Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

It would be quite unwise for some members on the other side of the House to be interjecting on this matter.

It is time for the High Court to be given the opportunity to make a determination about what section 44(i) of the Constitution means in the modern era. Just to give an example, as the Deputy Prime Minister said when he made his remarks at 10 o'clock, there was no such thing as Australian citizenship before 1948. Everyone before 1948 was a British subject. Does that mean that every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate before 1948 bore an allegiance to another foreign power, in that case the United Kingdom? These are things that have become very important in the modern era, and it's time the High Court gave us a very clear ruling about what section 44(i) of the Constitution means.

Of course, the second reason the Deputy Prime Minister has asked for this referral to occur is that the government has acted ethically in all these matters. As soon as it came to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister that this might be an issue, he acted entirely ethically and correctly, as you would expect him to do as a person of upstanding character. When he was informed by the New Zealand High Commission, he took immediate action. The government has had very clear legal advice from the Solicitor-General that the Deputy Prime Minister is not disqualified under section 44(i) of the Constitution, but we wish to test that in the High Court to give them the opportunity to determine that. Because we are so confident of the Deputy Prime Minister's status, he will continue to participate fully in the House as the member for New England and he will continue as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for giving leave for this motion to come forward and I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context