Senator SHERRY (7:30 PM) —It was not my intention to speak on this motion, at least initially, until I became somewhat concerned by the approach adopted by the One Nation Party in identifying and attempting to infer some wrongdoing by those of us not born in Australia. I am one of those people. Before I commence my contribution, I want to make a couple of comments about the issue of dual nationality and alleged allegiance to a foreign power.

This concept is very outdated and outmoded in a modern world. From my knowledge of history, which is an interest of mine, the issue of dual nationality is a medieval concept that derived, at least initially, from the time when William the Conqueror, as he is known, who was the Duke of Normandy, invaded England. He had kingship in his own right of what was then England and he held dukeship in Normandy, owing allegiance to the king of France. That is where the concept of dual nationality originally arose. As a consequence of the various struggles that took place between the English and the French crown, the custom and practice emerged in British common law that a citizen of England and, ultimately, the United Kingdom could not owe allegiance to any other crown.

I think the concept is outmoded and outdated. Irrespective of whether a public official elected to this place is born in Australia or has dual nationality, the theory is that they have some split allegiance. They are considered to have some allegiance to a foreign power because of where they were born and, therefore, they are presumably some sort of national security risk. The concept is totally outmoded and irrelevant in the modern world and should not exist. Nevertheless, the High Court, in its latest decision in respect of senator-elect Hill, has made three decisions on this issue. The law is now very clear in respect of dual nationality.

In respect of my own circumstances, I was born in England at Kingston-on-Thames on 19 November 1955.

Senator Cook —A good year.

Senator SHERRY —It was a good year. My mother was English and my father was Australian. My father was working in England at the time. Unfortunately, I came along at the wrong time because my father had wanted to return to Australia in the earlier part of 1955. With my mother expecting me, they had to postpone the trip and set sail about six months after I was born. So I have grown up in Australia and spent most of my life in Tasmania, where my father settled in late 1956. I do not think one could detect much of an English accent; perhaps there is a slight Tasmanian accent.

I have lived all my life here. I have lived longer in Australia than my brother. He was born two years later. I do not consider myself any less Australian than my brother. On reaching the age of 18, I took out Australian citizenship, not because I was interested in standing for parliament at that time but because I believed I was an Australian through and through and that part of the commitment to your country involves taking out Australian citizenship. In 1990, I was elected to the Senate.

In 1992, there was a case involving a member of the other place, Mr Cleary, who was elected to the seat of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. In the case of Mr Cleary, I do not believe it was the issue of dual nationality; I think it was office of profit under the crown. There were a number of other candidates who the High Court determined had dual nationality. The High Court made it very clear in 1992 that if you held dual nationality and it were practical to do so, you had to take every reasonable step to renounce the citizenship of the country in which you were born if that country had that provision within its constitution or law.

So there were quite a number of us in late 1992 who, after that High Court decision, appeared to have dual citizenship. I did not realise that I was still a citizen of the United Kingdom, having taken out Australian citizenship. Nevertheless, that is what the High Court determined. I went down to the British High Commission and made some inquiries about renunciation. Apparently, there is an act of British parliament for the renunciation of UK citizenship. I picked up the form and filled it in. I think I paid $50. It has recently gone up somewhat, as I understand it. I understand that it is now about $250. Obviously, there has been a bit of a money making exercise occurring with the dual citizenship decisions.

Senator McKiernan —Mrs Thatcher introduced it.

Senator SHERRY —It was probably Margaret Thatcher. Certainly it is not a bad money-spinner for the British High Commission with the number of people who have been renouncing their British citizenship recently, but it was only $50 back at the end of 1992. Channel Nine were quite interested in a number of us and they got me on film carrying out my renunciation. As I say, that happened to quite a number of people as a result of the Cleary case that was determined before the High Court in 1992. I have subsequently been re-elected as a senator and I am very confident that I qualify.

I take objection to the way in which this issue has been promoted by One Nation. My name, along with a number of others, has been put into press releases inferring that we have done something wrong, when I certainly have not, and I am certainly not aware of any of my other parliamentary colleagues having done anything wrong.

As a result of the 1992 High Court decision the Australian Labor Party put into place effective mechanisms to ensure that, firstly, we were Australian citizens and, secondly, we did not hold dual citizenship, amongst a range of other criteria to be satisfied in order to qualify for preselection for the Australian Labor Party. I am aware that the Liberal Party put similar mechanisms in place at that time. I noticed that when I last stood for election, the Australian Electoral Commission had improved their declaration and made the position very clear as a result of that High Court case in 1992. If you are standing for parliament, if you have an effective political organisation run by competent operators, and if you bother to read the nomination forms and the kit that comes with it, it is not as though you would not know that this is the process.

