Doorstop - Parliament House

06 Dec 2017 Transcipt

SUBJECTS: Parliament Schedule; Citizenship Referrals to the High Court; SSM

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Can I say at the outset that the government is very disappointed that the Labor Party has spent much of this week playing politics. On Monday on penalty rates and Manus Island, today on Citizenship when the whole country is expecting us to be dealing with marriage equality. This should have been a week where marriage equality was a positive, constructive change, a big social change in our country, instead Labor can’t help themselves, and we saw that again this afternoon on the citizenship status of the members of the House of Representatives. So the government wants to debate marriage equality, we want to get on with that, Labor doesn’t, Labor wants to just try and play politics as they have all week. That’s very disappointing for many, many Australians who’ve travelled to Canberra for this historic conscience vote, private member’s bill on marriage equality, but it’s the government’s intention that we will pursue this issue tonight. Tomorrow we will deal with marriage equality from the get-go at 9:30 until it’s done, until the amendments are done and unfortunately the Labor party hasn’t had the same priority despite what they professed for apparently many months.
On the issue of citizenship it is still the government’s view that Justine Keay, Susan Lamb and Josh Wilson and Rebekha Sharkie should be referred to the High Court. The House has referred David Feeney, the member for Batman to the High Court and the Senate has referred Katy Gallagher, the Senator from the ACT to the High Court, so there are now 2 Labor MPs who the High Court will determine their eligibility to sit in the Parliament. Of course, Mr Shorten has said for months that there were no Labor people at all that have any cloud over their citizenship, quite clearly that isn’t the case and the House of Representatives today has voted not to refer Justine Keay, Susan Lamb, Josh Wilson and Rebekha Sharkie to the High Court. They should have been referred, but over the summer break the High Court will rule on the status of Katy Gallagher and that will give more clarity to the status of those particular members. And in February of course, the Parliament will return and the government will re-visit that subject, but we’ll keep talking to the independents on the cross-bench, we’ll keep talking to them tonight and tomorrow to explain why members that they believed could have been referred have no question to answer. And if those numbers change over the course of the next 24 hours once we’ve finished marriage equality we will return to that subject if that is appropriate, but if the
numbers aren’t there we don’t see any point in having a re-run of this afternoon’s debate. With that, I’m happy to answer any questions.
JOURNALIST: It’s a change of mind isn’t it, because the Prime Minister only a couple of hours ago was saying that we should be dealing with these on a case by case basis.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We will intend to deal with them on a case by case basis, I don’t understand how that’s changed.
JOURNALIST: As in the House and the House of Reps should deal with them one at a time.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: That is our view that they should be deal it with one at a time, so that hasn’t changed Andrew, perhaps I wasn’t clear. When we return in February and there’s more clarity around the High Court’s decision on Katy Gallagher. If we move motions in the House of Representatives or if you move it tomorrow for that matter, we will deal with them each independently exactly as I described them in the House. We moved a motion on Susan Keay, a motion on Josh Wilson, a motion on Susan Lamb, a motion on Rebekha Sharkie so I think that’s the more appropriate way to do it.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Katy Gallagher is disqualified why would the other three MPs you’ve just mentioned even need to be referred because it’s the same set of circumstances?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Yes, they should resign, in the event that the High Court finds that Katy Gallagher is disqualified each of those members should resign in exactly the way John Alexander resigned, and that Barnaby Joyce went to a bi-election after the High Court ruled him to be ineligible. We did the right thing on that subject, Labor hasn’t done the right thing and they’ve proven themselves to not be doing the right thing, so my assumption is that they will continue to obfuscate and run this as though they’re at a NSW Sussex Street ALP conference, but they should, in the event that Katy Gallagher is disqualified, they should resign immediately as soon as John Alexander had enough doubt about his citizenship he resigned and there’s a bi-election in Bennelong. So of course I would call on each of those members to resign, especially if the High Court finds that Katy Gallagher is disqualified. But I think they should have resigned by now, the truth is they were all citizens of the UK on the 9th of June 2016 when nominations closed for their seats.
JOURNALIST: What about your own backbenchers, your own members, the 4 that have a question mark over their head. Are you going to talk to Labor about this and deal with all of what the cross bench has suggested?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No we won’t be doing that, there are no people in the Coalition party room who have a doubt over their citizenship at all.
