It’s 2019 and Western Australia is still locking up people for not paying fines. Of course this abhorrent policy barely affects the rich, or the well-employed, or those with financial security. It doesn’t affect those who have access to money, or for whom a $500 – $1000 slap on the wrist is just a matter of flashing the credit card or at worst, waiting until payday. No, it punishes people for being poor, for which $500+ becomes an unmanageable percentage of their income/benefit. And before long, that slap on the wrist becomes a prison sentence.

This policy, which Attorney-General John Quigley can stop right now, is disastrous for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in the community, those who barely have enough money to pay the rent, or buy food or nappies for babies. These are not violent criminals, or a threat to society. No, these people, many of which are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, cannot afford to pay the most miniscule of fines which have been meted out, not for grievous acts against person or property, but for basic regulatory offences which should never ever see a person imprisoned.

In Western Australia, every day there are approximately 8 to ten people in jail for unpaid fines. These are fathers and mothers separated from their children, vulnerable people separated from their families and incarcerated with prisoners when they have committed no crime. Of these, women are overrepresented, and 64% of the female fine defaulters are Indigenous women.

This is outrageous. And it must stop. Now. Not in six months after yet another review of a dire situation. Not tomorrow, when yet another two people have been arrested for not being able to pay their fines.

Today. Now. Attorney-General Quigley must act now and urgently put forward legislation to stop the abhorrent practice of jailing people who cannot pay their fines.

This isn’t a new idea. It isn’t something which the Western Australian government isn’t critically aware of, although the arrest and imprisonment last week of Indigenous actor and dancer Rubeun Yorkshire has thrown the spotlight on the issue again. It’s a policy which an entire coronial inquest report has recommended against.

In 2014, Aboriginal woman Ms Dhu died in police custody after officers failed to recognise she was critically ill after a rib, broken months earlier by a violent partner, became infected. Ms Dhu was in jail for owing a pitiful $3,622. It cost her life. The Coroner’s report noted that that the series of escalating consequences for fine defaulters, when combined with poverty, result in people being jailed without the safeguard of judicial oversight.

The Coroner recommended that the WA government should change the law and stop the practice of jailing people for unpaid fines. That report was handed down in December 2016.

And what has changed? Nothing. Not a thing. In fact the prison population is still growing, and Indigenous Australians are grossly overrepresented. A 2018 Human Rights Watch report found that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in prison are the fastest growing prison population, and 21 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-indigenous peers.”

Western Australia is punishing people for being poor. It is punishing people who have been subject all their lives to institutionalised racism. It is embedding a state-sanctioned punitive culture where those who are financially suffering are further shamed, humiliated and punished, despite having no criminal convictions.

Prisons are for criminals, not poor people. Prisons are places of punishment for those who pose a risk to society, not the victims of violence, like the Noongar woman who was arrested and jailed in September 2017 for unpaid fines after police were called to deal with a violent family member.

Attorney-General Quigley knows all this. In October 2018 he told media that jail for fine defaulters was an “economically unsound policy”. Jailing people costs money; approximately $303 a day per person. A person cannot “pay off” a fine through incarceration. It’s nonsensical and prehistoric. Quigley stated that jailing fine defaulters should be “truly a last resort”. This isn’t good enough, when “last resort” it almost certainly means a person has no other option but to give their life for a paltry thousand dollars or so.

And it isn’t good enough to promise to put forward legislation later, another day, another time. It must happen now.

The Western Australian government must act now.

But in the meantime, Australians who are appalled at the gross injustice of jailing people who have committed no crimes are stepping up. While Attorney-General Quigley hides behind bureaucracy, Debbie Kilroy, Executive Director of Sisters Inside, an organization which advocates for the human rights of women in the criminal justice system, has started a GoFundMe fundraiser with the aim to free 100 single Aboriginal mothers from Western Australian prisons.

It has raised over $87,000 in just two days.

This money has already been used to save a single Noongar woman, a mother of three children, from being imprisoned. The accumulated debt of $3100 came from traffic infringements and having an unregistered dog.

Attorney-General Quigley can put a stop to this draconian policy. He can put forward legislation immediately to end the discriminatory practice of jailing people for being poor. He can cease this barbaric action against the most vulnerable in the community. And he must do it now, before another family is torn apart and separated, by imprisonment, or death.

Please donate to #FreeThePeople here.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton MP is well known for throwing out subjective opinion as fact. His flippant assertions are plastered across mainstream news, regardless of how incorrect, offensive or harmful to Australia’s diverse communities. However it’s one thing to pander to the ideological sensitivities of the conservative fan-base with misinformed declarations, and another thing entirely to take serious action with significant legal consequences based on nothing more than supposition and conjecture.

