Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The dual citizen fiasco has reminded me of two instances: one from popular culture and one from history. The first one is the Death Star of Star Wars fame crashing and burning. That is what this government is doing. The emperor is dead, Darth Vader is dying and the Death Star is crashing—that's this government. The second instance is that I was reminded of a speech given by Oliver Cromwell on the dissolution of the Long Parliament in April 1653. It is quite a famous speech and I thought these words applicable today to the instance we have with this government. He said:

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

I will come back to the comments made by Senator Duniam and Senator Nash in relation to the Australian public being not interested at all in whether our parliamentarians and ministers are duly elected, appointed and sworn in, because of course the Australian people are interested in that. They would like to think there is some level of competence in the government.

I want to go to two issues. The first is consistency in approach. As has been raised, Senator Canavan did resign, so what was the advice in relation to why Senator Nash and the Deputy Prime Minister have not resigned their ministerial responsibilities? I, secondly, want to really focus on the breaches of not only section 44 but also section 64 of the Constitution. Just so we are clear, section 44(i) says any person who:

… is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power … shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

On dual citizenship, people have referred themselves to the High Court, and that is very good, but what was the advice that was sought and where did it come from? How was the Attorney-General involved in that? Did it come from the Solicitor-General? We are not very clear on that. Senator Seselja says, 'No-one has to proffer their own legal advice if they don't want to.' But, again, I would make the point that the Australian people have the right to know. Given this is such a serious issue and given we may well have a cabinet that is not formally or lawfully appointed, I think that advice should be tendered and made public. I also think that some of this advice is going to become clear when the High Court meets next month.

Senator Nash in her answer referred the Senate to her statement—and what a statement full of holes it is. One could say it was a pithy statement, but that would be painting it in a light it doesn't really deserve. It's about seven paragraphs long, and it doesn't really go into any detail at all. You can find it on fionanash.com.au. It's on the first page. I think most people would agree that it doesn't really go to the questions of such gravitas that are being asked. If Senator Nash did receive advice saying that she should stay on, what was the advice given to Senator Canavan? What was the advice from the Solicitor-General?

What was the advice around section 64? Did the Attorney-General seek advice on section 64? I will read that section into the record. Section 64 is titled 'Ministers of State'. I will go to the particular part headed 'Ministers to sit in Parliament'. It says:

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Simply put, section 64 refers to the appointment of ministers and requires that they be members of parliament. This section underlines the principle of responsible government. Ministers are elected representatives and are accountable to the parliament. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.