"Katy Gallagher found ineligible to serve in Parliament after High Court citizenship ruling

By Elizabeth Byrne and Matthew Doran
Updated 15 minutes ago [11:40 AM, 9/5/18]

Gallagher's fate could trigger [a] string of by-elections
RELATED STORY: Gallagher claims she did all she could to dump British citizenship
Labor senator Katy Gallagher has lost her seat after the High Court ruled she did not renounce her British citizenship in time for the 2016 election..."

Whither Bill Shorten's claim that Labor had done the paperwork?

Australia shoulds not have any such thing as dual citizens. If you don't want to be aussie don't come here.

These people are dishonest or stupid, possibly both. Now we have four costly by-elections coming up. ALL Australian governments, past and present, have been grossly negligent for not scrutinising the rubbishy, dishonest or stupid nominees for elegibility for public office. The fact that the dual citizen crooks don't have to repay the money they gave illegaly ripped off us is a disgrace. There is no doubt that the Australian political class is our greatest handicap.

Runner is right. We should not allow dual citizenship. Roughly the same number of countries disallow this nonsense as those who do. We should be moving to the 'do nots' group, particularly as we are taking in a lot of their riffraff.

Yes, most definitely a condition of being granted Oz citizenship should be supplying proof of rescinding citizenship in any other country.

Another qualification should be the ability to read & fluently speak & understand English.

Speaking English fluently should also be a condition for continued residency after a period of 5 years. No English in that time should cancel any residency, leading to deportation.

As a dual citizen, I must disagree; I am a fifth generation Australian but I have dual citizenship by right of descent, the Australian Government has nothing to do with it and can do nothing about it, short of convincing the other Government involved to change its Constitution to suit an Australian whim.

What amazes me (well, not actually in most cases) is that politicians who generally have good (?) legal advice can be so stupid as to not find out, well in advance of nomination, what their status is.

If a Centrelink recipient is required to pay back money that they did not receive legally then I fail to see why politicians should be excepted.

I think the court has really overstepped the mark on this one. The constitution did not include a bureaucratic restriction on timing, but the judges imposed one anyway - even though such an imposition is neither in the interest of justice nor what the writers of the constitution intended.

Could the government overturn this decision by legislation? Or would it require a referendum?

___________________________________________________________________________________

runner, WTF makes you think dual citizens don't want to be Aussie? Those who don't want to become Aussie would not have become citizens!

Claims that ineligible MPs should pay back their salary and entitlements are silly. They still (presumably) performed their duties.

Even if they could be forced to re-pay their salary and entitlements, they'd probably then be able to sue for at least some of that back for the time they invested and the work they did.

Either way, financially destroying someone seems to me to be a disproportionately harsh penalty for carelessness.

--

Aidan,

The Constitution is the highest authority in the country and cannot just be overridden with other legislation. A referendum is required to change the Constitution. Australia wouldn’t be much of a democracy if our politicians could simply circumvent the Constitution with legislation. Where would the protection be in that?

<<I think the court has really overstepped the mark on this one. The constitution did not include a bureaucratic restriction on timing, but the judges imposed one anyway …>>

The Constitution also doesn’t state that elected MPs must have taken all reasonable steps to denounce their foreign citizenship either, but doing so is an exception placed on sub-s 44(i) by the High Court the last time they oversaw the issue of MPs with dual citizenships.

The Constitution doesn’t include a lot of things. That’s why we have the High Court - to interpret the Constitution and determine the most reasonable outcome where ambiguities exist.

<<… even though such an imposition is neither in the interest of justice nor what the writers of the constitution intended.>>

Not even what the founding fathers intended? How do you know this? Have you read the 1890s debates concerning sub-s 44(i)? I’m pretty sure the sitting members of the High Court would have checked those.

"Either way, financially destroying someone seems to me to be a disproportionately harsh penalty for carelessness."

Seems to be the way for Centrelink and what if an MP stayed on in Parliament after he/she had reasonable suspicion that they were dual citizens?

Repayment pro rata?

