Jump to content

Talk:2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Formatting references

Editors please format your new references, as well as those recently added; bots don't do it. With references to The Australian, none of which will work from here, please add "(paywalled)". The Australian can be accessed for free through a subscribing library. Wikiain (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Neegzistuoja. Wikiain (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to say... thank you all for fixing my edits. I'm sorry to have caused issues. Timeoin (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Previous High Court Case

Unsure where this belongs, but the High Court has previously ruled on Section 44(i). - Sue v Hill. Timeoin (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timeoin: It would belong in the "Background" section. If the case is particularly relevant to the reader's understanding of the events detailed in the article, then it should be added to the page as part of the Background. I'll leave that for others to decide, though. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 22:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Earlier cases are discussed in Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia. The present article is about the 2017 cases that have yet to come to the High Court. Its decision(s) in these cases will need to be added into the s 44 article. Wikiain (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Was wondering if it's relevant here or not, as its precedent and all that. Timeoin (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
It's one of the most relevant precedents, but that is covered in Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia. One day the High Court decision(s) in the cases in the present article will go into that article and the present article will become historical. Wikiain (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that the Day and Culleton disqualifications are also part of this crisis, maybe in background.

When Day was disqualified and replaced by Lucy Gichuhi, her citizenship was challenged by Labor because she is from Kenya. Is it possible this and the general instability instigated by Day and Culleton led to the lawyer asking questions about Ludlam? Even if not, I think they should be mentioned as a part of this crisis. David Gillespie and his Australia Post too. What do you guys think? Superegz (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding of Gichuhi. Although the legal obscurity in her case was in Kenyan law, not in Australian law, it did bring the citizenship qualification onto front pages. And Gillespie for sure, as I mention above. Wikiain (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sudmalis

Ann Sudmalis should be added to the list, as she also has/had dual citizenship. Ref: [1] Timeoin (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. I haven't commented on the passenger card, which is not evidence of citizenship. Strange that she has not produced the letter from the Home Office; it might show that she is still entitled. The British court judgement presumably identifies her British citizenship status, but also presumably contains material about her parents' relationship, which I think she is entitled to keep private. The Guardian reports: "It is understood a British court had ruled at the time that Sudmalis could travel to Australia without a passport because her parents had recently separated." But the passenger card gives the number of a passport or other document. The British court did not have authority to allow entry into Australia without a passport. Perhaps she entered Australia, as a minor, by inclusion on her father's passport - but then it is not evident why a court decision would have been required. Wikiain (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
In my mind, we should have:
  • one section for the MPs and Senators that definitely (or very likely) have dual citizenship; whose eligibility is seriously in question
  • another section about the actions of all the other MPs and Senators who have clarified their citizenship in response to questions or speculation during this "crisis"
In the case of Sudmalis, she has stated the UK Home Office says she's not a citizen; I don't think the case is going to progress anywhere unless there is a new revelation, or if someone decides to actively challenge it. Therefore I've moved Sudmalis to a new section called (for now) "Other MPs and Senators". Liguer (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Keay, Lamb, Zappia, Vamvakinou

Pyne also named the following on record, which the Liberal party claim, have foreign citizenship questions to answer: Donama (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


I've now added these to the "Other MPs and Senators". We could probably still add a sentence or two about the allegations/reactions from the Coalition and Labor. Liguer (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Consequences of inelligible minister

One of the uncharted aspects of the current matters is the consequences if a minister in found to have been ineligible. I refer to it above, but have now found a source that articulates the issue Twoomey, Anne (18 August 2017). "If High Court decides against ministers with dual citizenship, could their decisions in office be challenged?". Find bruce (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"Procedure" subsection

I've added into the "Background" section a subsection on "Procedure", before noticing that there is an article Court of Disputed Returns (Australia). There isn't actually much overlap and I've added a wikilink, but most of the new subsection here might be merged into the latter article. Wikiain (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

As suggested I have copied the procedure section across to the Court of Disputed returns. Find bruce (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Uniquely Australian

Well, "unique," probably isn't the right word, but I've added a section under "background" noting that there's no prohibition on dual citizen MPs in comparable countries. Dr-ziego (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Josh Frydenberg

The section on Josh Frydenberg lacks any references. Looks like OR to me. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, a case that "has largely escaped media attention" is a hallmark of Original Research. In any event to exclude a person from Parliament because they are Jewish would be to impose a "religious test" for public office, contrary to s 116 of the Constitution - see Critenden v Anderson -- Find bruce (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


It is not up to you as a wiki editor to play the role of a high court adjudicator and decide which cases are clear enough to warrant concern over. Besides, there is ample precedent of secualr jews exercising their rights under the law of return since it is based on descent, which gives the lie to your religious test claim. I have included multiple references to existing media reports, and its completely unfair for you to instantly delete my contributions to this page.

