Doorstop interview: Citizenship

Good afternoon, everybody. Australians are sick and tired of this ridiculous citizenship fiasco. That is why a month ago Labor took the very unusual step of proposing universal disclosure of parliamentarians eligibility of citizenship to serve in the Australian Parliament. I say it was an unusual step because traditionally Labor has believed that if someone makes an accusation, they have to prove that you are not a citizen rather than the parliamentarian demonstrate that they are. But following the remarkable admissions that President Stephen Parry was not eligible to sit, and that indeed, Minister Fifield had been aware of this for some period of time, Labor realised that in order to restore confidence in the Australian Parliament, which is damaged, then we needed to have a process of universal disclosure. And Labor MPs, nearly 100 of them, have conscientiously filled in a disclosure form and demonstrated why they believe that they are eligible under the Constitution to be able to take the privileged position of sitting in the Parliament of Australia. 

 

But as we have seen the disclosures emerge in the House of Representatives from the Liberal Party, we now see that Malcolm Turnbull is engaging in a mass cover-up. There are many inadequate disclosures which raise more questions than provide answers. 

I say to Mr Turnbull today, this is not about you or me or Liberal or Labor, it is now about the Government and the Parliament of Australia. It is time to stop hiding. It is time to stop the mass cover-up. We believe that all MPs should demonstrate: are they eligible under The Constitution and what reasonable steps have they taken to renounce any foreign citizenship? 

 

Sadly, we cannot end this circus until Mr Turnbull and his MPs actually submit to full disclosure. We want the circus to end, Labor is up for that. We recognise that these are very unusual times and the very credibility of Parliament is under question, not just the Government. But we call upon Mr Turnbull to stop hiding half-filled disclosures, inadequate explanations. 

 

In addition, I just want to briefly turn to the Member for Batman. Just over a week ago he contacted me and informed me that in the process of preparing for the disclosure, some documents he thought that he had in his position, he didn't. He advised me that he was undertaking searches in both Australia and the United Kingdom for some of these documents. I informed him that he needed to do this search and furthermore, I informed him that he needed to tell the Parliament what was happening, and I made it clear to him that there was a deadline of disclosure, and even if the searches are still under way as they are, that if at the time of the referral discussion he can't provide all of the documents, then he would need to be referred to the High Court for resolution of his eligibility to serve in this Parliament. 

 

I am happy to take questions. Perhaps I will start on my left.

 

JOURNALIST: Will you be referring Mr Feeney to the High Court? Are you giving him a couple of more hours, another 12 hours or so to find his documents?

 

SHORTEN: What I believe that David has done is he's been honest. The disclosure process that we designed was to make sure that we could find on all sides of politics, that everyone was simply eligible and they can demonstrate the steps they have taken. I have made it clear, and David fronted up last night and honestly said that he would expect and support himself being referred to the High Court if at the time of the referral debate, which I imagine is in the next couple of days, if he doesn't have all of the documents then he would need to go to the High Court. I recognise that is what he said and I support that decision.

 

JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, because Labor's now agreed to refer Katy Gallagher, what about those Labor MPs in the lower house who seem to be in a very similar if not exact same situation, in terms of when they receive confirmation of their renunciation.

 

SHORTEN: I don't often say this but the Senate has got some lessons for the House of Representatives. What they have managed to do there is work on a joint basis. In other words, the Senate and its processes have worked out that jointly the Senate unanimously supports referrals of MPs who self-refer. We haven't yet got to that point in the House of Representatives and my discussions with the Government have been deeply unsatisfactory on this issue, deeply unsatisfactory. In the House of Representatives the Government is making it clear that they intend to refer their political enemies, refer their enemies to the High Court, but not apply the same standards to themselves. This is a very poor development in Australian democracy. We are happy to disclose, we are happy to be honest, we're happy to put up all of our facts on the table. But any fair-minded observation of Coalition disclosures raises more questions than it provides answers.

 

JOURNALIST: What about Labor's consistency here. If Labor has agreed Katy Gallagher should be referred, why not those lower house?

 

SHORTEN: Well, it is a consistency of the House of Representatives. We are happy -

 

JOURNALIST: But Labor's position?

 

SHORTEN: We are happy to consider joint referrals, but if the Government is not interested in doing anything other than partisan point scoring, well then that will be a fight and an argument. Our bona fides are already proof by the fact we've said in the case of Mr Feeney, we are happy to refer. So the issue isn’t whether Labor is willing to refer, the issue is the double standards of the dishonest Turnbull Government.

 

JOURNALIST: What about Josh Frydenberg, Mr Shorten? Do you agree with Michael Danby that what Mark Dreyfus has said is just political tactics?

