Introduction

Referral

1.1        On 14 November 2017 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 4 December 2017:

Whether the conduct of the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) conformed to the Principles of the Ministerial Code of Conduct in relation to his knowledge of former Senator Parry's dual-citizenship status.[1]

Background

1.2      On 27 October 2017, the High Court handed down its decision relating to the possible disqualification of seven parliamentarians pursuant to subsection 44(i) of the Constitution.[2] The High Court held that five of the seven parliamentarians were disqualified by virtue of holding citizenship of a country other than Australia.[3]

1.3      The following week, on 31 October 2017, Senator the Hon Stephen Parry, then President of the Senate, announced that he may be a citizen of the United Kingdom (UK).[4] After confirmation from the UK Home Office of his UK citizenship on 1 November 2017, Senator Parry resigned as the President of the Senate and as a Senator for Tasmania.[5]

1.4        There was some criticism of Senator Parry in the media. It was later reported that months prior to the announcement of his dual-citizenship status, Senator Parry spoke to 'senior government ministers' about his situation and was advised not to comment publicly but rather to await the High Court ruling.[6] On 3 November 2017 it was reported that Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield, Minister for Communications, was aware that Senator Parry may have been a dual citizen prior to Senator Parry's announcement.[7]

1.5      On 13 November 2017, Senator Fifield provided a statement to the Senate concerning his discussion with Senator Parry:

... I can't be definitive as to when former Senator Parry started to reflect about his particular circumstances. While it would have been more than a couple of weeks before the High Court decision, it was not months. He indicated that he was endeavouring to check his family's own records.

Former Senator Parry always recognised that it was the responsibility of each senator and member to determine and be satisfied about their own circumstances, and I encouraged him to do so. This duty is individual and personal. It cannot be abrogated, outsourced or transferred, and former Senator Parry never sought to do so. Suggestions I directed the former senator are wrong. I did not speak to others about a private discussion with a colleague on a matter of their responsibility about which they had not, to my knowledge, reached a concluded view. On the Monday after the High Court decision, former Senator Parry let me know that he had sought advice from the British Home Office, had advised the Attorney-General of this and had thought it unlikely he would return to the parliament. Former Senator Parry has subsequently resigned his office. We are each responsible for assessing our own circumstances regarding eligibility to sit in this place.[8]

Note on references

1.6        In this report, references to Hansards and Journals are to proof transcripts. Page numbers may vary between proof and official transcripts.

Conduct of inquiry

1.7        Details of the inquiry were advertised on the committee's website. The committee agreed not to call for submissions.[9] The committee held a public hearing in Canberra on 27 November 2017. Witnesses who appeared before the public hearing are listed at appendix 1 of this report and the Hansard transcript of the hearing is available on the committee's website.

Structure of report

1.8        There are two chapters in the report. This chapter sets out the administrative details and background to this inquiry.

1.9        Chapter 2 outlines the ministerial code of conduct, key issues raised during the inquiry and sets out the committee's views.

Acknowledgements

1.10      The committee thanks the witnesses for making themselves available to give evidence at the public hearing.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page