's blaming Mr Turnbull for it, but it's very, very clear that it has nothing to do with Mr Turnbull and nothing to do with the government as such. It is simply an issue that has arisen under the Constitution, and certain facts have come forward that have made a number of parliamentarians think carefully about their origins. Could I just, as an aside, say that my great-great-great-great—or something—grandfather came out from Scotland, not a few years ago, like Senator Cameron, but in the 1850s. On my mother's side, they came out from Germany, I think, in the 1860s.

But I don't know. Perhaps Senator Gallagher has appropriate advice or appropriate evidence. But why isn't it tabled? Why isn't it tabled in this chamber? Why don't the other Labor members of parliament who have been questioned table the information? If it's there—if Senator Gallagher says, yes, she's fine; it's there; she's got the renunciation; it's all tickety-boo, so to speak—then let's see it and put the question beyond doubt. If it's not beyond doubt, then it requires Senator Gallagher and others in the Labor Party to do the honourable thing, as has been done by many coalition members, in getting the High Court to look at it, to determine it and to make it clear one way or the other.

If there is a reasonable explanation for why Senator Gallagher shouldn't do that, then please tell us. But, otherwise, why don't we just put the matter beyond dispute? Why don't we table publicly all of the relevant information so that the public at large can be assuaged? As I say, these journalists are respectable people, as far as journalists go, and they seem to have some doubt about Senator Gallagher's citizenship. I don't really have the doubt, because I simply don't know. But, if the evidence is there, why aren't Labor people, including those in this chamber, coming forward with the documentation to put the matter entirely beyond doubt and entirely beyond argument? That would seem to be a very reasonable way to go.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those who are here in the chamber, you've come to Canberra on a day when the House isn't sitting and you've come into the Senate, and I'm sure that you're going to go away from here today making a judgement about the chaos and dysfunction that are at the heart of this government. I got the thumbs up from the gentleman there in the front row of the gallery because he is a representative of the true Australians out there who are sick and tired of the game-playing by this government that's going on.

We have seen a failure to answer questions in this chamber today. We had a minister standing up and refusing to show up at Senate estimates. There have been attempts to convene to get her to answer questions about what she knew about what was going on in her portfolio. She's refused to show up there. She is coming here and making up her own questions that she wants to answer.

But we've got Senator Fifield refusing to answer questions here in the chamber. For those who were here in question time and those who were listening, all they would've heard from Senator Fifield were these sorts of mealy-mouthed comments: 'I covered this in my statement this morning.' If he's so sure about the statement that he made this morning, why didn't he repeat it in question time when Australians were listening? It was because he doesn't care enough; he doesn't have the respect for the Senate chamber to stand up and repeat that clear answer. If it's so clear and it was so perfect that he's going to refer to it here, why didn't he tell the chamber when it was filled with Australian representatives? Why didn't he have the respect to repeat in question time what he said? He answered the second question that he was asked, mealy-mouthed again, with, 'Oh, I made a contribution.' Then he was asked about exactly what he knew.

Let me go back to this question to Minister Fifield: did the minister or his office discuss concerns about former Senator Parry's eligibility with any of his ministerial colleagues or their offices? Who did you talk to? That's what the question was: did you talk to anybody?

Do you know what he said? He said, 'There are particular details about which I have no knowledge.' We were asking about what he did himself. 'I have no knowledge about myself.' That is what Senator Fifield is actually asking us to believe in his response to questions today.

This government is in decay, it's in crisis and it continues to disrespect the rules of the Senate. We've had today—with a new President coming into the chamber and the handling of Senator Parry's resignation—a classic revelation of what goes on with the Turnbull government. I want to put on the record that Senator Parry, who was sitting in that chair as the President, was a thoroughly decent man, and everybody's comments this morning indicate that he took the role very seriously. But, when it came to the moment he thought he might not be a citizen, he had a bit of a chat with Minister Fifield, who can't recall the details. We don't know who he spoke to. He's trying to get us to believe that he didn't speak to anybody, but Michelle Grattan has it in the paper that he spoke to quite a few people. The story is out. Despite the fact that the Australian people are paying very close attention to this, this government continues to stand here and misrepresent what is going on. And it expects the Australian people—represented in physical presence by you here today—to believe the nonsense that we saw at question time today.

We know that Senator Fifield's answers were appalling. We followed up with some questions to Senator Brandis:

Were any members of the Senate government leadership team made aware of concerns about the former senator's eligibility before Monday, 30 October?

We got this long list of process from the senator about who is in the leadership team and who is not in the leadership team, just to give us the benefit of his wisdom. Then he finally summed it up with, 'I have no reason to believe any one of them'—any of the six people in the leadership team—'knew anything prior to Monday 30 October.' 'No reason to believe' is not a clear, concise and believable answer in this context. Senator Farrell has referred to Michelle Grattan's reporting. It tells us that Minister Fifield knew that Senator Parry was in doubt. Minister Fifield had conversations with a range of other people, and we have this chaotic, dysfunctional government in here continuing to misrepresent that reality. I want to go to one of the great comments we heard in question time today: 'This was a candid and thorough response from the minister.' That is the same as saying this government is functional and truthful. (Time expired)

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

We have just heard from Senator O'Neill a classic example of the way the Labor Party chooses to attack important political issues, and that is to build conjecture upon hypothesis upon speculation upon outright falsehoods. What we have heard from Senator O'Neill absolutely falls into that category. There has been some discussion—and you might care to wait for this, Senator O'Neill, because I am about to point out why what you just said to the Senate was not the truth—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't leave, Deb. Stay here.

