Page 514 - Week 02 - Thursday, 22 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I certainly find that a surprising statement. One would think that matters of constitutional law would be determined legally, rather than politically. Senator Puplick stated on page 12 of Hansard, on 16 February 1988:
... there are as many senators sitting on this side of the chamber who potentially are at risk from what the High Court could decide in this matter as there are on the Government side of the chamber. You, Mr President, would be as acutely aware of this problem as I am.
Also on 16 February 1988, on page 14 of Hansard, Senator Stone spoke of the circumstances of a person who finds that inadvertently and unknowingly he or she has been in breach of law. In relation to the proper course of action to take, he stated:
The proper course is, first, to make a clean breast of it; to go to you, Mr President, or perhaps to the Minister, or both, and to point out as soon as he became aware of this deficiency in his election ... Secondly, I think the honourable course for a person in such circumstances is to ask himself - not to wait for the Government - whether the matter should be considered by the Court of Disputed Returns so that the matter can be adjudicated upon and decided. Thirdly, he should offer to stand aside while that process proceeds and is concluded.
I think we all recall the case of Mr Robert Wood, and the High Court of Australia which, in that case, said that the interpretation of section 44(i) and its applicability to an Australian citizen, who was also a citizen - or who may conceivably against his own wishes, be entitled to the rights or privileges of a citizen - of the United Kingdom, or of countries other than Australia, are questions of great contemporary importance.
As those questions were not fully argued, their resolution must be left for another day. I quote a statement - given to, I believe, all members of this Assembly some while ago - made by the barrister, George Turner, who has done much to try to have this matter attended to by the people who should attend to it - the Federal Parliament. He stated:
The detailed knowledge therefore which existed in all parliamentary parties of this issue and its prima facie consequences for many in parliament cannot be ignored by the Australian people. That the matter should have been raised in parliament immediately after the High Court decision was handed down, and those cases of known prima facie breaches referred to the High Court is beyond doubt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .