Page 1773 - Week 05 - Thursday, 10 May 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that that only the territory, Queensland and Tasmania have, in addition to the same party requirement, an additional requirement that the person is qualified to be a senator.
The continuing resolution of this place mirrors the requirement in section 170 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. In this context, and given the very clear advice and work that have already been undertaken by the administration and procedure committee, I do not believe it is necessary to establish a privileges committee. Nice try, Leader of the Opposition, but we will not be supporting your political stunt today.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Lee): The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call Mr Rattenbury.
Mrs Dunne: Madam Assistant Speaker—
Mr Rattenbury: You go.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I call Mrs Dunne.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.42): I thank Mr Rattenbury for giving way. That is not the right word; yielding, I think, is the right word. Madam Assistant Speaker, this is an important matter and it is not a stunt. Members will recall that in November last year I raised these matters with the Speaker. I raised them because of my concerns that as the former Speaker I may have been involved in a chain of events. I think the most important part of this is not just that the Assembly may have been misled but that this Assembly may have misled the Governor-General.
I think that these matters need to be addressed. It is not a stunt. The Chief Minister is right. The administration and procedure report does say that we have the most robust system of any parliament in the country. But it did not work. We succeeded in appointing someone who, as it subsequently transpired, was not eligible to be appointed. I think it is an interesting palm-off by the Chief Minister to say that it is not our job to decide whether or not the person that we appoint is eligible to be appointed. That is utterly wrong and utterly mischievous. It is our job—
Mr Barr: We are not the High Court. We cannot make that determination.
MRS DUNNE: Yes, we are not the High Court, and there are many things that we could do that may have prevented this whole situation from ever getting to the High Court. I have long been of the view that the statutory declaration that has been used on both occasions for casual vacancies in hindsight—in hindsight, Madam Assistant Speaker—is probably deficient because it says at paragraph 2, “In addition, I am not a citizen or subject of a foreign country.”
That is not the test under section 44 of the constitution in relation to citizenship. Perhaps we should be looking at whether or not the statutory declaration should be more fulsome. Should it say, “I am not entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen of a foreign country”? There is no doubt that many of the people who have fallen foul
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video