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

We heard from Senator Farrell and from Senator O'Neill, who is now skulking out of the chamber, some propositions attributed to Senator Parry on the basis of words quoted in an article by the respected journalist Michelle Grattan on the website The Conversation. It was asserted—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Acting Deputy President: I chose to leave the Senate chamber to do other work. I refuse to allow my departure to be described by Senator Brandis as 'skulking' out of the chamber. It is entirely inappropriate and he should withdraw.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, it's not a point of order, but, Minister, Senator O'Neill has not 'skulked out'. She is here. I ask you to withdraw.

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

She is still here; I am glad about that, because I am about to point out—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I am just asking you to—

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

I will withdraw if you want me to.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to withdraw.

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

Senator O'Neill, if you care to wait, your error can be pointed out to you. But you obviously won't do that. Much has been made of words quoted by Michelle Grattan in an article on The Conversation website. Senator Wong, then Senator Farrell and now Senator O'Neill—none of whom, by the way, have delayed in the Senate chamber to hear the truth—have asserted that a reference in direct speech in Michelle Grattan's article is somehow proof that Senator Parry has said to Michelle Grattan that he had spoken to various ministers. I've just spoken to former Senator Parry in the last 10 minutes. Senator Parry tells me, and he has authorised me to tell the chamber, that he has never spoken to Michelle Grattan about this matter, ever. And he has also authorised me to tell the chamber that he has never used the words that are said to be attributed to him by the Labor Party in the article by Michelle Grattan—to any person, ever. So that is the truth. The truth is that the entire case made against our former colleague Stephen Parry is based on a falsehood.

I tried to make this point to Senator Wong across the table during question time, but, of course, she rudely refused to listen to me. I tried to point out that on a reasonable reading of this article in The Conversation the words in direct speech are not said by Michelle Grattan to be the words of Stephen Parry. Nevertheless, the Australian Labor Party has mounted its entire case on the assertion that they are. But we now know that they are not, because Senator Parry never spoke to Michelle Grattan and never used those words to anyone.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary set of circumstances this parliament finds itself in. We have no more clarity from the answers given to us about the constitutional chaos that we find ourselves in by the government in question time today. You could, sadly, drive a truck through the answers given to questions. I note that Senator Fifield sought cause to reflect in his answer straight back to his earlier statements to the chamber today. So, in debating answers to questions, I will reflect on his answers earlier today.

Senator Fifield said to the chamber he could not be definitive as to when Senator Parry started to reflect on his own particular circumstances. I put to the chamber that he must have reflected on it when referrals were made to the High Court, because they were referrals he made as President which ultimately reflected his own circumstances—in that the reason that Senator Parry was found to have citizenship by descent was in the same way that others who have left this place were also found to have. So we are expected to believe that while Senator Parry was participating in these matters as President he told no-one else of any importance within the government.

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

It's what he says.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Well, ultimately, what this reflects is the situation we now find ourselves in—that you have refused to exercise any internal accountability on each other on this matter until this point in time and until you've been pulled into the motion that's been put before this chamber today. So either you are derelict in holding your members to account in terms of their eligibility to be in this place or we in this place have been withheld the information of who knew what, when, how and if they ever acted. Patently, the government has not acted until this point in time. You've not asked your colleagues to reflect on their eligibility to be in this place.

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

Why did I move that motion earlier this morning?

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Up until this point in time, you have not done so. You have been dragged kicking and screaming. The reality is that the motion before this place would not have occurred had Labor not proposed a universal disclosure regime. And the reason we had to do that is the very circumstances that have been reflected on in answers to questions today.

As Senator Wong made clear: when we found out that the then President of the Senate, with the knowledge of a cabinet minister, had sat on information that rendered him ineligible, this meant that this parliament could not be relied on to deal with these matters appropriately through its own usual processes and that we needed before us a more stringent procedure. I'm glad that we now have that, but you can certainly see, in the answers that have been given in this place this afternoon, how manifestly inadequate the government's response has been to the constitutional chaos that this parliament finds itself in. Senator Brandis, you said, back in August, that you thought former Senators Ludlam and Waters had acted a little prematurely, and perhaps you did indeed think that at the time. But it is apparent to all members in this place that, when the court found otherwise, you did nothing proactive to address this matter—until this point in time. The government has been entirely 'hear no evil, see no evil'. You have your own 'don't ask, don't tell' policy around these matters, where we see a Prime Minister who has refused to be apprised of the problem so that he can't be held accountable for it.

Question agreed to.