Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (15:21): What an extraordinary set of circumstances this parliament finds itself in. We have no more clarity from the answers given to us about the constitutional chaos that we find ourselves in by the government in question time today. You could, sadly, drive a truck through the answers given to questions. I note that Senator Fifield sought cause to reflect in his answer straight back to his earlier statements to the chamber today. So, in debating answers to questions, I will reflect on his answers earlier today. Senator Fifield said to the chamber he could not be definitive as to when Senator Parry started to reflect on his own particular circumstances. I put to the chamber that he must have reflected on it when referrals were made to the High Court, because they were referrals he made as President which ultimately reflected his own circumstances—in that the reason that Senator Parry was found to have citizenship by descent was in the same way that others who have left this place were also found to have. So we are expected to believe that while Senator Parry was participating in these matters as President he told no-one else of any importance within the government. Senator Brandis: It's what he says. Senator PRATT: Yes. Well, ultimately, what this reflects is the situation we now find ourselves in—that you have refused to exercise any internal accountability on each other on this matter until this point in time and until you've been pulled into the motion that's been put before this chamber today. So either you are derelict in holding your members to account in terms of their eligibility to be in this place or we in this place have been withheld the information of who knew what, when, how and if they ever acted. Patently, the government has not acted until this point in time. You've not asked your colleagues to reflect on their eligibility to be in this place. Senator Brandis: Why did I move that motion earlier this morning? Senator PRATT: Up until this point in time, you have not done so. You have been dragged kicking and screaming. The reality is that the motion before this place would not have occurred had Labor not proposed a universal disclosure regime. And the reason we had to do that is the very circumstances that have been reflected on in answers to questions today. As Senator Wong made clear: when we found out that the then President of the Senate, with the knowledge of a cabinet minister, had sat on information that rendered him ineligible, this meant that this parliament could not be relied on to deal with these matters appropriately through its own usual processes and that we needed before us a more stringent procedure. I'm glad that we now have that, but you can certainly see, in the answers that have been given in this place this afternoon, how manifestly inadequate the government's response has been to the constitutional chaos that this parliament finds itself in. Senator Brandis, you said, back in August, that you thought former Senators Ludlam and Waters had acted a little prematurely, and perhaps you did indeed think that at the time. But it is apparent to all members in this place that, when the court found otherwise, you did nothing proactive to address this matter—until this point in time. The government has been entirely 'hear no evil, see no evil'. You have your own 'don't ask, don't tell' policy around these matters, where we see a Prime Minister who has refused to be apprised of the problem so that he can't be held accountable for it. Question agreed to.