In the case of Australian-born terrorist Neil Prakash, the latter applies. In what can only be described as an embarrassing botching of a matter which should have been a public relations winner, it appears that Dutton has stripped citizenship from a sole Australian citizen, rendering Prakash stateless. The government has made the ill-advised assumption that Prakash is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia, namely Fiji, because his father is Fijian. Accordingly, Dutton gave written notice to Prakash, as required by law, advising that he had ceased to be an Australian citizen by virtue of his overseas terrorist/foreign fighting activities.

Clearly Dutton, or his advisors, or the senior bureaucrats responsible for briefing Dutton, didn’t actually read the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, legislation which Dutton so fervently advocated for. Or they read it, and didn’t understand it. And yet, in the face of senior Fijian officials contradicting the Australian government, and legal experts throwing doubt on the veracity of Dutton’s claims and the legality of the administrative action in affirming the cessation of Prakash’s citizenship, Dutton is holding strong.

To see just how ludicrous it is for Dutton to maintain that Prakash is a citizen of Fiji, the same creative logic can be applied to another definitive statement.

“Peter Dutton is a potato”.

In order to analyse this seemingly erroneous, or at best metaphorical statement, it’s necessary to step through the logic which should have been applied when determining if section 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act actually applied to Prakash.

The elements required to be satisfied for section 35 to apply are unambiguous:

(1) A person aged 14 or older ceases to be an Australian citizen if:

(a) the person is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia; and

(b) the person:

(i) serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia; or

(ii) fights for, or is in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation; and

(c) the person’s service or fighting occurs outside Australia.

Clearly Prakash is over the age of 14 being now 27 years old, and Australia-born, is at least capable of losing his Australian citizenship if the remaining elements are satisfied.

Section 35(1)(a) requires that a person “is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia”. This element is particularly relevant to determining the correctness or otherwise of the statement “Peter Dutton is a potato”.

There are no two ways to interpret the requirement in section 35(1)(a). However breaking it down for ease of understanding the operative word is “is” followed by the nouns “national” or “citizen”. The ordinary definition of “is” is the present tense third-person singular of “be” which means to equal, have identity with, or to have an objective existence. There is no “maybe” or “possibly” or “subjectively could be” or “Dutton really wants it to be the case because political convenience”.

For section 35 to apply, and for Prakash to have ceased to be an Australian citizen, he must have objectively existed as a national or citizen of a country other than Australia at the time he fought in a declared terrorist organisation, Islamic State, while overseas. That doesn’t mean “entitled to” or “eligible for” Fijian citizenship; the statement “Prakash is a national or citizen of Fiji” must have been definitively true at the applicable time.

This is where it gets awkward for the government.

Whether or not someone is a national or citizen of a country is a question of fact. Nationality and citizenship are distinct legal concepts, which are defined in a constitution or legislation or codified in the relevant country. The status of someone as a national or citizen is not simply a matter of opinion. And Fijian officials have stated quite unequivocally that Prakash is not a citizen of Fiji.

So back to the contemporaneous assertion that Peter Dutton is a potato.

Once again, there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of “is”. Peter Dutton either is, or is not, a potato. He doesn’t act like a potato or look like a potato, or want to be a potato. The statement doesn’t inquire whether he is entitled or eligible to be a potato. It states that Peter Dutton objectively exists as a potato.

From an ordinary reading, this statement is clearly nonsensical, as Dutton is a homo sapien and not a starchy plant tuber. However using the same creative interpretive logic as the government, there is a stronger argument that Dutton is in fact a potato compared with the assertion that Prakash is a Fijian citizen.

As the definition of “national” or “citizen” is a distinct legal concept, it’s a question of fact whether a person is or is not a national or citizen, and a narrow or broad interpretation of such will result in the same conclusion. It may be difficult to navigate the complex citizenship laws of foreign countries and it may be necessary to consult legal experts from the relevant jurisdiction. But regardless, the citizenship status of a person will usually be definitive.

However because there is no legislative definition of “potato”, it’s necessary to adopt an ordinary meaning as defined in a dictionary. A narrow interpretation of “potato” results in the claim that Dutton is a starchy plant tuber. However a broad interpretation could include definitions found in a standard dictionary or an urban dictionary. This provides a far more imaginative use of the word. Dutton could be an object of poor quality, or a confusing word at the end of a sentence, or the sad forever alone single, a not-so-confident girl, or a person who is brainless and not aware of anything.

It appears on the available information that Prakash does not, and has not at any time, objectively existed as a Fijian citizen. As such, it is likely that section 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act does not apply to Prakash. His alleged involvement in overseas terrorist activities did not cause automatic cessation of his Australian citizenship, and Dutton erred in providing him with written notice that his Australian citizenship had ceased.

However it is evidently open to interpretation that Dutton is in fact a potato. While this goes some way to explaining how such a monumental and internationally embarrassing error could have occured, it is no consolation to Australians currently subject to Dutton’s continued reign of nincompoopery.

