Senate debates

Tuesday, 5 September 2017

Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers

Deputy Leader of the Nationals

4:07 pm

Photo of Linda ReynoldsLinda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

After listening to these questions to Minister Nash over the last two days, I'm not only embarrassed as a senator but also ashamed as a woman to see a conga line of women over the other side, as if somehow the fact that only women are asking Minister Nash these questions makes what they've done okay. It is not okay. For two days in Senate question time, when we should have been talking about energy prices, national security, North Korea and jobs in regional Australia, they have persisted with these disgraceful questions. I have never been as proud of any of my Senate colleagues as I have been of Senator Nash in the last two days in the way she answered these questions from the female senators over the other side of this chamber. She was graceful, she was calm and she was very clear in her answers to the same questions over and over again. She could not have been any clearer. I heard what she said in this place on 17 August, and I've read what the Attorney-General said on 18 August. To keep coming in here asking her these same questions is nothing short of disgraceful, particularly when you know she is entitled to be the minister, to make the decisions and to get on with the job for regional Australia in the way that she is.

Those opposite keep asking the same questions over and over again. If they missed Senator Nash's comments in the chamber on 17 August and haven't bothered to go back and read the transcript of what she said or the very detailed explanation the Attorney-General gave to a committee the following day, I will now answer the questions, as Senator Nash has over and over again, and provide the detail that those opposite have been seeking. They have asked about the time line and about the evidence. Senator Brandis said:

… on Monday evening, the government was made aware of advice from the British Home Office that, on the basis of the limited facts then available, it appeared that Senator Nash may be a British citizen by descent. She advised the Prime Minister early on Monday evening and the Prime Minister advised me. I then called the Solicitor-General to let him know that we would be seeking his urgent advice …

Then it goes on to more things that happened on the Monday. On Tuesday, the Attorney-General said his office:

… received an email from counsel assisting the Solicitor-General saying that the Solicitor-General would like expert advice from a United Kingdom citizenship lawyer in order to prepare his opinion. During the course of Tuesday and Wednesday—

when that further advice was sought from a United Kingdom citizenship lawyer—

further information was sought from Senator Nash to identify or establish relevant aspects of her family history.

It continues:

… by Wednesday we had identified a suitable English QC who was an expert in UK citizenship law and who was available to advise the government urgently. On Wednesday evening, again at 7.16 pm, one of my staff emailed John Reid, who is the head of the Office of International Law within the Attorney-General's Department, with instructions to the UK barrister

It goes through exactly who said what and did what, what advice was sought and what advice was received. The advice from Dr Donaghue, the Solicitor-General, was received at the Attorney-General's office at 'approximately 5 pm last night', which was the Thursday night. Senator Brandis said: 'The Prime Minister dropped into my office at 6.15 pm on the Thursday to discuss the matter' and they immediately called the governance committee of cabinet to review the matter, straightaway, on Thursday night. It continues:

The governance committee resolved that the matter should be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Prime Minister asked Senator Nash to come and see him. She arrived a few minutes later.

That is, around 7 pm.

We decided, between 6.30 and 6.50, roughly, that Senator Nash should go into the Senate immediately to tell the parliament and the public what the position was.

And what the legal advice had been.

A brief statement was drafted for her, and she went into the Senate, as you know, and made the statement to the Senate at about 7.05 pm. The statement to the Senate was made approximately 50 minutes after the Prime Minister and I first saw the Solicitor-General's legal advice.

It could not be any clearer that Senator Nash—Minister Nash—has done the right thing. She is entitled to be a minister here, and for you to do what you've done is utterly disgraceful. You should be ashamed. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments