Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (16:42): In rising to support this resolution, I recognise that the Australian people are fundamentally disenchanted with the Parliament of Australia. They are disenchanted with this citizenship fiasco. They are disenchanted with the inability of this parliament to actually confirm and resolve if all of its members are actually eligible to sit here. Now, I know that the government says that that's just one side's fault and not the other's. The reason we are moving this resolution is because Australians are fed up with the parliament. There are legal questions to be determined on eligibility, but there is a political question: does this parliament have the capacity to manage its own affairs? That is what the people of Australia are looking to us to do. This resolution is a proposition which, based upon the steps which Labor has proposed in the last month, is a fair dinkum effort to resolve the matter to the satisfaction not of the government or of Labor and not even of the crossbench but of the people of Australia. It is why Labor proposed, following former President Parry's stepping down and, of course, revelations around Minister Fifield, that we take a step which we previously hadn't contemplated. We proposed that there should be, for the first time, almost a reversal of onus on MPs to prove their eligibility because there have been so many cases of MPs who, for whatever reason, had neglected to confirm their eligibility. So we took the unusual step of saying that members of parliament, to restore confidence of Australians in the parliament, would demonstrate by universal disclosure the circumstances in which they believe they are eligible to serve in this parliament, consistent with section 44(i) of our Constitution. This was not done lightly. The proposition that MPs have to explain how they come to be eligible was only taken as a last step because there had been so many cases popping up, making concern and creating a real frustration with the Australian people. Labor wants the uncertainty to end. We proposed the disclosure process; we negotiated the disclosure process; and every Labor MP fully disclosed their material. However, when we surveyed coalition material, there were gaps. There was a lack of documentation. There was a lack of argument. There was a lack of detail. This process cannot end this uncertainty of the Australian people in the conduct and legitimacy of this parliament. It will not end until all those MPs with inadequate disclosure, with a debate around them, go to the High Court and have the High Court rule. Now, the government are saying that this is unreasonable. The government are setting two standards in this House. They are saying that, for Labor and crossbench MPs, the only person who can determine the legal weight, the merit of the legal argument, is the High Court, but, when it comes to the government MPs, apparently we've just got to take their word for it. They can say— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Shorten: Well, we know. The Prime Minister did again today assert, 'We've got very good legal argument, and this is a most unfair slur on the government MPs,' but the fact of the matter is that, even as documents are dragged out after the deadline—I quote one document which has gone up online. It says 'Dear Mr Falinski'. It's headed 'Arnold Bloch Leibler'. In the third paragraph, it says: As previously discussed, we cannot conclusively advise on foreign law and recommend that you seek independent advice from foreign law experts to confirm our views set out in this advice. That is not solid proof. Upon that you do not base an argument of constitutional eligibility. Indeed, in the disclosure of Mr Falinski yesterday, he said he had legal advice, but the legal advice he proffers is dated today, a day after he's closed that off, where he said he'd received the advice. Government members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: The real problem here is—and I listen to the government interject and say, 'How would you know?' and, 'What do you know?' What I say to them is that I'll accept that criticism from the government if you accept this criticism from me: what do you know? What is your base? Which High Court judges are you? All we want— Mr Turnbull interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: I hear the Prime Minister shouting. I hear him shouting—a more common feature these days, we notice, in this country. What we are proposing, very simply, is one rule for all. We are also proposing that we do this right the first time. This parliament—both Labor and the conservatives; all of us—has an obligation to restore some confidence in this parliament. I have to say that I remember when the Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister challenged. They said, 'Oh, what is Shorten hiding with his English citizenship?' And I remember the choice line from the Prime Minister. He said, 'If he has nothing to hide then what does he have to fear?' I say to the government: right back at you. If you've got nothing to fear with the legal weight of the argument of your MPs, why are you so afraid of being referred to the High Court? Don't you get it over there? Australians want to see resolution. There is a political question that transcends your nitpicking and your growling and your grizzling. It is appropriate, we believe. This is a bipartisan resolution, bipartisan in intent. We do not come here and say that we will not contemplate the referral of some of our members. By the way, we are very confident in many of the arguments that we have made, but what I accept— Honourable members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: Yes, but, see, the government every time come in spinner. I say we're confident in our arguments, and they say, 'Test them in the High Court.' Well, you're right. Mr Turnbull: You've made no case. Mr SHORTEN: Oh my goodness. You had one go. Apart from just this need to reassure the confidence, if the government is so certain, put up. And what we also see, as we're examining the inadequate disclosures, the cover-up, of government MPs, is that now they're saying: 'We've got this document. We've got that document.' Well, the member for Batman's looking for his documents, but we're not using that as an excuse not to refer to the High Court. We are prepared to do that, as we should do. The government says, though, 'This is just tit for tat.' He talks about a spurious argument about fairness. I think he thinks fairness is always a spurious argument. But what we are prepared to do is this. Even though we are confident in our position, we recognise that a time has come in the conduct of the parliament to build the confidence of the Australian people. The time has come for no more excuses. The people of Australia want to see the detail. We put forward a disclosure system. You agreed to the disclosure system. You have not honoured the disclosure system. It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to simply say, 'I know best. You in Labor should know your place.' It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to say, 'We will send your members to the High Court, but you'll have to take our word on our members.' We don't take your word. You have been wrong before. So, in supporting this resolution, we make it very clear: we do so because we need a circuit breaker to rebuild the confidence of the Australian people. And to all of those government MPs who say, 'We have nothing to show here. We've got nothing to hide here,' I say to you: the Australian people don't believe us. They don't believe that this parliament is functioning as it should. The Prime Minister says they don't believe Labor. I want to tell our Prime Minister: come down from your ivory tower and smell the grass; it is real out there. The people are not happy with the conduct of this parliament. We put this forward. We invite you to join us in this resolution. The Australian people say, 'It makes sense.' The government of this country have failed to adequately disclose. They had their opportunity. They haven't done it. I know there have been plenty of government MPs saying, 'I will find you this document now and I will find you that document'. All I say is: find the documents for the High Court. The nation needs certainty that all of its members of parliament are constitutionally elected. We've had lecture after lecture after lecture from the Prime Minister. He said the High Court is the ultimate arbiter. We agree. And if this government has nothing to hide from the Australian people, join this referral of members of this parliament to the High Court, because if we have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear.