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

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. The constitutional crisis around section 44 is destabilising the nation. It is calling into question the legitimacy of this parliament. Let's face it, it makes the parliament look like a joke. We've just seen Jacqui Lambie resign. She did the honourable thing and resigned as soon as she became aware of information that meant she was ineligible. But no-one would question Jacqui Lambie's loyalty to Australia—or Larissa Waters's loyalty to Australia or, indeed, Barnaby Joyce's loyalty to Australia. Minister, given that so many people in Australia come from a multicultural background, will you now commit to the reform of section 44 of the Constitution?

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

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

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

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.

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

Yesterday we saw the government colluding with the opposition and stitching up a backroom deal that fails to ask relevant questions of members of parliament. It has no process for recommending referral to the High Court. Minister, what are you hiding and why do you refuse to have a comprehensive audit of all members of this parliament?

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

Senator Di Natale, it is because we expect members of parliament to act with integrity. We expect members of parliament to act with integrity, and we saw a fine example of that in this chamber only two hours ago with our former colleague—I'm sorry to say—Jacqui Lambie. And if I may say so, Senator Di Natale, we saw an example of that with your colleagues, or our former colleagues, Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, and we also saw a fine example of that in the case of Senator Matt Canavan and our former colleague Senator Fiona Nash.

But where we have conspicuously not seen the same example is with the Australian Labor Party, even though we now know on incontrovertible evidence that Justine Keay and Susan Lamb, the members for Braddon and Longman, had not completed the renunciation of their British citizenship at the time of the 2016 election. They have not done the right thing.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You'll get the call when there's silence, Senator Di Natale. Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question?

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

I note that in your answer to the previous supplementary question, Minister, Stephen Parry's name was conspicuously absent. Did Stephen Parry meet your test of acting with integrity?

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

Well, I think he met his own test, Senator. I think Stephen Parry acted in good faith. I have no doubt that Stephen Parry acted in good faith, and I have no doubt that he did the right thing as he understood his obligations. Now, different people might understand their obligations in different ways in uncertain circumstances. I don't criticise Stephen Parry. He waited until the High Court's decision settled the law.

There is no question whatsoever that the state of the law was uncertain before the decision on 27 October, and that is obvious from the fact that, in the decision of 27 October, the High Court did not follow and apply its earlier decision in Sykes v Cleary; it adopted a much more literalist approach—what I described as a brutally literalist approach. As I say, we accept and respect that, but Senator Parry, in the circumstances, thought the right thing for him to do was to wait until the law was clarified.