When Home Affairs Minister, Peter Dutton MP announced that the government had revoked the citizenship of Australian-born terrorist Neil Prakash, he was no doubt sure it would be met with rounds of public applause. After a tumultuous few months for the Coalition, marred by scandal and infighting, Dutton needed a positive front page story. And what better than to reaffirm the government’s strong stance on national security and declare a famed and notorious terrorist had been stripped of citizenship?

There is little about Prakash to elicit empathy. Born in Australia, the 27-year-old allegedly travelled to Syria to fight with Islamic State in 2013. He has appeared in Islamic State propaganda and is reportedly on the United States kill list. According to counter-terrorism experts, Prakash was a “pivotal figure inspiring and encouraging terrorist plots in Australia”. He was captured in October 2016 attempting to sneak into Turkey using fake identity documents and has been held in a maximum security jail ever since.

Prakash is evidently a dangerous man. He is clearly a threat to national security. He is the subject of an Australian Federal Police arrest warrant for multiple serious crimes. And being a follower of radical Islam, of Fijian-Indian and Cambodian background, Prakash conveniently reinforces the notion that terrorists are Muslim, brown and not Australian.

Except Prakash is Australian, or at least was, until Dutton provided him with written notice under section 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that his citizenship had ceased.

In 2015 the government tightened the provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 relating to the cessation of Australian citizenship. However the provisions – those relating to renunciation by conduct (section 33AA) and service outside Australia in armed forces of an enemy country or a declared terrorist organisation (section 35), only apply where a person is also a national or citizen of a country other than Australia.

And the evidence is mounting that Prakash is not.

Whether or not a person is a national or citizen of a particular country is a question of fact. A person either is, or is not, a national or citizen. It is a matter which can be determined by applying the law from the applicable country and it is a determination for the relevant country to make. Fijian officials have categorically stated that Prakash, despite his Fijian background, is not a citizen of that country. This causes some angst for Dutton and the government, which are standing firmly behind the announcement that Prakash has ceased to be an Australian citizen.

It appears that the Citizenship Loss Board, and those advising it, have erred in their briefing to Dutton that Prakash has ceased to be an Australian citizen by virtue of fighting with Islamic State. The legislation requires that if the Minister becomes aware that a person has ceased to be a citizen in accordance with section 35 or 33AA, the Minister must give, or make reasonable attempts to give, written notice to the person that citizenship has either been renounced or has ceased. As such, the revocation of Australian citizenship is an active administrative process. Government officials, if they are notified by security agencies that a possible dual citizen is fighting overseas or committing relevant terrorist acts, have to be satisfied that the elements are met for the provisions to apply before the Minister provides such written notice. In the case of section 35 and 33AA, the person must be aged 14 years or older, be a “a national or citizen of a country other than Australia” and have engaged in the relevant terrorism-related or foreign fighting activities.

It appears that those briefing Dutton have interpreted the requirement in the legislation to be a foreign national or citizen as including a person being “eligible for” or “entitled to” be a national or citizen of another country. In Prakash’s case, because his father is Fijian, they have determined that close enough is good enough.

However there is nothing in the legislation to suggest that it may be interpreted as broadly as to apply to those who are not, but may be eligible for citizenship of another country. The wording is quite unambiguous and supports a strict interpretation that a person must hold citizenship or be a national of a country other than Australia for section 35 or section 33AA to apply.

If Prakash is not, and was not, a dual citizen, then it is a simple and strongly supported conclusion that he cannot have ceased to be an Australian citizen, or have renounced his Australian citizenship by conduct, as neither provision was enlivened by his actions of engaging in terrorist activities. If so, this is embarrassing for the government and a colossal error in applying the controversial laws.

As Fijian officials are adamant that Prakash is not a citizen, the Australian government’s actions in confirming by written notice that Prakash is no longer an Australian citizen, likely leaves him stateless unless a court rules that the written notice is invalid. If this occurs, section 35(19) provides that “to avoid doubt, a person’s citizenship is taken never to have ceased …” if “(b) … a court finds that the person was not a national or citizen of a country other than Australia at the time the person served or fought”.

Prakash’s case demonstrates how Dutton and his band of merry conservatives use national security to reinforce racism and divide in the community. It’s convenient for Dutton to promote that terrorists are somehow the “other”, they are probably brown and are not Australian. It suits the government to create an easily identifiable target for public fear; someone easily identifiable by the colour of their skin and to reinforce through that, that they are not Australian by way of making tenuous links with ancestry. It is ideologically useful to make terrorists someone else’s responsibility and it suits the government’s agenda to demonstrate it is keeping Australians safe by stripping citizenship. This reinforces that Australians aren’t terrorists and terrorists don’t live in Australia.

Even if a court challenge finds that the cessation of citizenship was erroneous, it’s possible that Prakash will never set foot in Australia again, despite the government initiating extradition proceedings with Turkey for his return. However the government’s possible misapplication of its own law in an attempt to abrogate responsibility for Australian-born and raised terrorists will undoubtedly further damage communities. The actions of the government build on years of racist undertones and policy which reinforces the false notion that Australians are white and of British ancestry.