As I said in my introductory remarks, I think the concept of dual nationality and somehow owing allegiance to a foreign power is an outmoded concept in the modern world. To that extent, I understand the disappoint ment that senator-elect Hill has gone through. But that can not excuse the sheer incompetence of the One Nation leadership in the way that they handled their preselection processes. Any organisation that is structured in the way that One Nation is—and we have had some recent exposure of the way in which One Nation is structured and operated in Queensland, and our leader, Senator Faulkner, referred to that—where a political party, or rather a political company, is so structured that it is run by the three shareholders—Mr Oldfield, Mr Ettridge and Ms Hanson—must be considered incompetent. They are the three that run the show, that run the company, that run the political party—the triumvirate that took it upon itself to make sure that it had total control and total power over One Nation. As I say, that has been reinforced by the recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court—I think it was—in respect to its illegal registration.

Over the past couple of years, Mr Oldfield and Mr Ettridge have touted themselves as political Machiavellis, but they fell down. Given the likelihood of the election of a One Nation Senate candidate in the polling at the time, I am sure that this triumvirate determined, or had a very significant say, in who the One Nation candidate was going to be to head the Senate ticket in Queensland. It just basically came down to incompetence.

I have some sympathy for senator-elect Hill, who obviously put her trust in this triumvirate, but the sheer incompetence of these three should be noted. Not only did they organise the structure of the party so that they ran the whole show, but they also openly boasted about their intention to operate it as a three-person operation and they put up the pretence that it was a democratic organisation. So really, the motion we have before us today, obviously, as all the other speakers have said, is offensive in the sense that it infers that a number of us—and I am amongst those who were born overseas—have done something wrong when we have not really. The blame should be sheeted home to the basic incompetence of the three who formed the leadership of the One Nation party.

I concur with the comments made by other contributors in this debate. There are other mechanisms for dealing with this matter, by a resolution of the Senate and referral of any one of us to the High Court. Regrettably for senator-elect Hill, she got caught out, as I say, by the lack of professionalism of the leadership of One Nation. They boasted about how good they were at the political process and that has now caught up with them.

There is one other point I would like to make. In respect of senator-elect Hill, it was not as though this issue has only been a recent matter. One Nation says that they are innocent, that this is a grand conspiracy by the major parties, that the major parties are ganging up against them. Poor One Nation! Poor senator-elect Hill! That is the nature of the theme that, in part, One Nation has been running in respect to this issue and it is simply not true.

The previous decision in the Wood case and the previous decision in respect of candidates in the Cleary matter—both went before the High Court—were well known and well publicised at the time. They were well publicised subsequently by the Electoral Commission and were available for any candidate to peruse had they bothered to read the material. Despite this having some publicity in the Queensland state election where senator-elect Hill was a candidate, the triumvirate Oldfield, Ettridge and Hanson apparently completely ignored it all. I did not realise until I made some inquiries today that senator-elect Hill was not even an Australian citizen. I can understand someone not being aware of renunciation procedures, but when you have been living in this country for a long time—20 years—boasting about your Australian nationalism, indeed openly promoting your attitude to migrants and your opposition to migration into this country, particularly from Asia, making that one of the central planks of your platform in the lead-up to an election and declaring just how Australian Australians should be, surely you should have Australian citizenship if you are running for election for any form of office in this country. Apparently, senator-elect Hill did not even qualify for that very basic and fundamental prerequisite of Australian citizenship.

I conclude on the point that Senator Brown raised in the proposition that he has put forward of a referendum in respect of a question that would permit any person resident in Australia to run for political office. In other words, you could have been born overseas, not be an Australian citizen, and, if you hold dual citizenship, it should not matter. That is the proposition that Senator Brown wants to put to a referendum. I would put to Senator Harris: what would One Nation's position be on such a question? Are One Nation willing to endorse the proposition that anyone who is resident in Australia—regardless of nationality, regardless of citizenship or whether they hold dual citizenship—should be able to run for political office in this country? I would be interested to know what One Nation's attitude would be to such a proposition. I suspect that, six months ago, they would have been vehemently opposed to such a proposition. They would have argued that you had to be an Australian citizen, that you could not hold dual nationality, that you had to be dinky-di Aussie in order to stand for political office. That is what I think the position would have been six months ago. It may have changed in light of senator-elect Hill's experiences.

Finally, I endorse the contributions of all the other senators who have spoken on this matter. I add that the triumvirate that run the so-called political party of One Nation have to take responsibility for this. They decided to run it as a company; they decided that they were the fountain of all political knowledge. They openly boasted of that, yet they failed in what is a very basic prerequisite in politics—that is, to at least know whether your candidates are eligible to run for office or not. And it is not as though they were not warned. I also take exception to the type of material that we have seen circulated recently, in which it is inferred that those amongst us who were born overseas have in some way done something wrong when we have not. My position is clear. It is on the public record. It has been on the public record since the end of 1992 and it attracted some publicity at that time. I am very confident that I have done the right thing by section 44. For the reasons that I have outlined and all the other reasons that have been spoken of in this chamber, I do not believe we should be supporting the proposition as moved by Senator Harris on behalf of One Nation.