Please sigh your posts.
The fact that the media has raised issues about Jewish MPs does not make them implicated in this crisis. Their cases must be raised in Parliament, either by the MPs themselves or some other parliamantarian. That is the test that applies to everyone else involved in this matter. The media can do whatever it likes; it does not decide these things. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Your justification for deleting this content has changed from a lack of references-original research, to equivalence to a religious test, to lack of formal discussion in the parliament. Why do you keep coming up with new reasons to delete my contribution every time I satisfy the previous demands? Where is the consensus opinion that this page ONLY deals with cases that have been explicitly discussed in the parliament? There appear to be examples of individuals on the page that do not contain any references to discussion in parliament, yet that material has not been deleted. Why is that the case?Castronaught (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no change in why your contributions have been deleted: you have made allegations that an MP has been caught up in the citizenship crisis for being Jewish, which you have yet to provide a single source for. What you have provided is a source that he is Jewish, as source that the Law of Return is a thing, and using those to conclude that we should question all these MP's that you've listed as being Jewish, whilst also saying that this one MP is doubly-suspicious because he holds some pro-Israel opinions. Despite this, you haven't provided one reputable source that has questioned his eligibility by name or shown that he has released a statement denying that he is ineligible.

As for the discussion of Jewish MPs eligibility in the abstract, you have now found two news articles about the citizenship crisis which do raise the Law of Return in passing. They are the ABC article that mentions that politicians with Jewish ancestry are entitled to claim Israeli citizenship, although the citizenship is not automatically conferred; and the opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph which argues for Section 44 to be reformed and poses whether a Jewish politician must renounce their entitlement to make Aliyah, without answering. Whether these merit a mention that, if we take the broadest possible reading of Section 44, it is possible that people who do not hold any foreign citizenship but may be entitled to claim it may be ineligible to stand for Parliament, I don't know. However, if it does, though, I can't see any reason why it would need to be more than a paragraph, it wouldn't require you to list any/all of the Jewish MPs in Parliament and it definitely would be unsuitable for you to then rant about all their political positions.

To quote yourself above "it is not up to you as a wiki editor to play the role of a high court adjudicator and decide which cases are clear enough to warrant concern over". It doesn't matter if you think there should be public scrutiny over a Jewish MP(s) eligibility to be in Parliament, if that public and media scrutiny doesn't exist it shouldn't be in the article. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion of the eligibility of jewish MPs, given the wording of 44i and the Law of Return, is completely reasonably and in the context of this wiki page. There's no justification for the wholesale deletion of this contribution, especially since I provided the media reports, as citations, that have reported on this already. As I said, the page already mentions a number of MPs without any reference to their discussion in the parliament. That requirement seems like an invention that is being applied to this case, but not to others.

If people don't think that describing the reported details of one member's closeness to Israel is not appropriate, that's a legitimate point to make, so just delete that section of the edit. But the issue here is the near instantaneous wholesale deletion of ANY mention of even jewish MPs in general, and btw really I think it is ridiculously over-sensitive to be prohibited from even naming them. Isn't it the purpose to provide relevant information? But, even the section where the individual MPs were not named is not allowed to remain!, despite it being well written, informative, and relevant to the subject of the page. It's extremely unlikely that these cases will be brought up in the parliament, therefore your censorship of this completely reasonable and interesting contribution will remain indefinitely. It's a shame because I think many readers would have found this information to be well worth reading. I've wasted enough of my time trying to get this through your blatant double standards.Castronaught (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

All of it, and its purported relevance to the topic is a violation of WP:SYNTH. It's not oversensitivity on the topic of Jewishness (although I won't be obtuse and pretend that the ongoing victimisation of Jewish people isn't in people's minds when material like this is added in violation of policy), but the fact that it's in violation of one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies: no original research. If you wrote the same section about Macedonian MPs it would get deleted. Cjhard (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a shame you feel that you have been censored Castronaught as that is not what is happening. Wikipedia is not the place for an untold story, about this or anything else. This is not a judgement that the story shouldn't be told, just an observation that it hasn't been. This article notes which parliamentarians have had their eligibility challenged in Parliament or the High Court, it is not about judging whether a parliamentarian's eligibility should be challenged. -- Find bruce (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Stuart Robert