A conservative estimate is that one third of Australians are either foreign nationals or foreign citizens, with 28% of Australians born overseas and millions more estimated to be dual citizens. It appears that Prakash is not one of these. To accept responsibility for Prakash, a man born in Australia and likely a sole, Australian citizen, is to accept that Australians are diverse and come from all backgrounds. It is to accept that Australia is not just white, Christian and British. It is to accept that Australia has its own home-grown and raised terrorists, and they are Australia’s responsibility, whether it suits the government’s agenda or not.

The Government’s eleventh hour hijack of a federal corruption watchdog is hardly a surprise. Still blistering from the party’s crushing defeat in both Wentworth and the Victorian State election, party leaders are feeling the heat. They do not need any further embarrassment. Sitting for the first time on the 26th November 2018 without a majority, the government only changed its tune to support an anti-corruption commission after rumours a National MP would cross the floor to stand with Labor and the crossbenchers in a formal motion.

Yet the Morrison government’s about-face is more than maintaining a visage of power on the floor. Attorney-General Christian Porter has already claimed that the bill introduced by Independent MP Cathy McGowan is a “violation of an individual’s rights and freedoms to due process” – something which has never worried Porter when introducing any other legislation. Further, the Attorney-General will not set timeframes for introducing his own bill, dismissing a federal corruption body as a “fringe issue”. Clearly a robust, independent and properly resourced anti-corruption body is not high in the list of government priorities.

On the same day the government signalled watery support for a national integrity body, Fairfax Media published a damning indictment on the ability of the existing law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies to deal with systemic corruption in the public service. Further throwing fuel on an already volatile Coalition fire, former Australian Border Force (ABF) Commissioner, Roman Quaedvlieg has also strongly implied that existing law enforcement agencies have been hobbled by the government through lack of funding and resources. He told Fairfax Media of the difficulties in having corruption within his own former agency investigated by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

Quaedvlieg’s public support for a properly funded and well-resourced corruption watchdog should be a worry for his former bosses, Minister Dutton and Prime Minister Morrison, as well as Attorney-General Porter, who is the responsible minister for ACLEI. Quaedvlieg has intimate knowledge of the inner workings of government and an established reputation for supporting anti-corruption oversights. He has expertise in law enforcement, border protection and national security.

Exposing the gravity of the government’s neglect, Quaedvlieg told Fairfax Media that he and the now-Secretary of Home Affairs Mike Pezzullo had to provide $1 million out of their own agency budgets for investigations after being told by ACLEI that it lacked the resources. Quaedvlieg further revealed that “[ACLEI Commissioner Mr Griffin] came to us one year and asked us for more money and we said it is a matter you need to take up with your minister. We are not your budget source.”

The lack of willingness by the Coalition government, through the Attorney-General, to fund the existing law enforcement agencies is deeply troubling. For all its talk of national security and protecting Australian borders, it appears evident that the Morrison government and his predecessors have been stifling the very agencies tasked with investigating and holding to account corrupt officials. This supports the public perception that corruption is indeed systemic and rife within federal agencies and government, extending to the federal judiciary which is also under the portfolio of the Attorney-General. It reveals the pantomimed support for a national integrity commission as farcical.

Contrary to the Attorney-General’s misguided assertion that “there doesn’t seem to be a high degree of corruption within the federal sphere”, there is no doubt that the Attorney-General (being responsible for ACLEI), and the relevant Ministers were, and are, aware of the depth and breadth of corruption. It is routine for Ministers to be briefed on alleged corruption levels, including the number of referrals to ACLEI and the anti-corruption measures which have been taken by the agency. Ministers are routinely briefed again when serious allegations are made and immediately before any formal action is taken. It is clearly disingenuous for the Coalition to maintain that corruption isn’t an issue, or that the existing agencies are equipped to deal with corruption. This is amplified when confronted with Quaedvlieg’s critical, publicly-stated assessment that “ACLEI has to beg borrow and steal capability – including surveillance and phone tapping – to operate.”

This highlights the obvious. What does the Coalition have to fear about a robust, independent, and fully resourced anti-corruption body? Why are those in charge of the security of the nation and the “safety of Australians” so anxious about the establishment of a body tasked with holding officials to account and ensuring the integrity of government institutions? Why would the Coalition not favour an agency with strong powers to “ferret out corruption”, as supported by leading former judges and anti-corruption commissioners?

Why hasn’t the Attorney-General and relevant ministers properly funded the existing law enforcement and integrity agencies? The Attorney-General and relevant ministers are ultimately accountable when corruption is left to flourish in the public service, and even more so when vital funding is withheld. What motivation does the government have in attempting to reduce integrity agencies to toothless cubs with barely a gummy nibble, let alone a bite?

There is a growing public perception that law enforcement agencies are being used for political purposes. The matter of the alleged tip-off to journalists from Michaelia Cash’s office of the AFP raids on the Australian Workers Union in October 2017, over decades-old allegations, has leached a nasty stain on government; a raid which the ALP and Union claims was politically motivated to implicate opposition leader Bill Shorten in corruption. Similar concerns exist over the motivation behind AFP raids on the Department of Home Affairs, investigating leaks related to Dutton’s au pair saga. The matter caused significant embarrassment to the government when a Senate Inquiry found Dutton had misled Parliament, and further embarrassment when the Senate determined the documents obtained in the raid were covered by parliamentary privilege.

Quaedvlieg’s sacking in March 2018 also raises concerns about the use of law enforcement agencies for political purposes. Considering the reasons provided for the termination of his appointment, the political environment, and the extraordinary assassination of Quaedvlieg’s character (only made possible through the unauthorised disclosure of confidential material from the investigation), there is an arguable case Quaedvlieg was initially referred for investigation for political and/or personal reasons, and was erroneously sacked.

Dutton has not yet been interrogated on how it was proper for Quaedvlieg’s then-contemporary, Pezzullo, to refer Quaedvlieg to ACLEI for investigation, knowing they had worked closely together for years and were both considered potential candidates for the role of secretary of the new mega-Department of Home Affairs (which was only publicly revealed once Quaedvlieg was stood down). Dutton has not provided an explanation on why it took Pezzullo months to recognise the obvious conflict of interest and recuse himself from the matter.

It is also notable that the AFP has taken no action into the unauthorised disclosures of confidential information relating to the investigation into Quaedvlieg, despite the leaks commencing within a month of his referral to ACLEI and continuing during and beyond the investigation and termination of his appointment. This is in stark contrast to the AFP’s swift action on the au pair affair leaks, which caused embarrassment to Dutton, rather than a private citizen.

The matter of ACLEI finding resources to investigate and refer for prosecution Quaedvlieg’s girlfriend for alleged minor and “nitpicky” offences relating to the investigation into Quaedvlieg, is also of serious concern. This “coincidentally” occurred mid-2018 at the time Quaedvlieg began speaking out publicly against government policy. There is, and was, no public interest in charging and prosecuting the woman, which is supported by the weak brief of evidence presented by the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecution. In fact, if not for the arguably improper initial referral of Quaedvlieg to ACLEI, she would not be facing any charges at all.

Conversely, the government has failed to take any action to pursue the matter of Dutton allegedly asking Quaedvlieg to help two of his friends obtain employment within the ABF. It has also failed to address claims listed in a whistleblower’s document filed with the Queensland Legislative Assembly in August 2017, in relation to the allegations of corruption against former Ipswich mayor Paul Pisasale, which implicate Dutton in the scandal.

The document states at paragraph 16 .“It is known that ex-mayor [REDACTED] has had meetings with former treasurer [REDACTED] … and the Mayor [REDACTED] has also been there on occasion when [REDACTED] has been there as well. ([REDACTED] is the Federal Member for Dickson and the Minister for Immigration). It is known that ex-mayor [REDACTED] would often telephone the Immigration Ministers office or department to make representations seeking assistance with immigration processing for young Asian women.”

While question marks hang over the heads of other members of parliament, the unexplained matters relating to Dutton are of profound concern given his prominence as a Minister and his influence within Cabinet. Fractured by internal warring and deserted by previously loyal voters, the Coalition is facing an election wipeout. All it needs now is an independent, properly funded and well-resourced integrity commission to ferret out abuse of power and corruption and the Liberal Party will face electoral oblivion.

With the loss of majority, Morrison has no choice but to feign support for a corruption watchdog. It’s the only way to gain control and effectively neuter the now foreseeable and genuine threat to the conservative-right’s supremacy. It is therefore crucial that Labor and the crossbenchers fight fiercely for an independent body which has strong investigatory powers, capability and resources. It must be properly funded with bipartisan oversight to prevent improper interference. It must maintain impartiality and avoid at all cost the perception it is being used for political purposes. And perhaps once such a body is established, Australians will renew their faith in democracy.

On 15 March 2018, the head of the Australian Border Force, Commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg was sacked. It was a curious case. Quaedvlieg had allegedly changed internal recruitment policy to help his girlfriend get a casual, low level administrative job at Sydney Airport and failed to disclose the relationship. Yet for such a high profile case, there was very little media attention during the nine month investigation. It was prolonged and shrouded in silence. The Opposition were strangely quiet over the whole affair. Quaedvlieg fiercely denied wrongdoing and still maintains his innocence.

Until his unprecedented sacking, Quaedvlieg was at the prime of his career. With a lengthy background in law enforcement and management, he was touted as one of two possible options to head up the new mega-Department of Home Affairs expected to be established in 2017. The timing of Quaedvlieg’s mysterious suspension couldn’t have been worse. In Quaedvlieg’s absence, Mike Pezzullo became one of the most powerful Department heads in the Commonwealth Government.

There was no indication Quaedvlieg wasn’t fully respected by his peers and the Minister when he suddenly disappeared from his official role in mid-2017. There was no indication that anything was awry. However his recent, very public spat with his former boss, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, has brought to the forefront a very serious question. Just why was Quaedvlieg sacked?

There seems a fairly reasonable case that Quaedvlieg was already a marked man from at least early 2017. Instigations for investigations of the nature for which Quaedvlieg was eventually sacked do not occur in a vacuum. And it seems distinctly unbelievable that a man in Quaedvlieg’s position, with his lengthy experience in law enforcement and national security, would have such a continued error of judgement, as alleged by Dutton and his companions, in committing the alleged misdemeanors which ultimately led to his sacking.

It is also unprecedented for a senior government official to be sacked over something as obscure as allegedly doctoring recruitment processes to benefit a person applying for a low-level administrative position. It’s equally absurd to suggest that Quaedvlieg would not have a sound understanding of the requirements to disclose a personal relationship at the appropriate time.

So what really happened? Was it the mismanagement of what should have been a minor internal investigation which made Quaedvlieg’s position untenable? The process was extraordinarily long and Quaedvlieg has publicly stated he was denied natural justice. Was it a personal vendetta instigated somewhere within the secretive depths of the bureaucracy which took an ugly turn and from which there was no coming back? Was the matter with the girlfriend a concocted and convenient excuse to take Quaedvlieg out? Just why did the Government go for Quaedvlieg?

As Border Force Commissioner, Quaedvlieg was a trusted, powerful and influential public servant. He had knowledge of the innermost workings of his Department, a direct line to the Minister, and a wealth of information on the most sensitive details of secretive and closely guarded operations. He was the public face of Border Force, with no smear on his record, other than the public wrathe personally directed at him over the abhorrent indefinite detention of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island; an accountability which actually sits directly and undisputedly with Mike Pezzullo, Secretary for the Department of Home Affairs.

Something clearly went wrong for Quaedvlieg. The investigation was initially instigated by Pezzullo, Quaedvlieg’s then-contemporary as Secretary of the former ­Department of Immigration and Border Protection. He referred allegations to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity in what Quaedvlieg expected would be a swift exoneration. Instead the matter dragged on. The internal inquiry was completed by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet’s secretary, Martin Parkinson.

And while at the time, Home Affairs Minister Dutton went to great lengths to distance himself from Quaedvlieg’s sacking, recently he has made extraordinary attempts to discredit and defame him, while hiding behind parliamentary privilege. The current Prime Minister and former Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, has also supported Dutton, giving credence to Dutton’s scurrilous claims that Quaedvlieg’s consenting adult relationship with a younger woman was illegal.

The sacking, and unprecedented personal vilification of a man formerly trusted to lead the Australian Border Force is astonishing. It coincides with Quaedvlieg’s recent openness to engage publicly on matters of interest to the Australian public.

Shortly after his sacking, Quaedvlieg questioned the Government’s proposal to give police greater powers to demand identity documents in airports. In August 2018 he intervened to assist advocates obtain medical treatment for a refugee. In September he made public his own musings from a 2015 visit to Nauru. His regular tweets give subtle clues as to what he may know. He has used the protection of a parliamentary inquiry to reveal details of Dutton’s potential abuse of power in the au pair affair and jobs for mates scandal, which Quaedvlieg reveals he has detailed knowledge of the recruitment events for in his letter to the Chair, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee.

As a private citizen, it is difficult for Quaedvlieg to defend himself. Unlike Dutton, he does not have the protection of parliamentary privilege other than through formal government inquiry channels. It is evident that at least one man, Quaedvlieg’s former boss, will stop at nothing in his attempts to discredit him. And in what can only be described as a vindictive and malicious prosecution, Quaedvlieg’s girlfriend has been criminally charged for essentially not telling investigators what they wanted to hear.

What happened behind closed doors that led to the squirreling out of Quaedvlieg’s girlfriend’s alleged unmerited job placement? Who was responsible for his drawn out, secretive and extraordinary downfall? Why is Quaedvlieg still being publicly attacked by the government?

In the current political climate, Dutton and Morrison are evidently concerned about the truth being exposed. They must be thankful they recently passed laws making it illegal to “harm Australia’s reputation”. They must be glad a precedent has been set with the vexatious prosecution of Bernard Collaery and Witness K, who are now defending charges after exposing the Australian Government’s illegal spying in East Timor. Senior government officials and Ministers must be grateful that there is bipartisan support for the laws which threaten 2 years in jail for anyone speaking out on matters relevant to the Border Force. They must fear what Quaedvlieg knows.