"Speaking English fluently should also be a condition for continued residency after a period of 5 years. No English in that time should cancel any residency, leading to deportation"

What about a migrant from Papua who already speaks an Australian language and he/she is related to a Torres Strait Islander family, but has no English?

That these dual citizens got themselves onto the public payroll under false pretences should be enough reason for them to pay back their wages and perks, in my view. But, some of the rotters are talking about standing again at the necessary by elections; Barnaby Joyce has done that, and won for heaven's sake! Some Australians actually like having people of low character for politicians.

Be Jesus, "Speaking English fluently should also be a condition for continued residency after a period of 5 years. No English in that time should cancel any residency, leading to deportation"

My old Greek neighbour is in trouble, 50 years in Aussie and she can't speak a word of English. Not only do you have to speak English, you have to speak it "fluently". Given what they post, some of the forums right wing knuckle draggers are going to be in trouble, along with about half the dinky di's.

Who will go around doing the "testing", the Aussie Gestapo?

It has been noticed by the media that big mouth Anne Aly has gone quiet since she notified the 'House’ last year she had requested that Egyptian authorities nullify her citizenship of that country a mere 10 DAYS before close of nominations.

Wonder what happened, given Egyptian efficiency their and undoubted keen interest in Australian politics and Aly herself?

Another Labour hack, of course.

ttbn,

I recall the forum finger pointing, and a degree of gloating, when the first two parliamentarians to resign over this citizenship matter were Greens, Scott Ludlum and Larissa Waters.To their credit the pair did not try and weasel out, or put up some lame duck excuses, like so many subsequent wrong doers have. The HC interpreters the law as the law is. It was black and white, there never was any gray area as some had wanted to claim.
Even though it was initially confined to the Greens I had no sympathy for the pair. They made a mistake, and they had to pay the price, as all the subsequent offenders have been force to do, some have had to be dragged out of parliament, metaphorically speaking kicking and screaming, but gone they have. Some like Barnyard Joyce has, mores the pity, will return through an expensive by-election.

AJ Philips,
I am of course aware that a referendum is required to change the constitution. My question is about whether one is required to change the INTERPRETATION OF the constitution.

The current decision is very far from the most reasonable outcome. The most reasonable outcome would be that dual citizens must file for renouncement of all foreign citizenship before standing for parliament, and not take up their seats until such renouncement is confirmed. Which is what this latest bunch did, yet the court still disallowed them.

I don't know what the founding fathers intended, but it is pretty clear that it wasn't this. For a start, the concept of citizenship was far more loosely defined in those days. And British citizenship wasn't even considered foreign.

"And British citizenship wasn't even considered foreign"

Not only that but every Australian was a British Citizen (give or take a few) and the framers of our Constitution were British citizens all and became dual citizens themselves.

There is no way that they meant people of British citizenship to be excluded from standing for Parliament; pity that they framed the clause the way that they did.

Aidan,

The High Court decision didn't change the interpretation of s 44(i), it clarified an ambiguity. The High Court decided to narrowly interpret an implied exception on to s 44(i).

The decision was harsh, but their reasoning was sound in my opinion:

http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2018/HCA/17

An entirely different bench may have interpreted the implied exception widely, and with equally sound reasoning too. Sometimes it can just be the luck of the draw. Either way, I don't think the High Court has overstepped any marks.

Yes Paul, your old Greek neighbour should be in trouble. She should have been sent packing back to Greece years ago.

If after 50 years she has not bothered to learn the language, she has not made any effort to become an Ozzie. With no English it is highly unlikely she has ever done anything to earn her own living, or paid any tax to cover the cost of her old age support.

It is exactly this kind oh migrant we could very well do without.

Hasbeen,

Totally agree with you on the old Greek. Shame on her. On the other hand, she could be an invention of Paul's.

No ttbn, this lady is not an invention of Paul's, she is actually my neighbour, and a very nice neighbour indeed. As for kicking out, there are several on this forum who I would give the royal order of the boot long before this lovely lady. If you got out more and mixed a little you would understand there are many people in Australia that for them English is not their first language, and they struggle with it, even after many years here.

