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

Senator Di Natale, we don't believe that. When your former colleagues, Mr Ludlam and Ms Waters, chose to resign that was their decision. Now, they say, and I believe you say, that they made their decision on legal advice. I haven't seen that legal advice and I can't comment on it. But you, Senator Di Natale, yourself moved the motion under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act to refer the cases to the Court of Disputed Returns. It was an option available to you, and available to them, to make that reference under Section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and wait until the Court of Disputed Returns had determined their eligibility. But, you chose not to do that. They chose not to do that. They chose to resign. They didn't have to resign, but they did. Perhaps that was a catastrophic error of judgement on their part. But, in any event, we're all in the hands of the legal advice that we receive.

The government has received advice from Dr Steven Donaghue, the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, and, on the basis of Dr Donaghue's advice, the government is confident that both Senator Canavan and Mr Joyce would be found by the Court of Disputed Returns to be within, not beyond, the disqualification provisions of subparagraph 1 of section 44 of the Constitution. We have a body and legal authority, referred to by the Solicitor-General, which is reasonably well known—including Sykes v Cleary—to support that position. I wonder if those who gave legal advice to Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters also considered what the judges of the High Court would have to say in Sykes v Cleary, and, had they done so, whether they might have advised a different course?