I have twice undone good faith edits by 122.108.141.214 (talk) The article concerns members of parliament who have actual or possible dual citizenship, which does not apply to Stuart Robert. -- Find bruce (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

As I explained in my second attempt to add this information, the news articles state that Stuart Robert's company winning government contracts is a financial interest from the Commonwealth, and the argument against his eligibility is similar to that of Bob Day's. Section 44 covers both citizenship issues and financial benefits. I do not think it is appropriate to remove it at this stage, because it has been reported on by multiple RSes. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis. There is apparent consensus for the title "Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis", and less agreement for the year format, so I took the liberty to make it conform to WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions. No such user (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


2017 Australian constitutional crisis → Constitutional disqualifications from the Parliament of Australia, 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, 2017 – As noted by various commenters in the deletion discussion, calling it a "constitutional crisis" is rather overboard. The Dismissal was a "constitutional crisis" because it was a constitutional conflict over the running of the government, during which the Constitution of Australia did not resolve, as the definition of the Wikipedia article outlined. In this case, the Constitution is completely able to resolve the conflict, as stated in Section 44 of the Constitution itself, anybody with foreign allegiance to another state cannot serve in Parliament, no 'if's and 'but's, no constitutional crisis. "Scandal" is the more appropriate descriptor for these series of events, since its the most common descriptor used by the press (SBS World News, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph, News.com.au, Time, The New York Times). It's also worth explicitly stating in the title that it's a scandal exclusive to the Parliament of Australia. Calling it an "Australian crisis" implies that it's a nation-wide scandal of sorts, i.e. everybody who works for government not allowed to be a dual citizen or similar erroneous thoughts. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

"Constitutional disqualifications from the Parliament of Australia, 2017"

  • Support move - but almost anything is better than the current title. It's not a "crisis" at all, and it would take more than a SMH opinion to make it so. StAnselm (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move - for much the same reason as above... this simply is not a crisis and certainly is not a "constitutional crisis". There's no issue that Section 44 will deal with all of it, and the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns will determine how it applies to these particular cases. Once determined, the following steps will be clear. It's certainly notable and worthy of an article, but "crisis" and "scandal" are inappropriate terms for the scale of this issue. Rob.au (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, 2017"

Am I correct in thinking there is now consensus on Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, with the debate now limited to whether "2017" should appear at the start, at the end or not at all ? Find bruce (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I think that leaving the year off entirely for now would be reasonable. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment While this clearly isn't a constitutional crisis for the reasons you note (the mechanisms set out in the constitution to handle this issue are so far working fine), 'scandal' also seems a bit overblown. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nick-D: What name would you alternately propose, may I ask? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 22:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
2017 Australian Parliament dual citizenship revelations? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a pretty good option. Another one would be something 'flat' such as Constitutional disqualifications from the Parliament of Australia, 2017 per the phrasing used by the Parliamentary Library ([2]). Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for endorsing this particular name. "Constitutional disqualifications" sounds like a much more encyclopedic name than "revelations", and is a term used by officials relevant to the scandal, as sourced by Nick-D. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 22:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind it, I'd only point out that the source is more of an info/opinion piece from someone at the Parliament Library (don't get me wrong, it's more of an authoritative source than an opinion piece in a newspaper, but it's not an official record of the Library or Parliament). The bigger reason I'd be wary of going for 'Constitutional disqualifications' is none of them have been officially disqualified, not even the two Greens, and there's a non-minor possibility that a majority of them may not be once the High Court decides. Nonetheless, I think both 'revelations' or 'Constitutional disqualifications' wold be better than 'Scandal' or 'Crisis'. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I would also support either this name (only a couple of sensationalist sources refer to it as a constitutional crisis), or perhaps changing to the name of the High Court case that provides the relevant ruling once this is known? Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Media reports have stated that it's not currently known whether the High Court will consider all the referrals as one case, or as separate cases. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Case name(s) probably won't be much of a pointer to the issues. Wikiain (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment While I believe that this change makes the article easier for users to find, limiting it to just 2017 seems weird to me as already there have been 4 disqualifications under Section 44. If the title of the article is to be changed to "Constitutional Disqualifications", the article should refer to all parliamentarians disqualified since the beginning of the 45th parliament. This article's title makes it clear it is only speaking of those disqualified this year under 44(i).Fremantle99 (talk to me) 01:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Constitutional crisis article says "In political science, a constitutional crisis is a crisis of political administration, which the constitution (or other basic principle of operation) of a legal system appears unable to resolve..." That does not appear to be the case here, and the current title is therefore POV. I have tagged the article accordingly. StAnselm (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: "Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, 2017".
  1. It is parliamentary, affecting the federal parliament as a whole.
  2. It is about eligibility, but not only as to citizenship. There are also s 44(v) 'pecuniary interest' cases, with the Gillespie referral and perhaps also O'Sullivan. Though I think that Day and Culleton can be merely mentioned, because they have been replaced and so those cases are not elements of the crisis.
  3. There is a "crisis" because (a) although the government is hanging onto its majority, that could change at any moment (there might be a government member who has no imaginable excuse), (b) it is currently impossible to be confident that any parliamentary vote has not been determined by the presence of ineligible members and (c) decisions made in the exercise of personal discretion by an ineligible minster (maybe by Joyce about water) may be invalid.
  4. It is a political crisis, but not a constitutional crisis. The key issues are constitutional - concerning interpretation of Constitution s 44 - but that is entirely within the capacities of the High Court, which will soon get going. The time that this will take (probably several weeks) will contribute to the political difficulty, but will not itself be a constitutional difficulty.
Two ways in which the Court might speed the process up are: (a) to delegate factual matters to individual judges, for reporting to the full Court (done in the Day case); (b) to hand down its ruling(s) as fast as possible, announcing its reasons later on (done on eligibility to vote when a general election was imminent). But the s 44 interpretation issues require extensive argument before the full Court. The full Court is scheduled to sit on 4-15 September and 9-20 October. Wikiain (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC).
I would support this option. Wikiain puts forward good justification for the proposal, and I'd add the reason I suggested above that 'Constitutional disqualifications' is an inappropriate title at this stage because no one has been disqualified presently due to Section 44 (i), and there's a reasonable probability that only a minority of the individuals referred will actually be disqualified. There's a possibility none of them will be.
In summary: Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, 2017 > Constitutional disqualifications from the Parliament of Australia, 2017 >>> 2017 Australian constitutional crisis. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There might be even more of a crisis if one follows the intimation of Kiefel CJ during the directions hearing that there might have to be special Senate elections in four States (and, she didn't need to add, more if senators from further States or from the ACT or NT get referred). Conceivably, the Senate might be out of action for a month - just around the time for voting supply. Wikiain (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a major problem throughout all this, of not distinguishing between what can happen just through operation of law and what requires a decision—personal, administrative or judicial.
The Constitutional expressions "disqualification" and "disqualified" in ss 44 to 46 have to be read as stating negations to "qualified" and "qualification(s)" in ss 34 and 47. As someone is qualified by operation of law, with reference to particular facts, so they are nevertheless not qualified ("disqualified") if certain other facts exist. Ludlam and Walters were "disqualified" in that way: they acknowledged this and took their medicine.
Joyce and the others who are refusing to resign are arguing on the same terrain. They argue that the law that operates to determine their eligibility contains exceptions that apply to to them and they are asking the High Court to decide whether those exceptions exist. If the Court decides that they do exist, it may turn out that Ludlam and Waters have been too nice.
The distinction between what can happen just through operation of law and what requires a decision also applies to acquisition of citizenship. Failure to understand this seems to be key to some of the present cases. Citizenship is ordinarily acquired by operation of law, through birth on the country's territory (jus soli) or by descent from one or more citizens (jus sanguinis). This is normally automatic, not requiring a decisipon to register, even if the citizenship by descent is different from that by birth.
These are general principles: every country's citizenship law is different (and British nationality law may be the most complicated). Wikiain (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Certainly this is not a constitutional crisis, as argued at various points above. I think the idea of Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, 2017 seems the best option on offer at this point, though "crisis" still troubles me a little. but i feel Constitutional disqualifications from the Parliament of Australia, 2017 is both too long and, as GlorifiedPond argued above, they haven't actually technically been disqualified. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, 2017 is the best suggestion so far. It can accurately be described as a crisis of confidence and appears to meet at least 3 elements of a crisis: (1) unexpected, (2) creates uncertainty & (3) is a threat to the government. What sets this apart from previous issues of qualification is that it is the first time the eligibility of a minister has been challenged in the High Court. The long held principle that the presence of an ineligible person does not invalidate the proceedings of the parliament largely rests on the principle of the supremacy of parliament: see Vardon v O'Loghlin [1907] HCA 69, (1907) 5 CLR 201. The same principles do not apply in relation to ministers and s 64 of the constitution suggests that they would be ineligible to be ministers and it is at least arguable that every act as a minister would also be invalid, at least after 3 months. Whether the High Court will go that far & whether parliament would or could retrospectively validate such acts is unclear. Find bruce (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rangasyd: The event has been referred to in the majority of mainstream media as a "crisis". Maintaining the article name as such follows WP:COMMONNAME. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@User:Ivar the Boneful: We don't number our parliaments? Better look at Chronology of Australian federal parliaments, Australian federal election, 2016, etc. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, you certainly bulldozed that argument which I never made! Let me spell it out for you: barely anyone who works in politics – let alone members of the general public – would be able to tell you what parliament we're in without looking it up. Our job is to write for the general public not political nerds. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
No need to over-react. You're right about the general premise that most people neither know nor care about the parliament number. Yet it is the case that the parliaments are officially numbered, and there are many contexts where the numbering appears. I've seen no argument to say the number shouldn't appear in whatever title we collectively decide on. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Decision or decisions

In stating that "no date for the decision (or decisions) has been announced", I've included "(or decisions)" mainly because there appears to be a distinct possibility that in the Canavan case the Court will require further discussion of the expert evidence on Italian law, perhaps with further expert evidence. The contention that, on a particular but not settled reading of Italian constitutional law, Canavan might never have been an Italian citizen - which would be conclusive in his favour - was rather sprung on the Court. That task could be delegated to a single justice, to avoid holding the other decisions up. Wikiain (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem for Fiona Nash

With Fiona Nash ruled ineligible, there will be a countback of the NSW Senate vote. That will give the seat to Hollie Hughes. But Hughes is a Liberal, so that will cost the Nationals the seat. Hughes and Jim Molan, the next Liberal, could refuse to accept the seat, which would see it go to Wes Fang, the next National on the ticket. Or Hughes could accept the seat, then immediately resign, which would create a Section 15 vacancy. But the Constitution requires casual vacancies to be filled by a member of the same party, so Nash would not be eligible unless she joined the Liberal Party. Filling casual vacancies with someone of the same party hasn't been 'just a convention’ since it was written into the Constitution in 1977 so the Libs can't orchestrate the casual vacancy and then ask the NSW Parliament to fill the casual vacancy with Nash. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussed yesterday by constitutional expert Anne Twomey: Twomey, Anne (28 October 2017). "High court's citizenship message is clear: you have been warned". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 October 2017. Wikiain (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
In another complication, Wes Fang is now a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council! --Canley (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
While its interesting to consider the possibilities, it seems unlikely that Nash will return to the Senate anytime soon. "Fiona Nash unlikely to return after senators refuse to create vacancy". theguardian.com.. -- Find bruce (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleary calls for new constitution

Phil Cleary is still steaming: Cleary, Phil (30 October 2017). "Barnaby Joyce farce another reason why we need to rip up our failed constitution". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 30 October 2017. His issue - "office of profit under the Crown", s 44(iv) - did not come up in the Citizenship Seven case, but does affect Bartlett and Hughes.

On the reasoning in Sykes v Cleary, both of them may be ineligible. But, if the Court were to consider modern public employment (rather than 17th century England) and consider real possibilities of government interference with the person's decisions, I would say that Bartlett would be ok but not Hughes (there have been many government complaints about AAT decisions). Wikiain (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This entire "Citizenship Seven" thing is absurd. Most of the cases involve individuals who were unaware of anything, and should have been given a chance to regularise their situations, i.e. formally abjure the dual citizenship of which they apparently mostly had no idea (except for Ludlam, who has made clear he is not going to renounce his NZ citizenship). It's also absurd to imagine that no Australian MPs hold Irish passports or even possibly Israeli ones, although there are relatively few Jewish MPs as opposed to Irish ones. The difference is that the Irish government does not recognize renunciations of Irish nationality nor, as far as I know, does it share such information with other governments. Quis separabit? 23:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It says on the banner of the talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." You seem to be doing exactly that. Schwede66 23:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Amen, Schwede66. Wikiain (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship Seven Case article

The time seems to have come for the Citizenship Seven Case to have its own article. It would be a lot of work. I'm afraid that I don't have the time, but would be happy to assist. Wikiain (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The question will be how to split it without detracting from the current article given that the Citizen Seven make up the bulk of the crisis at present. I might try and give it a shot and come up with a draft sometime in the next week if I can find the time. For now I've added a split template to the relevant section. Kb.au (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I have WP:split the relevant content to Re Canavan. I have added Template:Cleanup split to note that this article still needs to be cleaned up. Find bruce (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Josh Frydenberg

