Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Well, we know. The Prime Minister did again today assert, 'We've got very good legal argument, and this is a most unfair slur on the government MPs,' but the fact of the matter is that, even as documents are dragged out after the deadline—I quote one document which has gone up online. It says 'Dear Mr Falinski'. It's headed 'Arnold Bloch Leibler'. In the third paragraph, it says:

As previously discussed, we cannot conclusively advise on foreign law and recommend that you seek independent advice from foreign law experts to confirm our views set out in this advice.

That is not solid proof. Upon that you do not base an argument of constitutional eligibility. Indeed, in the disclosure of Mr Falinski yesterday, he said he had legal advice, but the legal advice he proffers is dated today, a day after he's closed that off, where he said he'd received the advice.

Government members interjecting—

The real problem here is—and I listen to the government interject and say, 'How would you know?' and, 'What do you know?' What I say to them is that I'll accept that criticism from the government if you accept this criticism from me: what do you know? What is your base? Which High Court judges are you? All we want—

Mr Turnbull interjecting—

I hear the Prime Minister shouting. I hear him shouting—a more common feature these days, we notice, in this country. What we are proposing, very simply, is one rule for all. We are also proposing that we do this right the first time. This parliament—both Labor and the conservatives; all of us—has an obligation to restore some confidence in this parliament.

I have to say that I remember when the Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister challenged. They said, 'Oh, what is Shorten hiding with his English citizenship?' And I remember the choice line from the Prime Minister. He said, 'If he has nothing to hide then what does he have to fear?' I say to the government: right back at you. If you've got nothing to fear with the legal weight of the argument of your MPs, why are you so afraid of being referred to the High Court? Don't you get it over there? Australians want to see resolution. There is a political question that transcends your nitpicking and your growling and your grizzling.

It is appropriate, we believe. This is a bipartisan resolution, bipartisan in intent. We do not come here and say that we will not contemplate the referral of some of our members. By the way, we are very confident in many of the arguments that we have made, but what I accept—

Honourable members interjecting—

Yes, but, see, the government every time come in spinner. I say we're confident in our arguments, and they say, 'Test them in the High Court.' Well, you're right.

See this speech in context