This ugly nationalists fervour of jolly jumbucks and flag waving some like to engage in, is in my view pathetic! I understand how people think, and for most their culture of birth is what is important to them, but its not their top priority. For most, family is what comes first, followed by the trials and tribulations of day to day living, then the thought of who we are comes down the list. A person can be proud of their culture, and still be a proud Australian, even if they can't speak the lingo and might fail some stuiped 5 year language test bunged on by the local branch of the Nazi party!

Issy, with out any evidence I would think many of the men, they were all men, who sat in the first parliament of Australia, and were not native born, most of them being British by birth were there probably illegally. That has been the case for the past 117 years. Sir Henry Parks, the man I credit with being the driving force behind Australia the nation, was born in Coventry UK in 1815 and died in Annandale Sydney in 1896. Parks was technically never an Australian, he died before the nation came into being, but I rate him as one of the greatest Australians to have ever lived.

Paul,

I am cynical I know. But in the past you have come up with all sorts of different friends and neighbours if you have a point to prove. I believe that you would discover a Hottentot, lesbian, disabled, atheist, communist, total victim neighbour if you needed one:).

I don't know how you can make such enthusiastic judgements of this lazy or illiterate woman if she can't speak English. Of course, she might be illiterate in Greek, too, and that would make it impossible for her to learn another language. No matter what her problem is, I could have no time or sympathy for any one making use of a country without learning the language. She is a good example of the burden many immigrants are to us.

And, of course you would kick out other people before this worthless woman. You have always preferred the foreign and exotic to your own kind; it's called self-hatred. I can tell you this - if ever I needed help with enemy, I wouldn't call on you.

I do get out, and I mix with all sorts of people, including those who couldn't speak a word of English before they came here; and I can tell you that this old foreigner is putting it over you. It's true that not all people are great linguistics, but they can usually make themselves understood, particularly after 50 bloody years!

If you had said that she was losing her English, I would have believed you. It is a natural phenomenon for people to lose a second language as they age; hence the growing number of 'ethnic’ retirement villages and aged-care establishments. But I don't buy your old biddy.

And if this woman does exist and she is passing baklava over the fence, remember the old adage about Greeks bearing gifts.

I can't understand all this fuss about an old lady who speaks
her own language. Has she done anything criminal? Does
she need the language in order to survive in this country?
I believe that the Greek Communities are quite large.
Perhaps she has family who look after her and help her out
because in her culture that's what family members do for their
elderly? In any case surely we are over the narrow-minded
attitudes of the 1950s where "speak English" was the order of
the day - often to people who spoke several languages and from
people who themselves did not have a good grasp of the King's
English.

We have a lovely elderly Italian neighbour. A grandmother.
Whose husband passed away some time ago. Her family looks
after her with daily visits (yes, daily) and she also does
not speak English - although I have no problem communicating
with her. It's amazing what you can do when you want people
to understand you.
It's called being a good neighbour and breaking down the
barriers.

You are also a master of hyperbole, Paul. “This ugly nationalists fervour of jolly jumbucks”; “ flag waving”; “language test bunged on by the local branch of the Nazi party!”

If your prose were physical actions, you would be either a champion tap dancer or a tanglefoot, so fast and furious they come.

Your “I would think many of the men, they were all men, who sat in the first parliament of Australia, and were not native born”. What? You think that the only 'native born’ around at the time were into such things as parliaments? The newly-arrived Poms should have waited for the 'currency lads’ to be born and reach maturity before a parliament could be set up?

Foxy we have ACOSs screaming for higher pensions, welfare payments & cheap housing for the "disadvantaged". While we are paying for hundreds of thousands of recently imported bludgers, or long term bludgers like this lady, there is no chance of affording more welfare costs for our own. If people don't want to contribute, they should be on the next plane out of here.