JOURNALIST: That’s what you think but Labor doesn’t think that, nor do the cross-bench. Will you be asking those 4 members to put forward more paperwork?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No we won’t be doing that. The members in question have released their legal advice today, in the case of Josh Frydenberg and Jason Falinski I understand, though I’ve been in the House so I’ve missed some of that. There is no doubt about the citizenship status of those members that Labor has tried to drag into
this net. What Labor has done is a political stunt, pure and simple, they’ve been presented with a political problem which is that the Leader of the Opposition took the Labor caucus down a track which ended up with four of his members, plus Katy Gallagher being ineligible to sit in the Parliament. The leadership team of the ALP not wanting to see Bill Shorten embarrassed created the fig leaf that there were Liberal members who had doubts and need to answer these questions, that is complete and utter tripe and we certainly will not be giving any credence to it.
JOURNALIST: Josh Frydenberg hasn’t released any legal advice.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: You’ll have to talk to Josh about that. As I said I was in the House, Jason Falinski’s release his legal advice, it’s up to Josh whether he does his.
JOURNALIST: The Prime Minister has suggested the legal advice that Labor MPs have is insufficient and most cases need to be referred to the High Court, so why is the Legal advice the Coalition MPs have is sufficient?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It’s because it’s very clear from the evidence, factually, that the four members that we have wanted to refer were UK citizens on the June the 9th 2016, that’s not something that’s in issue. There is no doubt about that, Sarah they have each admitted that that’s the case, as has Rebekha Sharkie, so there is no doubt those members should be referred. Now, there are question marks over other Labor members if you look at Anne Aly’s register of interests, she says she wrote to the Egyptian government and has not had a response, now we are taking at face value that she says that she’s not a citizen of another country but those 5 members, including the 4 Labor ones, have all admitted that they were UK citizens on June the 9th and in the case of the Liberal members there is nobody in that position.
JOURNALIST: … was talking today about the frustration out there in real world land about the way that politicians can’t even sort this out, and this looks like dragging on until next year, what do you say to the people at home (inaudible)
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I say to those people that the Coalition did the right thing. When there we doubts about our members, whether it was Fiona Nash, or Barnaby Joyce or John Alexander or Stephen Parry they resigned or they asked the High Court to clarify their position, Matt Canavan. We did exactly what you should do, Labor on the other hand are playing politics because that’s all Labor understands. When the Leader of the Opposition’s world is a 12 hour news cycle and he hopes this will all blow over, but what they’ve done today, of course, is ensure that it will go on into next year unless between now and the rise of the Parliament one of the independents changes their mind. I am disappointed, obviously, that Labor would rather throw up dust, create a smoke screen, try and raise doubts about members about whom there is no doubt. If you follow the Labor Party’s logic if you raise a question mark about someone apparently they have to go off to the High Court, like the crucible by Miller or like the Salem witch trials, if you raise a doubt apparently they have to go to the High Court - no, you have to examine the evidence. Now we’ve created a process, there’s a register of interests, members have put their evidence forward, it’s very clear that the 5 members the government wants to refer are all in breach of the rules and the High Court should rule on whether being UK citizens on the 9th of June 2016 disqualifies them from sitting in the Parliament. That isn’t the case with any member of the Coalition and the public, I’m sure, are wondering why it is that Labor, rather than taking their lumps and going to the High Court for a ruling are instead yet again fighting it like a Sussex Street brawl.
JOURNALIST: You’re on the record, the Prime Minister’s on the record, George Brandis is on the record say that if there are any problems that you will refer these Labor members to the High Court. What’s changed now, why are you waiting for Katy Gallagher’s case to be…
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No it hasn’t changed, you obviously haven’t been – I wasn’t very clear, perhaps, in my explanation.
JOURNALIST: So you’re not going to refer other members?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We will continue to talk to the independents tonight and tomorrow. If one of the independents indicates that they agree with the government that they will refer the Labor MPs to the High Court we will move those motions…
JOURNALIST: This week?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Of course, but if they don’t then it will be exactly the same result as it was this afternoon, 74 all and the Speaker will cast his vote in the negative, so therefore there isn’t much point in doing that, but if there is any change amongst the cross-benchers we will deal with this this week, and I would call on one of the cross benchers, or all of the cross-benchers, to decide that they would rather resolve these matters this week, in fact a couple of the cross-benchers held out that prospect in their speeches in the chamber, if one of them changes their mind we will re-commit motions on those members, but if they don’t then there is not a great deal of point in delaying marriage equality again over a fool’s errand.
JOURNALIST: What about Rebekha Sharkie, she’s effectively conceded that she should be referred but says she doesn’t want to go alone, she wants others to go with her. Isn’t that an extraordinary situation for the electors of Mayo that she will probably continue as their MP until February without being referred just on the basis that other people aren’t referred.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: That’s a good question to put to Rebekha Sharkie. Rebekha Sharkie indicated that she was happy to be referred to the High Court and then didn’t refer herself to the High Court. David Feeney has been referred to the High Court at his own request this afternoon, the Member for Batman. Rebekha Sharkie is in a very similar position, you’d have to ask her why she is continuing to not refer herself and the numbers aren’t there to refer her unless she agrees to do so. So that’s really a matter for Rebekha Sharkie to answer but I think she should reconsider that position and I think she should refer herself to the High Court. And Peter, she could do that tomorrow.