Perhaps in time, a government committed to transparency and accountability will establish a full inquiry into the international embarrassment which is Australia’s offshore detention regime, the establishment of the Border Force and super-Department of Home Affairs, and the mysterious rise and fall of Quaedvlieg.

The implosion of Nationals Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce’s political career, amid the growing scandal over his adulterous relationship with a female staffer comes at a fortuitous time. The Religious Freedom Review, an inquiry set up to examine whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion, has just closed to submissions.

The impetus for the inquiry was the 2017 Marriage Equality Plebiscite, during which opponents of marriage equality argued they should be able to legally discriminate against people engaging in what they deemed morally repugnant behaviour, on the basis of their religious beliefs. And so it is with some irony that the exposure of Joyce’s morally questionable actions comes now.

The mandate for the Religious Freedom Review is to “consider the intersections between the enjoyment of the freedom of religion and other human rights”. Clearly the aim of the inquiry is to placate those of faith who feel their religious beliefs are threatened by allowing LGBTI Australians the legal right to marry.

The context for the establishment of the inquiry has resulted in commentators generally analysing the intersection of the human right of freedom of religion with the human rights afforded (or which should be afforded) to LGBTI Australians. However, the inquiry provides the perfect opportunity to examine how granting greater religious freedom may look, when applied not to the LGBTI community, but to a “gregarious bull of a man often seen in a trademark Akubra bush hat”.

Joyce, a Christian and staunch defender of traditional marriage and family values, opposed marriage equality and abstained from the vote on legislation. Yet his behind-closed-doors activities, demonstrate an entirely different set of values to those he publicly proclaims.

Religions invariably impose strict moral rules on those practicing the faith, which impact not only on their public life, but also their personal life. For example, in Christianity, divorce, cohabitation and fornication are considered immoral, with children born out of wedlock pitied and frowned upon.

But of most relevance, the Christian Bible, in Leviticus 20:10, prohibits adultery, stating that “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbour—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.”

Imagine therefore, what Joyce’s current situation would look like if the human right to freedom of religion took precedence over other human rights.

The generally accepted list of human rights is found within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948.

Fortunately for Joyce at this current time, he is protected from a vicious stoning for betraying his marriage vows. Article 3 of the UDHR says: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” He is also allowed to dissolve his marriage if he so wishes without unfavourable treatment (Article 16: “Men and women of full age….are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”), and he has a right to privacy and protection from attacks on his reputation (Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”)

He is also generally protected from discrimination, whether it be in education (Article 26), employment (Article 23), participating in political life (Article 21) or other economic, social and cultural activities (Article 22).

The UDHR defines all human rights as equal, and all people as equally deserving of human rights. The UDHR provides a balance between competing rights, where rights may only be exercised to the extent that doing so does not cause harm to others in the community.

This is generally covered in Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.” And, according to Article 29, “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

In Australia, a secular, Western democracy, religious exemptions to anti-discrimination and other laws do already exist in some jurisdictions. But if, as a result of the current review, religious freedom is afforded a higher priority over other human rights, where would this leave Barnaby Joyce?

Will those who are morally outraged by Joyce’s adultery, cohabitation and fornication be demanding he be put to death?

Should Joyce be sacked from his job solely on the basis of his chosen (extramarital) partner?

If Joyce divorces his wife, could he be refused rent or accommodation, or a room in a hotel?

If Joyce chooses to remarry, could a civil celebrant refuse to officiate over his wedding ceremony on the basis of his moral depravity?

Will the nation debate whether Barnaby’s fifth child, born out of an immoral union, be worse off than his children born and raised in wedlock?

Fortunately for Joyce, the nation has not yet been summoned to vote on whether he is entitled to the right to privacy. Australians have not been invited to participate in a non-binding, non-compulsory postal survey to determine whether he should still be treated equally before the law as an adulterer. And fortunately for Joyce, he cannot be refused a room in a hotel to share with his pregnant partner, and he cannot be fired simply on the basis of his fornication.

Barnaby Joyce’s political career may be nearing its end, but he lives another day. Joyce has avoided a stoning for now, thanks to the intersection of the enjoyment of freedom of religion and other human rights in Australia. If he lived in a country where religious beliefs take precedence, he may well be dead.

It is mid 2015. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton is under fire for not only wanting to strip Australian citizenship from dual citizens, but sole nationals too. He declares it is about national security, combating terrorism and the protection of Australian values. The new laws are necessary for the safety of the community.

“It is now appropriate to modernise provisions concerning loss of citizenship to respond to current terrorist threats,” Mr Dutton tells media. “The world has changed so our laws should change accordingly.”

And so the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill was introduced to Parliament.

As usual, the proposed amendments didn’t just apply to the relevant politically expedient bogeymen; it wasn’t just convicted terrorists and foreign fighters who would bear the brunt of Dutton’s power-fueled desire to punish those who did not swear sole allegiance to Australia.