We should immediately stop wasting money on foreign language people at Centrelink to help the them rip us off, & make all business English only. No English, no welfare. In the same way, drivers licence tests should be English only. If you can't speak English, no licence, or trade papers. Run free English classes for sure, but get rid of bludgers.

It was different in your time Foxy. Migrants/refugees were given cheap accommodation in hostels, & given a job. From there it was up to them to better themselves. Many did very well working on the Snowy River scheme. Others worked hard & became millionaires. Great I'm all for it.

On the other hand, remember the Meditation back? Certain ethnicity migrants discovered you could claim a bad back, & get welfare, while working elsewhere. Took a while to organise a defence against these cheats. Unfortunately bleeding hearts stopped us chucking out these proven con men when found.

Time to change the question at the boarder. Not ask what we can do for you, but what the hell can you do for us?

ttbn,

I don't know much of the history of my old Greek neighbour, other than she is around 80, and came to Australia with her husband and young family in the 1960's. I known she has 5 children, all grown up, married with lots of grandchildren, a loving family who visit her regularly. Her husband passed away some years ago, she dresses in black and visits his grave frequently. As a family I don't think they were all that different to many native born, husband working, wife at home with the kids, worked hard to establish a life for themselves and their children, eventually owning their own modest home in a new country. All her children seem to have done well. What more do you expect of people?

p/s I'll keep her here if for no other reason than for the Greek almond biscuits she makes, and her vine leaves, something special there.

Thanks Foxy, glad you popped in, that me exactly. Her kids one or two visit daily, as do her grandchildren.

Dear Paul,

I don't see a bright future for people whose views are
tempered by fear and distrust. That's so limiting.
It's a great big world we live in - and we should simply
try to get along. Getting to know each other would be a
step in the right direction. It sounds like you've done
just that with your Greek neighbour - and those cookies
and vine creations sound delish. My Gran used to make
some very tasty cabbage rolls (along the same lines) and
our neighbours loved them as well. Yum!

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that I also love - Singapore noodles,
and of course a pork roast!

Paul,

"What more do (I) expect of people?"

I expect that people living in any country will speak the language of that country. It is crazy that there are people in Australia who cannot do that.

Considering dear old Hassy is always prattling on about bureaucrats and the bureaucracy that government creates to enforce rules and regulations, he has had a brain snap! Here he is frothing at the mouth about migrants because they are not speaking English fluently. What does the old sod propose; a condition for continued residency after a period of 5 years is fluency in English. Pray tell dear chap how will this marvellous brain storm of yours operate and be administered? How many extra despised bureaucrats you bang on about would you envisage being employed at the public's expense? This blokes right out of his tree on this, but that's not unusual for Hassy.
ttbn, you also think its such a marvellous idea, therefore as your fearless leader would say; please explain!

Hi Foxy,

I to love cabbage rolls, so as not to be accused of making people up, my first wife, whose family were post WWII migrants to Australia, there origins were Germany of Austrian extraction, her grandmother, she lived to be 102, made excellent cabbage rolls. Nanna's secret was to use fresh cabbage leaves, and not the pickled variety.

More multiculturalism today, one of our nephews a Maori/Samoan, turns 50, a big boy he be, drives container trucks on the east coast run between Brisbane and Melbourne, for a living, gee I'm getting old. His wife (Australian) and kids are putting on a big party. The invites have gone out far and wide for a gathering of the tribe. "T" is at this moment doing her families all time favorite "fry bread", a Maori staple along with "boil up" and "hangi", at these gatherings seafood is always a necessary, "raw fish" done island style, is always there, actually its very nice etc etc. These folks believe in eating, and no one can possibly go hungry. The party kicks off officially at 4pm and ends, well with the clan, probably about Monday morning. I'll be long gone by then.

There is a move afoot by the usual suspects to have Sec 44 amended. Only traitors seek to remove safeguards for the country's parliamentary integrity. That sort of thing used to be a capital offence. So it should be again.

However, for the time being at least, both Liberal and Labor are resisting the stupid idea, and, anyway changes to the Constitution are up to the silent majority that the political class is so out of touch with. So, our nasty little suspects are probably just blowing it out of their backsides, as usual.

