Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House of Representatives that he has asked that the question of his eligibility to be elected under section 44 of the Constitution be referred to the High Court. When Senator Canavan made a similar statement, he also said, 'Given the uncertainty around this matter, I will stand aside until the matter is resolved and resign as the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia.' Can the minister explain why Senator Canavan was required to step aside but the Deputy Prime Minister has not?

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

Yes, I can. There are obvious factual and legal differences between the two cases. However, in view of the fact that the matters are now before the High Court—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left.

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

it would not be appropriate to engage in discussion of them, lest to do so would limit any submissions the Solicitor-General may wish to make.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! A point of order, Senator Hinch?

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm having trouble hearing the Attorney-General's microphone.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I did notice that the volume was down a bit.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Order! And there was a bit of noise on my left, as well. I call the Attorney-General, and hopefully we'll be able to hear you this time.

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

Do you want me to start again?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that would be great. Thank you, Attorney-General.

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

Yes, Senator Cameron. There are obvious factual and legal differences between the two cases. However, in view of the fact that the matters are now before the High Court, it would not be appropriate to engage in discussion of them, lest to do so would limit any submissions the Solicitor-General may wish to make. Suffice it to say that, when acquainted with the situation on 25 July and on the basis of his understanding of the facts at that time, Senator Canavan decided that he would prefer to stand down. The facts of Mr Joyce's case are much clearer to us than were the facts as known to Senator Canavan at the time he made his decision. And, on the basis of those known facts and clear Solicitor-General advice, the government does not consider that there is sufficient reason for Mr Joyce to stand down.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, very interesting! Last week, the Attorney-General told the Senate that, based on advice from the Solicitor-General:

… it is the government's preliminary view that … Senator Canavan … is not in breach of section 44 of the Constitution.

Can the minister confirm that the government has less confidence in Senator Canavan's position than the Deputy Prime Minister's?

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

That is not the case, Senator. The proposition that you've put to me is incorrect. And might I, through you, Mr President, counsel senators against treating this purely as a party political matter. It is in the interests of the parliament, and in the interests of the nation, that the meaning of section 44.1 of the Constitution be clarified. And for senators to ask questions of the kind that has just come from Senator Cameron, which can only be designed or at least have the effect of potentially damaging any argument that might be put before the High Court, is a reckless thing to do.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that the reason for the different standard is that the government depends on Deputy Prime Minister Joyce for its majority in the House of Representatives?

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

No.