Whether Frydenberg’s parents were stateless when they came to Australia is irrelevant. They were born Hungarian citizens. What is relevant is what Hungarian law was at the time of Frydenberg’s birth. If Hungarian law at that time said that the children of persons born as Hungarian citizens were also Hungarian citizens, and he did nothing to renounce that, then he is in breach. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant. There's little information on his situation beyond what's already been reported in the media and Frydenberg's response to the allegations directly referred to his parent's being stateless (and hence not being dual citizens, or even single citizens). As we've seen in Re Canavan, different jurisdictions' laws vary considerably, so you can't really suggest that the law at the time of his birth is what will be determinative. There doesn't appear to have been any published analysis applying his situation to the Hungarian law, so it's not for us to say whether he is in breach or not (see WP:NOR). Kb.au (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Kb.au. What has been said publicly contains views that are mutually contradictory and in most cases superficial. Citizenship law is a minefield: tread carefully. Wikiain (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

International Reaction

Bloomberg called this "The World's Most Ridiculous Constitutional Crisis" [1]. I feel a reference to this would add to the article, but not sure which section Bramley (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in a very minor source and the author is described as "a Bloomberg Gadfly columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies". I don't think we need it. Wikiain (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-16/australia-faces-the-world-s-most-ridiculous-constitutional-crisis

Rename

I propose the article be restored to its original title of 2017 Australian constitutional crisis, the vast majority of media sites are now referring to it as a constitutional crisis, and with the potential for more MPs to be uncovered which is highly likely, or a Federal audit of all MPs and Senators. There are a variety of ways this could pan out, but one thing is for certain the MPs in question have been ruled ineligible, so therefore the title of this page is inconsistent with current events. Since the word eligibility is essentially asking a question, they have been ruled ineligible. I suspect there are members on here who are refusing to name the obvious since they have their own motives with the Liberal party.--Luckyowl10 (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you start a formal move request. If it's truly controversial as you suggest, there's little chance that it'll resolve itself via a normal talk page discussion. Schwede66 04:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)ii::
I agree with Schwede. Please look at earlier discussion, in which there was a consensus that at least there is not a "constitutional" crisis, since there is nothing in this that the High Court cannot resolve by constitutional interpretation. The Court's judgment in October appears to confirm that. Wikiain (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The earlier discussion is here. Wikiain (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The above link was the AfD discussion - there was also a rename discussion here. Since my comments in that discussion my opposition to the use of the word "crisis" has lessened somewhat, but there is certainly no "constitutional crisis". The High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns considered the cases referred to it, made a decision, and the consequences have operated accordingly. A "constitutional crisis" would refer to an issue where the constitution is unable to resolve how to deal with an issue, but in this case the process for how to handle it was always clear - the court simply interpreted how the constitution applied to these cases, and was able to come to a unanimous decision. The only real crisis here is that the government has been put into a position of minority government for the moment. Even in a "worst case scenario" that the government actually fell over it, it's still a crisis for the government, not the constitution. Rob.au (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I oppose. "Constitutional crisis" was vague and uninformed. "Parliamentary eligibility crisis" describes the issue exactly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
'Parliamentary eligibility crisis' seems to describe what is actually going on. I'm leading towards that choice in the absence of anything more descriptive. -- Longhair\talk 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Luckyowl10 (talk · contribs) (1) Assume good faith (2) no personal attacks - focus on the issues not speculation about the motives of others (3) not all the MPs in question were ruled ineligible. You will need to convince people to overturn the consensus. In my view, the High Court has resolved any constitutional question & how many other MP are affected is a political issue rather than a constitutional one. Find bruce (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There is still a constitutional question, over what the High Court means by "irremediable", but nothing that the Court can't handle if (or rather when) called upon to do so. Richard Di Natale keeps calling this a "constitutional crisis" and there might be one if, as he wishes, he can get the Governor-General to be involved. Keeps us busy, dunnit? Wikiain (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