 

SHORTEN: Far be it for me to ask journalists to give up their sources but I think people who work in Canberra understand that the attack on Frydenberg came from within his own ranks. Labor hasn't been interested in that, and we understand acutely the circumstances of his family background. I think it would assist if he provided all of the documentation or at least the legal opinion upon which he resides and relies upon.

 

Sorry, I might just share the questions around but I will come back to you.

 

JOURNALIST: If David Feeney is found ineligible by the High Court, will he recontest the seat of Batman for Labor?

 

SHORTEN: Well unlike my opposite number I am not going to start predicting what the High Court will do. Let's cross that bridge if we come to it.

 

JOURNALIST: Does he have your support to recontest it, though?

 

SHORTEN: Well again, I will remind you of what I just said. There is no vacancy there, and let's be clear, I think that David Feeney is working very hard to find the documents which support his propositions. Mark?

 

JOURNALIST: Justine Keay, Susan Lamb and Josh Wilson, your members have been talking about reasonable steps defences but the High Court makes clear in its judgement, the most recent judgement that only applies in circumstances where the countries involved won't allow the individual to renounce. So there is no reasonable steps defence for them, and through their own admission they are technically in breach of The Constitution and the High Court has shown quite clearly there is no such thing as a technicality, you are either in breach or you are not. So they should be referred now, shouldn't they?

 

SHORTEN: I say this with respect, I appreciate your legal opinion but I might pass over to Mark Dreyfus.

 

MARK DREYFUS, SHADOW ATTORNEY GENERAL: I appreciate your attempt Mark to restate the constitutional law as held by the High Court but The High Court has not -

 

JOURNALIST: Section 72 of its recent judgement shows - well, laugh. Read section 72. It does If not -

 

DREYFUS: I am not laughing but if you would let me finish, if you'd let me finish. The High Court said in Sykes v Cleary in 1992 and reconfirmed in its recent set of judgements in respect to Canavan that the all reasonable steps test applies across the board and the proposition that the Government has been putting about that you have to have done your renunciation at the date of nomination is simply wrong. That is not what the High Court said in either of these cases. The High Court was invited by the Government to overrule Sykes v Cleary when they were putting their proposition that ignorance of the law should be a defence and the High Court expressly said, we are not going to overrule Sykes v Cleary so that remains the law.

 

JOURNALIST: And with respect you don't get to make this decision the High Court gets to decide what all reasonable steps are. So again, Opposition Leader, will you refer your members for a test which only the High Court can have?

 

SHORTEN: Well I have said on a number of occasions in the last month, that once the disclosures are in the Parliament needs to adopt a joint-approach. The concern I now have when I see the disclosures in, only one side of the Parliament has played by the rules. Labor has conscientiously put forward its arguments, its propositions, why we are eligible. You could drive a mack truck through some of the inadequate and scant disclosures of the Liberals. Now, my view about referral to the High Court is there are legal questions on a range of MPs. But why does one side of politics get a leave pass from full transparency by using their numbers in the Parliament. Let me be very clear - and through you to the Australian people, Labor is absolutely prepared to reassert the confidence of the Australian people in the eligibility of the parliamentarians to sit in the Parliament, but that rule doesn't just apply to Labor. We all know that Malcolm was dragged kicking and screaming to universal disclosure. He didn't want to do it and now he wants to use his numbers to apply a higher standard to Labor. The fact of the matter is that a number of Coalition MPs blithely just say they legal advice. Well, to repeat your question to them Chris, what gives them the right to assert that their legal opinion is the end of the matter? If we had accepted that some of the MPs who got bounced out of the parliament in the most recent High Court case wouldn't have had to submit themselves.

 

Daniela. Sorry I will share the questions around.

JOURNALIST: What happens now, we have a stale-mate. We've got to wait for you or Mr Turnbull to blink first. How does this get resolved now for the Australian people?

SHORTEN: I think the path to resolution is clear. All political parties support a joint referral. Because if the alternative, if the alternative is that the Liberals say, well we're fine with their inadequate disclosures, and you're fair minded people, you know there are questions in some of their disclosures. Simply insulting the intelligence of the Australian people with unseen and unpublished legal advice to say we're fine; well that's not good enough. The resolution will come when all parties genuinely engage in universal disclosure and then we can collectively look at who for the sake of restoring public confidence we need to refer to the High Court.

JOURNALIST: Who are the seven MPs? Mr Dreyfus named seven last night, are you prepared to name the same seven today?

SHORTEN: Yes. I think that some of those, if you look and their disclosures they select themselves. Is it really good enough for MPs to say well I've got legal advice, I'm fine - well really? We've moved beyond that zone. If you remember in my opening sentence I said it was an unusual step for Labor to propose, basically a reversal of onus. It's not the way we like to do politics in Australia. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable that all of a sudden people have to prove something before it's even been proven what they've done wrong. But I think if this situation we're in is a constitutional parliamentary crisis, and therefore all who have the privilege of serving here need to restore the confidence of the Australian people. But I am gravely disappointed at the mass cover-up within the Liberal ranks.

