Senator ROBERT RAY (6:08 PM) —The nub of the problem with Senator Harris's motion is that it really reverses the onus of proof; that is what is wrong with it. But I must say that in some sense, as he is representing such a xenophobic party, to see him have the broadness of mind to try to introduce the French judicial system into Australia or into the Senate's procedures is at least refreshing. One of the more intriguing parts I have found, from listening to the press conference the other day, is that Senator Harris and his staff member have a secret list. They waved the list around and said, `Here is a list of suspects.' The press asked them to table the list of suspects but they did not. I must say that I thought I had gone in a time machine back 45 or 50 years and was listening to the junior senator from Wisconsin, who also had a variety of secret lists. That is really the point: if Senator Harris has suspects, he should name them.

Senator Harris, if you think there is a senator sitting around here or a member of the House of Representatives who is not properly qualified, name them. Put your finger in the pencil grinder, have a go and name them! Of course, Senator Harris or any other Australian citizen can take the qualifications of a senator or a member to the Court of Disputed Returns. Indeed, Senator Harris has one other advantage: he can use this chamber to refer matters to the Court of Disputed Returns, not a right accorded to the average citizen. Indeed, this chamber at any stage can send a matter to the Court of Disputed Returns, notwithstanding anything that is in the Electoral Act that prescribes timing or in any other way restricts rights. It is an unrestricted right and it is a right that has been used in the past.

Senator Webster was sent off to the Court of Disputed Returns on a matter of office of profit under the Crown and Senator Woods was sent off—by me, as it happens, by way of a resolution but with the support of the Senate—because he was not an Australian citizen. Senator Ferris almost made it there. This place carried a conditional motion and Senator Ferris—basically, I think, on advice from some of us implicitly—adopted the technique of resigning to get over the offence that may have occurred and then being reappointed.

So it is not unheard of for this chamber to refer a matter of qualification to the Court of Disputed Returns but it always does that on the basis of some evidence—and we do not want to reverse the onus of proof. What next are we going to have to get up and declare? Are we all going to have to get up and declare our sexual preference, whether we are vegetarians, what our religious view is or whether we have ever once in our life imbibed a controlled substance?

Senator Sherry —You didn't inhale.

Senator Bartlett —Sounds like fun.

Senator ROBERT RAY —It is fun in some categories but not in others. The basic point is that we do not have to prove, other than by giving our word, that we are properly here. If we are improperly here, it is up to someone else to prove it. Not only is it up to someone else to prove it; they can put some of their money up to prove it, just to test themselves.

I will tell you one thing that did not surprise me. Senator Faulkner alluded to the fact that if Senator Harris were fair dinkum about this he would step aside for Mrs Hill. Several journos rang me at the time this went to the court and I said, `I don't know what the result will be but I will bet you any money you like that, if Senator-elect Hill gets knocked out, the number two on the ticket will not stand aside.'

I can recall the Woods case in 1988-89. Unfortunately he was in this chamber when it went against him in an afternoon. It was 4 o'clock and he came across and said, `I'm sorry I lost the court case but the number two on the ticket will step aside and I will be back here Monday.' I said, `Good luck. I am really pleased for you, Robert.' I got to the Ansett lounge 20 minutes later and Irina Dunn had left three phone messages for me, as the minister in charge of parliamentary and ministerial services, wondering when she could move into her new office. I just said, `Thank you, Irina, for re-establishing my faith in human nature because for a while I was disillusioned.'

I am not critical of Senator Harris for not stepping aside for the disqualified Senator-elect Hill. I suspect that, frankly, he will be a better senator than Mrs Hill; I think he has probably got some better qualities than his current senior staffer. Nevertheless, Senator Harris, if you wanted to rectify this position overall, it would take just one page. Type it up or I will get it typed for you, if you like. Give me a copy of your letterhead—`I, Senator Harris, resign'—and then the Queensland One Nation Party could send Senator-elect Hill down here because she would now be qualified.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator ROBERT RAY —Colleagues must understand that there may not be a state based One Nation Party but that, because of the federal registration rules, the federal party maintain their registration. But what all of this reflects is a lack of attention to detail, and in many ways it is just desserts. If One Nation take a simplistic view of politics and argue that there are simplistic solutions, then that is what One Nation live by. But that very simplicity means they cannot get their candidate properly qualified before a Senate election and they cannot properly register their political party before a state election and may, in the process, forfeit half a million dollars in public funding. That, if you like, is the penalty that applies to an amateur political party that prides itself on its amateurishness.

Senator Sherry —Isn't it a company?

Senator ROBERT RAY —As Senator Sherry said, it is a company, and they simply have to pay the price for that. Senator Harris quoted himself from the press conference. Let me quote him again:

Any senator who opposes my motion—and I obviously hope there will not be any—is obviously trying to hide something and will have to answer to the press and the Australian people.

I have to say that that is a slimy tactic in this place. People will oppose motions. They are not trying to hide something. They oppose them out of principle; they oppose them because they think they are a stunt. It is very poor form to accuse senators in this place of voting against a motion because they are trying to hide something. It is simply not true. If you have to vote for every resolution that has this implicit blackmail in it, then we will have these stunts day in, day out.

I did watch that press conference, and I thought that we as senators were diminished by it. I thought it was a rather sad press conference. Apart from the build-up that was not delivered on, frankly I found it very sad to see a senator sitting there being interrupted and overridden by a staff member. Maybe in that one sense I am an elitist, but I do believe in the pre-eminence of the senator as opposed to the staffer. I hope that, within that, I accord a whole range of rights to staffers but not one of sitting at a press conference telling me what to do and correcting me in front of all those journos. That is not a very good look for the Senate, or for anyone else for that matter.

Let us get down to the nub of the problem. The nub of the problem is that Senator-elect Hill was disqualified. I do not think that Senator-elect Hill deliberately put herself at risk. I do not think she knew that you not only had to have Australian citizenship but also had to renounce. I do not think she knew that. I do not think she consciously kept her UK citizenship, but one of the questions that should be asked of someone who is so opposed to other people coming into this country—and I have heard her being interviewed on this subject—is: why didn't she take out citizenship? She was in this country for well over 20 years and qualified for citizenship for 20 years and did not take it out.

Why did she take out Australian citizenship? So she could run for the Ipswich seat in the state election. That is the only reason why. I know she was part of that unique band of people who were born in the UK and who still have voting rights within Australia, but it does not show much commitment that, when you are eligible to become an Australian citizen for more than 20 years, you only do so to run for parliament. Even so, I would not be critical except for the fact that we have heard a whole range of racist and xenophobic views out of the then Senator-elect Hill—criticising others when she herself, the great patriot, would not take out citizenship for more than two decades.

As Senator Knowles indicated, following the Hill case the qualifications in terms of citizenship and renunciation are quite explicit. I would not even try to mislead the Senate to say that I was surprised by the 1992 decision on Cleary—not the office-for-profit part but the issue of citizenship and the renouncing of it. Since that became clear, both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party prior to every election meticulously go through all their candidates' biographies and check to see that they are qualified. I know that happens on both sides of politics. It is tedious and it is time consuming, but it is done so that we do not face these particular situations. That is something that One Nation is going to have to do on future occasions when it thinks it may have a successful candidate. The motion today is in part a bit of revenge and in part a bit of grandstanding, but it is flawed because it requires the reverse onus of proof.