Seven of our Prime Ministers were born overseas.

http://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/7-pms-who-migrated-to-australia/

Interesting, Is Mise; but, relevant? Abbott and Gillard clearly had no loyalty to a foreign power. What about the rest? Did they have dual citizenship other than British which wouldn't have mattered those days? Your reference doesn't really have anything to do with modern times and Sec 44, does it? And the reference is not concerned with citizenship issues.

Dear Paul,

Of course you use fresh cabbage leaves when making cabbage rolls.
My Gran taught me that. Your family get together sounds wonderful.
Events like these make for lasting memories. I still get a
lump in my throat when I recall all the beautiful family
holidays shared with my mum and my husband's family. I'm sure
that everyone has these meaningful events.

As for this Dual Citizenship business. It's a shame that its
become so politicised. I think that anyone before even thinking
of running for Parliament in the future should just simply
make sure that they have renounced any other claim to citizenship.
It's not that hard. And each party before accepting a candidate
should ensure that this is done. The Labor Party had declared
that they had done this with their members. Now, it seems that
they hadn't. Perhaps this will be a lesson to all up and
coming candidates in the future as to what they need to do.

"Perhaps this will be a lesson to all up and
coming candidates in the future as to what they need to do."

If they have the necessary brain power; what's the betting that these are not the last ones?

The Prime Minister has told ABC Radio that, with an election coming next year, hopeful candidates should get their act together and ensure that they are not a citizen of “somewhere else” before they nominate. At the same time, we are told that a parliamentary enquiry will recommend a referendum allowing politicians to be dual citizens! Don't the dimwits in Canberra talk to each other?

A referendum “allowing” dual citizens to be Australian politicians seems arrogantly presumptuous, particularly if the indignant reactions of readers to the SMH story are anything to go by. There is absolutely no reason to expect that Australians would agree to change the Constitution for a handful of backward people who haven't bothered to study the document that they think they are capable of upholding. It's not as though there are not plenty of of better people without loyalties to a foreign country waiting in line. A stand alone referendum would waste a $100 million we cannot spare; paired with an election, about $30 million. Given Australian's history of rejecting referenda, the elites would be stupid - and scorned - if they went ahead with such tripe, merely reinforcing the well-founded perception that they are remote from the rest of us.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent some Australians from having five bob each way on citizenship; they just cannot be politicians under Australian law. Amen.

ttbn,

"Given Australian's history of rejecting referenda..."

Australia has no such history, every referendum that has been held in Australia has been a success.

Is Mise,

What are you on these days?

There have been 44 referendums held since 1901, and only EIGHT OF THEM HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL. Don't you even remember the last one on a republic? People will be taking everything you say with more than a grain of salt in future.

ttbn.

The purpose of a referendum is to ascertain the will of the people on a question/proposal, all Australian referendums have done that, therefore they have all been successful.

The fact that the question/proposal has been rejected by the people only indicates its lack of popularity and the will of the people.

No. You can't talk yourself out of this one.

ttbn.

You obviously don't understand, so:

"referendum
noun
a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision."

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=referendum+meaning&rlz=1C1CAFB_enAU718AU718&oq=referendum&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.11584j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

People win elections they don't win or lose referendums.
The result may not go the way that the framers of that referred to the people want but that is not a loss as the intent was to find the wishes of the majority of the voters.

All referendums do this except in the very unlikely event of a tie.

ttbn, Issy is correct, a "No" vote in a referendum is not a defeat, other than for those that favoured a "Yes" vote. The fact that the majority wish to maintain the status quo is an expression of the desire of the majority and nothing else. I'll agree most refer to a majority "No" vote as a defeat (being a defeat of the question) and it can be seen that way.

Paul,

“Issy” (good nickname for a girl named Isabel) is not correct. For starters, I didn't talk about winning or losing. I said that, of the of the 44 referendums held, only eight of them had been SUCCESSFUL. Along came Isobel claiming that all had been a SUCCESS. My information was based on official documents using official language. So, not only is your girlfriend wrong, but you have backed a loser, which is probably not strange for someone backing the Greens.