JOURNALIST: If David Feeney can't provide his documents, why go to the High Court? Shouldn't he just resign the same way John Alexander did when he couldn't produce any documents?

SHORTEN: Let's be clear. Mr Feeney has provided some argument that he was conscious and aware of the citizenship issues. Let us be clear, let's not totally airbrush what he's said. He has said that the ALP, and we've confirmed that, advised him that because of the birthplace of his father in an excess of caution he should write to not one country but two countries renouncing citizenship. To corroborate his actions, he's found that he has written to the Irish. His problem is he can't find the same documentation. I accept that in the absence of the documentation it will be up to Mr Feeney to demonstrate, did he take all reasonable steps. But that is the case which is still argued and searches are still underway.

JOURNALIST: What is full disclosure - are you saying legal advice needs to be presented by everyone who has just said I’ve got legal advice, does that include Mark Dreyfus standing next to you in terms of any citizenship issues there? And secondly, I'm sorry I'm confused on this, but you will agree that the Labor MPs being referred if a certain number of Government MPs are referred?

SHORTEN: Let me answer your first question. What the Labor disclosures do is they show a degree of thoroughness and preparation which is missing from a range of the Liberal documents. I mean fair is fair, you've seen some of them, you wouldn't pass a year 10 assignment some of the Government - I rang someone or I know someone or I did something, but no evidence of it but I've spoken to a lawyer. That isn't good enough anymore because this citizenship crisis has moved beyond just you know, a handshake a nod and a wink. The Australian people think this place is a joke. And unfortunately that description and that sense of frustration applies to all of the Parliament. I say to Malcolm Turnbull, we'll be partners in cleaning the place up, but we're not just going to be your whipping boy for your political purposes and mass cover-up.

You go to that second point which is the proposition of which MPs. I haven't been as specific as what your question implies but I am being quite clear. I am prepared to work with the Government and the cross bench, not because I think the MPs that the Liberals keep banging on about have got any problem. But I do accept that there is a need in Australia to restore public confidence in our Parliament. But the idea that somehow with the inadequate disclosures we've seen, that somehow some people just get a leave pass because their party is in power and they can bully the minority. We will fight that, because that doesn't actually restore the confidence.

There was an earlier question asked by Daniel which really goes to the heart of the matter. When does this end? Mr Turnbull thinks it ends by playing a numbers game and bullying his enemies. That doesn't end the crisis in this Parliament. It ends when everyone is satisfied that MPs are legitimately eligible under The Constitution and the law to sit in this Parliament.

JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, James asked and I thought you were able to answer, which seven MPs on their side -

SHORTEN: Of the seven which were mentioned in Mark Dreyfus' -

DREYFUS: I'm happy to list them again. Nola Merino, Jason Falinski, Alex Hawke, Michael McCormack, Arthur Sinodinos, Julia Banks and Josh Frydenberg. Now I'm not singling out any one of them, but as a group, they have failed to clear up the uncertainty that the disclosure process was designed to remove. And it's because of the inconclusive way in which they have chosen to answer the disclosure form, the keeping secret of a range of material which they've clearly got available to them, that we are saying that unless they make clear what the actual position is, unless they properly described their factual situations they’re in, not simply say I've got legal advice but I'm not showing you. Then they should also be referred - let me finish - we are not saying right now they need to be referred, we are saying they need to properly fulfil this disclosure process and the Prime Minister should stop helping them keep secret, what "something" is there.

JOURNALIST: Penny Wong told the Senate this morning Arthur would not be pursued because of his illness. Ed Husic has gone public and said Josh shouldn't be pursued.

DREYFUS: It's not a matter for Ed Husic to make a decision on this matter.

SHORTEN: Perhaps as Leader I can address that. I think that what Penny did was absolutely spot on. I'm not going to - Arthur's got a challenge, we respect that but we do reserve the point that we don't believe that full disclosure has occurred. Don't confuse the fact that of course we understand his circumstances and I'm deeply sympathetic to that. But we also think that there is an issue, it's putting a marker as opposed to the use of the word pursuit.
 
In terms of Josh well you know, I'm on the record. I think that his family are remarkable and I think that he's a pretty good fellow actually and I don't say that about a lot of the people that sit opposite and give me free advice in Question Time. But it wasn't us who started the rumour debate and I think fair is fair. Most of you or some of you would know that especially those of you who perhaps wrote about it, so we haven't been in the glass house throwing rocks but I do think in the excess of caution, the problem is not Josh's the problem is the Parliament's. The problem we face is that we've had a number of MPs - 10 pinged out of the place or big questions. Now we find out that Mr Feeney, certainly I think has to do some more due diligence and demonstrate his bona fide. So we're not arguing about that we say that's fair enough and that's because of Labor's approach. But what I find galling is that Mr Turnbull will yell and carry on and strut the stage and say Labor's all bad and I'm all bad, but at the end of the day what he fails to understand is that people mark the Parliament down. We believe in full disclosure, we've had one in nearly 100 MPs under Labor not able to find some documents and we take that seriously.  Mr Turnbull needs to show the same standards. You haven't had a question yet. 