David Gillespie and pecuniary interests

Does the section on David Gillespie really belong in an article about a dual citizenship eligibility crisis? It's obviously similar in that it relates to parliamentary eligibility and is occurring at the same time, but beyond that it isn't really related to the crisis at all. Would it not belong better solely on the Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia page or at least in the subsection Earlier application of section 44 in the 45th Parliament (but replace Earlier with Other)? Kb.au (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've connected it in the lede to the Bob Day case, also about s 44(v). The whole 2017 saga, leading to crisis, can be seen as triggered by the Day case, as well as the cases of Rod Culleton which have concerned Constitution s 44(iii). Wikiain (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that Gillespie doesn't belong in an article about citizenship, but the way in which this article is framed, based on consensus, is about the political crisis concerning eligibility more generally - as Wikian says, starting from Day & Culleton. Gillespie was the next cab off the rank, but has been overtaken by the citizenship 7. The political crisis is reflected in the fact that from 1901-2016 there were only 4 occasions in which people were found to have been ineligible under s44 of the Constitution. In 2017 there were a further 9.
The current text is however a little ahead of events, in that the question the full court is considering on 12 December 2017 is whether the High Court can and should decide Gillespie's eligibility, in the absence of a referral from the House of Representatives:Alley v Gillespie [2017] HCATrans 196. -- Find bruce (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel like the core of this article is specifically the section 44(i) issues: this has been the part causing so much uncertainty and bringing down most of the MPs. Day and Culleton are a bit relevant as kind of a prelude to the main crisis (insofar as it had been a long time since Heather Hill, the last successful High Court challenge to eligibility), but Gillespie never really comes up in the same context as the Citizenship Seven (and all the others since). The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
If he does get disqualified it will come up. Also this article is about the "eligibility crisis" not "citizenship crisis". Superegz (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier on this page, there is also the question of Stuart Robert (his company won govt contracts, has been noted to bear similarities to Bob Day's case). --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Stuart Robert has not been a member of parliament in 2017. How does he have any relevance to the current matter? Find bruce (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
According to my sources, it was uncovered as part of the present crisis due to the increased scrutiny of the fourth estate. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
And where are the reliable sources linking the two? The articles you cite are all about Stuart Roberts, yet apparently are not important enough to include on the article about him. Find bruce (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that you have read the three sources that I have provided carefully? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No need to be coy - you're the one asserting the connection between the citizenship 7 & Stuart Roberts so its up to you to prove it. Find bruce (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have explained this to you already. The sources have made the link, not me. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Dynamic source

This ABC page, first published 19 August, (currently Ref 6) has just been updated. Provides good summary and says will be continually updated as more questions are raised or answered. It no longer refers to Xenophon or Nash, so maybe would be better as an external link if it is going to continually change? JennyOz (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

archive.org is good for showing websites at a point in time, eg changing the reference to 25 August 2017 would be "Status anxiety: Who's who in the dual citizenship mess". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 19 August 2017. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. -- Find bruce (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Some of the Fairfax Media sources (SMH and The Age) are also "dynamic": especially, their headings change. Such is digital life. I think we just have to stick to responsible sites, or we won't be able to cite very much internally. Wikiain (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Roberts and Anning first preference votes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Watching the little edit war over whether "Roberts had received only 77 first-preference votes in the 2016 election; Anning had received 19" and "Most Australians vote for a political party, not for individual Senate candidates" should be included. I feel like neither line belongs in the article. The first reads as an attack on both Senators' credibility with little relevance to the actual topic of eligibility. The latter is an opinion. Kb.au (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The first-preference votes for Fraser Anning should not be reported. First, it ignores the fact that the vast majority of votes are cast above the line, so below-the-line votes only reflect a particular (small) subset of voters, rendering the number essentially meaningless. Second, the votes from the 2016 count are meaningless as Roberts (above Anning on the ballot) had his votes declared void; some of those would have gone to Anning in the absence of Roberts. Third, the tiny number of votes for other elected candidates (such as Jordon Steele-John) are not reported, making this look more like a personal attack on Anning. If the Anning vote count goes, I have no objection to the second point being removed. WWGB (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikiain does good work on this article, but in this case i agree with WWGB. This article does not require any commentary on first preference votes of any of the candidates, as it is not relevant to the topic. And indeed, they are not mentioned for any of the Senators but these ones. The words "Roberts had received only 77 first-preference votes in the 2016 election; Anning had received 19" should be deleted (and therefore so should any explanation of above the line etc, as it is then unnecessary). hamiltonstone (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I take the point that first-preference votes should be recorded for all or none and have removed these sentences. Wikiain (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lisa Singh section relevant?

Is the section on Lisa Singh particularly relevant or notable given it concerned her 2010 election? Given she was eligible at the most recent election, her election can't be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns, so she doesn't really belong with the rest of the MPs and Senators mentioned in that section.