The provisions were so vague and broadly encompassing that any number of dual citizens might find themselves suddenly “UnAustralian”; by inadvertently renouncing their citizenship for protesting against Adani, donating to environmental groups, joining the Sea Shepherd, or for doodling with a pen on a chair in a Centrelink office.

Criticisms came from every quarter (apart from Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and the ALP who backed the Bill in principle), with the Commonwealth Ombudsman pointing out the absurdity of dual citizens just “losing” their Australian citizenship without any authority determining that the criteria for revocation had been met.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) reviewed the initial Bill in detail, with 43 submissions made and several days of hearings. The committee report had no less than 27 recommendations for change.

A watered down Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill finally passed through Parliament in December 2015.

It ruled that any person over 14 who was a citizen or national of another country could lose their Australian citizenship if they did the following things:

• fight for a foreign country at war with Australia.
• fight for a declared terrorist organisation outside Australia.
• are convicted of certain crimes and sentenced to at least six years in prison (eg, committing a terrorist act, including recruiting, training, funding; treason or espionage against Australia; overthrowing the government or sabotaging military equipment; or being a “foreign fighter”).
• Intentionally engage in certain types of terrorism-related conduct, with no criminal charge or conviction required (automatic revocation).

Through it all, media repeatedly pointed out that over six million Australian citizens were born overseas, and a further five million people were born in Australia but held dual citizenship by descent.

While debate raged, and Dutton dug his heels in, ASIO had sights on Khaled Sharrouf, a notorious Islamic State terrorist, famous for having his then seven year old son pose with the severed head of a Syrian government official.

Sharrouf was an Australian citizen by birth. He had Lebanese citizenship through his parents who emigrated to Australia before he was born. Sharrouf was a dual citizen by descent.

Not two years later and the High Court has declared that five parliamentarians were invalidly elected because they held dual citizenship. Scott Ludlam (Greens), Larissa Waters (Greens), Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), Barnaby Joyce (Nationals) and Fiona Nash (Nationals) were ineligible to stand at the 2016 election.

Seven politicians were initially under the spotlight (Nick Xenophon (NXT) and Matthew Canavan (Nationals) were cleared) and now an eighth, Senate President Stephen Parry has revealed that he too, may be a British citizen by descent.

It is inconceivable that through all the public debate, discussion, reporting, Parliamentary Committee review and media frenzy, that the elected representatives did not consider and contemplate what makes a person a dual citizen.

It is equally unbelievable that each politician, when nominating for election did not understand the requirements for compliance with section 44 of the Constitution which prohibits foreign citizens or nationals or those entitled to the rights and privileges of a foreign citizen or national from sitting in Parliament.

How can it be possible, with all the chest-beating and strong messages and commitment to “national security”, that not one of these politicians thought to investigate their own parentage and ancestry, and none of their parliamentary colleagues suggested that they do?

When former Senator Scott Ludlam resigned after revelations he was still a New Zealander, the ridicule was swift and the condemnations harsh.

“Obviously Senator Ludlam’s oversight is a pretty remarkable one when you think about it — he’s been in the Senate for so long,” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told media. “It is pretty amazing, isn’t it, that you have had two out of nine Greens Senators didn’t realise they were citizens of another country. It shows incredible sloppiness on their part. You know, when you nominate for Parliament, there is actually a question — you have got to address that Section 44 question and you’ve got to tick the box and confirm that you are not a citizen of another country. It is extraordinary negligence on their part.”

Yet as two then three, then five, and now eight step forward, it is more than sloppiness and negligence.

For those politicians who did not immediately step aside or resign on discovering their dual allegiance, it smacks of deliberate deceit, blind recklessness and a show of contempt for all Australian voters; people who trusted their elected representatives to truthfully and honestly tick a box confirming their eligibility on an election nomination form.

And being so obliged to declare their eligibility, those politicians should have had the integrity to stand aside and resign when investigations showed they were surely dual citizens.

Malcolm Turnbull was adamant the High Court would declare that the law did not apply to the ruling elite. “The leader of the National Party, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia is qualified to sit in this house and the High Court will so hold,” Turnbull said.

He was wrong. The law does apply. Seven members of Parliament were referred to the High Court. Senate President Stephen Parry waited until after his colleagues took a fall to admit his own probable dual allegiance.

How many more are there, waiting quietly, hoping no questions will be asked, frantically checking their backgrounds and filling out forms in the hope they will be clear before the next election is called?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance of one’s own ancestry is not believable in the context of the politicians in question. Ignorance of the importance of the status of dual citizens is laughable given the laws which have been extensively debated and voted on.

This is a government which has breached the trust of the people and made a mockery of democracy. It is a government in which its members cannot comply with its own governing document, and treats the Constitution as a mere guideline to follow on a whim. It is a government which uses citizenship as a weapon and tool of propaganda, but negligible as an issue when it comes to parliamentarians. This is an illegitimate government, which cannot be trusted.