JOURNALIST: Mr Dreyfus, could you explain how your – the level of detail that you’ve included in your personal declaration is different from Mr Frydenberg. From memory you’ve set out the statement about your family history but there is no adjoining, like any appendix to that about legal advice or the like. Can you point out how yours differs, why you are arguing yours is stronger than Josh Frydenberg’s.

DREYFUS: Sure, perhaps I'd start by saying that in every case it's a matter of the law of the foreign country, it's a matter of the law in Germany or the law of Hungary in Josh's case, the law of Italy, the law of Greece, the law of the United Kingdom. And what the disclosure process calls for is for members of the Australian Parliament to state the relevant matters to establish that if there's a possibility that they were a foreign citizen what the actual facts are and what they've done. What I've done is to very clearly set out the facts of my father and my grandparent's arrival in Australia fleeing Nazi Germany and they escaped the Holocaust, regrettably, my great grandparents did not. So believe me I share the pain that Josh Frydenberg's family have experienced here without any doubt at all. But German law is different from Hungarian law, I've set out the relevant parts of the German law and if anyone wants to see documents that I've obtained from the Australian archives I'll show them but it's not a doubt, there is not a doubt in the case of what I've set out in the disclosure statement. The concern that we and Labor are expressing is that there are Liberal MPs who have deliberately kept secret a range of material meaning that the uncertainty around this Parliament, the potential constitutional illegitimacy of this Parliament continues, we are calling for those matters to be cleared up.

JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten should anyone referred to the High Court tomorrow resign from Parliament immediately?

SHORTEN: Well that isn't what happened in previous cases but Katy Gallagher has stepped back from the front bench.

JOURNALIST: So just to clarify you'll refer your MPs who there's a question mark over their status because of the nomination process if the Government refers the list that you named and have you spoken to those Labor MPs Justine Keay, Susan Lamb and Josh Wilson since this?

SHORTEN: I think you're taking what I said just a little bit further than what I meant at this stage. What I'm offering the Government even though I think that they're not interested in it at the moment but I hope that they come to their senses, is a path to actually resolving confidence to the Parliament. My objective here and the objective of my party is to restore confidence in the Parliament. The way we restore confidence in the Parliament is by establishing the constitutional eligibility of our people all of them, Liberal, Labor and whatever else to sit in the Parliament and what I'm saying is the way we've done that - and it's Labor that's driven it through universal disclosure, and even if that's been uncomfortable for us so be it. What I want to do and whilst I haven't put any names against who we'd refer and that was something David asked earlier I'm saying to Malcolm, this problem is not just Labor's and it's not just yours, it's the Parliament's and the Governments - have full disclosure. I mean, I don't want to remind the Government of some of the unkind things they said about me when they tried to say I was a secret pom or a secret agent of the British-  though that was last week obviously they think I'm doing something else this week. But in all seriousness, they said if you've got nothing to hide show us, well I did. And I say to Malcolm Turnbull if your MPs have got nothing to hide then show us and don't rely on these disclosures.

 I did say Mark, two or three more questions. 

JOURNALIST: Do you accept now Mr Shorten those many, many occasions that you insisted that there was no cloud over the head of any Labor MP on citizenship that you were misleading the Australian people?

 

SHORTEN: Oh listen, I am deeply frustrated, that's a polite way of putting it, that one of my hundred MPs can't find some of the documents which, to be fair to him says exist and says he actioned, absolutely I am frustrated by that. And so if I'd known back then everything that I know as of today, sure I would have used different words and I'm not too proud to admit that. But what I also know is this; this is an issue where The Constitution has to be - sets the eligibility and the courts have interpreted eligibility and how you meet the constitutional test. There have been any number of MPs bounced out of the Parliament, I have to say up to the Member for Batman this hasn't been a cloud I believe, over any of our MPs and by the way I am still confident that my MPs have taken all reasonable steps but I accept if we're going to set a high standard of disclosure then Labor too has to stand up for that and we have to meet it. But in all fairness do we really believe that the disclosures of all those Government MPs are adequate? When you line up the Labor disclosures with some of the Liberal disclosures and Mark's mentioned some of them, you could drive a truck through it. And as Mr Turnbull said, as Mr Abbott said, as all of his sort of, gang on the front bench yelled at me directly if you've got nothing to hide what are you worried about, I say to Malcolm if you've got nothing to hide what are you worried about.

 

Thanks everybody, catch up with you very soon.