The article is about the eligibility crisis resulting from eligibility concerns relating the current Parliament. As past members can't lose their spot, their situations can't really be considered as adding to the crisis. And if we're going to follow the path of including past ineligibilities, the list could be endless… Kb.au (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. No reason for it to be here: the list is going to get a hell of a lot longer if we get into former ineligibilities that weren't known at the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. I think it was a significant component in the early stages, when the parties were feeling their ways, but not any more. Wikiain (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Article structure and content

I have been doing some editing of the article, and am becoming aware of how its structure is not very good. There is repetition that has resulted from its rapid evolution and expansion, so there are opportunities to trim it. Some of this I have tried to do. Something I would like other opinions on:

The subsection titled "procedure" will be incomprehensible to most lay readers - it was almost incomprehensible to me as a non-lawyer who is an expert in this particular field - and I am not sure it actually adds to the article. If people care about the deeper legal aspects, they can go to the articles about the High Court, the Court of Disputed Returns, the Electoral Act etc. I'd like to delete the subsection, but want to check if anyone else is against this? hamiltonstone (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I generally agree. I think it does need to be summarised to some extent, because the role of the Court of Disputed Returns in relation to this stuff and the process for how things wind up before it is absolutely relevant to this article - especially given the partisan standoff over the potential referral of the remaining MPs. However, there is a lot of an irrelevant detail there: the "petition by individual or the AEC" section is completely irrelevant to the crisis and the "common informer" section only extremely barely. This whole section could be covered in something like six lines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. (edit conflict) I agree i'd like to go further, and delete the subsections "Petition by individual or AEC" and "Parliamentary reference", most of the text of which are straight copies of sections from another wikipedia article, Court of Disputed Returns (Australia). All this material is technical, dense, and of almost no help to the reader, who really does not care how something came to be considered by the country's highest court; just that it was (particularly as the mechanisms of referral are not in any way part of the controversy). The section "Common informer action" is more difficult but I think can mostly be deleted, then a shorter version used in explaining the Gillespie action, in the section on Gillespie (or even as a footnote to a sentence in the Gillespie section). hamiltonstone (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
As I said (amidst the edit conflict), in other circumstances I might agree with you about how something came to be considered - but considering the will-they-or-won't-they partisan stoush over referrals is in about its third week, I think there does need to be some explanation of how that practically works. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, hamiltonstone. I wrote most of the material you are querying and I agree that it would be better elsewhere—eventually. However, I agree with The Drover's Wife that it should be left where it is for the time being. There is so much misunderstanding by politicians and in the media—for example, we're still getting reports about a politician "referring her/himself" to the High Court, which is corrected in a Note here. Wikiain (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
And yes, that note is fine. But the long legal detail i don't think is going to help the reader understand. I think we are all agreeing after a fashion. I will leave it a while and see if I can come up with a revised version some time. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Recount or countback?

The High Court speaks of a "special count" for a Senate election and we here are speaking more colloquially sometimes of a "recount" and sometimes of a "countback". I don't greatly mind which, although to my ear "recount" is the ordinary Australian expression while "countback" sounds like an Americanism, but clearly we should be consistent. Wikiain (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer countback because it's the most recognisable term for this situation, and is the commonly used term in the Australian jurisdictions that use the method for filling vacancies (Tas HA, WA LC). Recount, to me, indicates a mere recount of the votes without changing the candidates, as would occur for example in a close race following election. I can see the argument for using "special count" because the High Court does, but it's a very vague term: unless you said that it was the High Court's language for "countback", I'd have no idea what was in fact being suggested. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I prefer "countback" too, for the same reason that it is a bit clearer about what is going on. The Tasmanian Electoral Commission does use the term "recount", but I think most other outlets (including the media, Wikipedia and some government bodies) use countback to refer to the same process. --Canley (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I prefer recount because the meaning is more obvious to a casual reader, whereas countback sounds more technical. The High Court refers to it as a 'special count', so 'recount' seems apt given it is literally a recount – just without the ineligible candidates.
Without a legislative or judicial reference to this countback method at the federal level, perhaps the dictionary meanings of both terms could be some guide as to which is preferable. The only definition of 'countback' on Wiktionary relates to counting back past sporting results to determine the winner in a tie. On the other hand, the definition of 'recount' is "A counting again, as of votes".
The media seems to be split over which term it uses, with all the media organisations using 'recount', 'special recount', 'countback', 'count back', or 'count-back' without any clear pattern or consensus. For clarity and simplitiy's sake, I think recount is more appropriate. Either way though, the term used should be consistent throughout the article. Kb.au (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't have strong views either way, but note that we have previously used "recount" in Re Wood, Re Culleton (No 2), Re Day (No 2) & List of invalid elections and appointments to the Senate. -- Find bruce (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Let us come to a view. Opinions being nearly equal, shall we go with "recount" because of Wiktionary? Wikiain (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017–18_Australian_parliamentary_eligibility_crisis/Archive_1&oldid=1126825403"