Can you explain to me how “a “No vote in a referendum is not a defeat”, but it IS a defeat for “those that a favoured a “Yes” vote”. Seems you are not waiting around for the weed to be legalised: you are on it now.

You and Isobel have deliberately changed language - successful for loss - just to score a point. If you think that referendums are not put up by politicians and people to get something they want, then you are both too naive to be out on your own. The racket made by the people who want Australia to be a republic sure indicated the LOSS they felt because the referendum was UNSUCCESSFUL

ttbn,

I'll reiterate.
The purpose of referendums (note, not 'referenda') is to ascertain the will of the people on a political question, therefore they cannot be won or lost or be unsuccessful.
When the will of the people becomes clear, by the questions being accepted or rejected then the referendums have been successful.

As regards "...My information was based on official documents using official language."
then the information was wrong.

Isobel,

You mean 'iterate’ because this is the first repeat of your wisdom. You are right about 'referenda, though.

You really are a piece of work, stating that information I have gleaned from professionals is 'wrong’. It's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a person with your head size. I would like to be able to help you, but who am I to persevere with someone determined to continue proving her ignorance.

ttbn,

Don't put too much faith in what Governments do or say.

Remember the Millenium celebrations in 2000?

They were held one year too early; the whole World got it wrong except for a few thinking people.

The ad hominems weaken your argument and I'll stick with 'reiterate'.

Is Mise,

Thanks for the advise, but I've been around long enough to know who I can “put faith” in and who I cannot.

Your reference to 2000 has nothing to do with referendums, and you are now hiding behind the old ‘ad hominem’ whinge indicating it's time to call it a day.

Stick to using 'iterate’ incorrectly by all means. No skin off my nose. I will heed your advice, however, (after a Roget check) and never use 'referenda’ again, as it is clearly not the plural of referendum. Some of us are able to admit that we are wrong when we actually are

ttbn,

" Some of us are able to admit that we are wrong when we actually are"

Good for you; you probably have a lot of practice, suggest you look up 'iterate' and 'reiterate'.

You were telling us that you put faith in experts pronouncements so I mentioned the Millenium as a perfect example of why such trust is misplaced.
It had nothing to do with referendums but then referendums have nothing to do with dual citizenship either, not until one is held on the subject and the people are asked their opinion, which, to reiterate, is the purpose of a referendum.

Issy, correct again the year 2000 was the last year of the 20th century and not, as ttbn and others believed the first year of the 21st century.
Just the other day a news reader, I am sure it was ttbn, stated that "Sydney had been hit by an "Arctic Blast" of cold air. I pointed out to the good little woman; "that's impossible, it was an 'Antarctic Blast' of cold air from completely the opposite direction" To add insult to injury I read the same thing in a newspaper, written I believe by ttbn. Sorry old sod, don't take a fence, steal the gate instead.

ttbn, one thing I'll agree with you on is, we should not spend $100m so a minority of jackasses don't get it wrong. BTW isn't Turnball's a citizen of the Cayman Islands for tax purposes. has anyone checked that out? Cory Banana and the Lovely Pauline, they are both from La La Land, so they need to go under the microscope as well.

Paul,

Good to see a fellow 2001 Milleniemist, and I picked up on the 'Arctic Blast' as well, this was on a regional radio station "Winds from the Arctic are bringing..."

Still, it's a bit of fun.

Like the signs on the roadside that say "Trucks and Busses must use low gear" at the top of some steep hills, anyone who has driven a variety of trucks would know that if some trucks were put into their low gear it'd take all day to get to the bottom.

Issy,

A bit like referring to petrol as "inflammable" when in fact try pouring the stuff on a fire and you will soon see how inflammable it is. Although today both inflammable and flammable seem to have the same meaning. What do you think?

Paul,

I grew up with 'inflammable' and always had a mental picture of it signifying 'in flames', flammable doesn't do the same, for me anyway.