JOURNALIST: What do you think punters at home are going to be thinking knowing full well this might not be resolved by Christmas, it might not be resolved by February, and if we continue to have people referred next year this will drag on into next year. What do you think foreign governments are now starting to think about how unstable our parliament is?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, I wouldn’t regard it as unstable, it’s one of the more stable Parliaments in the world, in fact, it’s probably the envy of many Parliaments of the world. I think you’re being a bit tabloid about that, the situation is if the High Court has made a ruling about peoples’ status under section 44 of the constitution, the government is dealing with that as sensible, sober governments do, that’s exactly the
steps that we are taking. We’ve asked the questions; we’ve created a process, its Labor that has decided to pretend that the members who clearly should be referred to the High Court will not be, and the crossbenchers, but not the Coalition government; the coalition government is getting on with the job…
JOURNALIST: Because it doesn’t have the numbers?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well yes, you’re stating the obvious, yes.
QUESTION: Is it inevitable that we have to have a referendum on Section 44 of the Constitution?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well referendums haven’t had a great deal of success in Australia’s political history so I think we need to work within the rules that the High Court has created, they took a very literal view of Section 44, more literal than I think it had been interpreted previously. That’s a matter for the High Court, they are the highest court in the land and whether we have a referendum or not I think is a debate for another day. You’d want to be very confident that there was bi-partisan support for a referendum; we don’t want to put people through a referendum only to have it lose like so many others have. Go James, you’ve been very persistent…
JOURNALIST: The deadlock is 74 all on the floor of the House. You can’t refer these other members; does that mean the government has actually lost control on the floor of the House?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, when you don’t have one of your members in the Parliament because they’re facing bi-election and you won 76 seats and one of them is the Speaker it means you have the same equality of votes with the opposition and the cross-benches, it doesn’t mean the government has lost control of the House, it means it didn’t win a vote. Now, during the Gillard government, the 43rd Parliament of which I was a member, the government lost 64 votes, 64 votes and as a consequence you didn’t say then that the government has lost control of the Parliament and the government ran full term. So I think there is an inevitability when you have a bi-election in Bennelong that the government is going to face choppy waters and this week, in fact, we’ve done very well, we’ve won every vote that we’ve expected to win except when 2 members accidentally didn’t make it but you can’t exactly blame every other members of the government for that. We recommitted that and won it. Sarah
JOURNALIST: If you win Bennelong will you make a hostile referral of those Labor MPs with to the High Court?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We have to win Bennelong, and John Alexander is the best candidate to win Bennelong, he’s the best local member, he’s serving his electorate, whereas Kristina Keneally sees this as another career move. I certainly would not be pre-empting the decision of the electors of Bennelong, that is a matter for them. The government is putting its best foot forward, as is John Alexander, to win that seat and that’s our priority on December the 16th. In fact, I’m going to go to Bennelong
and hand out how to vote cards which may or may not help win the seat. We’re not even thinking about putting that in our column until it’s actually won and that’s very much up to the voters of Bennelong.
JOURNALIST: Can I ask, if the High Court clear Gallagher, will you not proceed with the other Labor members?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We have to wait and see what happens with the High Court’s decision. So the High Court will give us further clarity on Katy Gallagher’s position, and certainly if the High Court rules Katy Gallagher ineligible then Justine Keay, Josh Wilson, Susan Lamb and Rebekha Sharkie should all resign from the Parliament because they would all be in the same boat. But we have to examine, of course, what the High Court decides and I wouldn’t want to pre-empt the High Court.
JOURNALIST: Just quickly on the timing Mr Pne, you said this would be sorted out over the summer break, but doesn’t the High Court break in a week for the holiday period and they’re not back until early February, so this Katy Gallagher case won’t be dealt with until at least mid-Feb, and then you think these referrals might go on almost until budget time or the beginning of next year.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It’s hard for me to comment on the High Court’s schedule that’s a matter for them…
JOURNALIST: But can that be done this year with the Katy Gallagher case?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: The High Court might well decide that they will look at the matter over the summer break, I don’t know.
JOURNALIST: Is there precedent for that?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I don’t presume to give advice to the High Court on when they should or shouldn’t sit so we’ll have to wait and see when they decide to deal with it. Thank you.