Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

The High Court has made it very clear in a number of cases that section 44 cannot be read literally and has to be read in accordance with its purpose and its intent, and there are limitations to its scope. There are a number of members on the Labor side—I can think of at least one who was a British citizen at the time she nominated for the last election. There's no question about that. To give the member for Braddon credit, her defence is that she had taken all reasonable steps to renounce her citizenship, but it had not been effective. If there were a strictly literal reading of section 44, she would be disqualified, because she certainly knew she was a British subject. So the point of the matter is: what the Deputy Prime Minister said in that interview was not a correct interpretation or description of the way the law operates. That's the fact.

Opposition members interjecting—

You can laugh as much as you like. But the constitution is interpreted by the High Court of Australia, and, as I've said, we are very, very confident that, when the matter of the eligibility of the member for New England comes before the High Court, he will be found to be qualified to sit in this parliament. That is consistent with the findings of the court.

But the real issue today—and I look forward to saying some more about it in the course of this question time—does go to an issue of allegiance and loyalty. No-one has ever doubted the loyalty of the Deputy Prime Minister to Australia, but what about the Leader of the Opposition conspiring with the Labour Party of New Zealand to undermine the government of Australia? He chose—in a way denounced by the Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party—to plot with his Labour Party comrades across the ditch to undermine the government— (Time expired)

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

Mr Keogh interjecting—

Mr Taylor interjecting—

See this speech in context