It was nothing short of fabulous. Before the public, the political lie is deemed an imperative, instinctively cultured to repel anything that might appear, let alone resemble, truth. Never, whatever you do in political garb, reveal the game, convey the reality, even if power is only held on trust. Those idiots (the voters, that is) won’t know.
Before the judicial bench, however, the same figures find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Pull the wig over those judicial eyes – or risk perjuring yourself? With that in mind, the story about how the Nationals Senator Matt Canavan became an Italian citizen, making him ineligible as a sitting member of Parliament according to the Australian Constitution, was instructive.
The original version of the story was a stumbling search for how he acquired that form of Italian citizenship. When pressed on the point, Canavan blamed his mother, who seemed to resemble an unmonitored demiurge intent on creating a universe of mischief. (Naturally, the son had no idea, revealing his degree of competence, or the extent of pure ignorance that every parliamentarian should be proud of).
Even then, cracks started to appear in the fabricated story. Discussions about his citizenship and maternal suggestions in that direction, were being had around the family table prior to the sneaky visit to the Italian consulate in Brisbane.
The directions hearing in the High Court saw a change of heart. Mum was left out of it. Legal counsel representing Senator Canavan argued that he had been an Italian citizen since 1983 (not 2006, as Canavan had claimed, courtesy of his mother’s intervention), due to a change in Italian law. This rendered Canavan a citizen by descent, rather than birth.
This could only have one meaning, claimed legal counsel representing Canavan: section 44 of the Australian constitution would not apply. To read the section any other way, claimed David Bennett, QC, would result in a “ridiculous” interpretation, one that would also disqualify up to half the population from sitting in Parliament. A grim, and truly undemocratic prospect indeed.
Canavan was not the only one to revise his shoddy account before the High Court directions hearings. Having given the world a version of events suggesting diligence, enthusiasm and a spirit of inquiry into whether he had either Indian or British citizenship, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts revealed that he had only filled in his renunciation documents after his election to parliament.
Left with the mountainous task of defending Roberts, a post-truth pedlar who insists that the Murdoch empire offers papers of unimpeachable balance, Senior Counsel Robert Newlinds was knotted and bound. He duly submitted to Chief Justice Susan Kiefel that the British authorities were the ones who had been confusing – confusing, that is, on when renunciation of UK citizenship had been accepted.
Roberts is a particular problematic case, given his lukewarm efforts during the renunciation process. For him, email efforts sufficed (of course, he was very insistent when sending them): the first directed to the British Home Office to renounce British citizenship; the second to again reiterate that same point. (The number of emails has, over time, altered).
He then claimed, without more ado, that he had documents showing the same. He was not a citizen, either of India, or the UK, and he had the paperwork to prove it, with a UK acknowledgement on December 5 last year that he had successfully achieved his goal.
Not that this paperwork was ever adduced before an ever sceptical audience. As Roberts’ spokesman, Sean Black, explained to Fairfax media in rather telling fashion, the senator “is choosing to believe that he was never British.” A belief to move mountains.
Newlinds, despite casting a weary eye over the awful mess his client had found himself in, sensed some wriggle room. The UK Home Office subsequent to Roberts’ election sent him a form to accept the renunciation. But what did it mean? For the desperate advocate, it was unclear whether the British authorities were “accepting the renunciation by the form, or the earlier email.” Pigs, at this point, were well and truly airborne.
Confidence continues to be unduly high with the Attorney-General, George Brandis, and Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. This is a constitutional disaster that will be resolved sensibly, without fuss. But to do so will require the High Court judges to overturn a conservative reading of section 44 that has been in place for decades.
Turnbull remains “very, very confident that our members who have been caught up in this will be held by the court to be eligible to sit in the Parliament and therefore eligible to be ministers.” This absurdist drama is far from over, and will continue in October. In the meantime, the numbers of the purportedly ineligible representatives will simply grow. More discoveries about hidden citizenships are to be had.
Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University. He was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge. He is a contributing editor to CounterPunch and can be followed on Twitter at @bkampmark.
[/textblock]
I want a T shirt with a picture of Matt Canavan and the phrase….
“My mother made me an Italian”
Turnbull’s leap of faith would also require the High Court to rule that there are two tiers of dual citizenship. Those born overseas would be required to relinquish theirs, whereas those born in Australia would be permitted to retain all the benefits that having dual citizenship might afford that person. Highly discriminatory against those born overseas one would think.
assholes changing the laws to suit themselves yet again!
Kerri, you invite the retort ‘ If I gave her the wool . . . . .
Can’t see that happening. Needs a referendum. Defend I suspect on how well they have stacked the HC. Going on decisions so far, if PM, I wouldn’t rely on it too go his way. This a fairly black and white section 44.
Surly mummie’s boy Canavan had the cheek to blame his adoring mamma for his problems…not very nice…
No worries, Mal is ensuring ,once more, that everything will be fine; trust him, he is a strong leader.
Dicey Heydon looked increasingly dodgy and yet somehow survived, I’m not holding my breath on the HC doing the right thing either!
The constitution does not say anything about how one became a dual citizen just that being one excludes you and as for 50% of the population that could be excluded I would suggest to renounce before applying..Besides how many politicians do we need certainly not 50% of the population….
I’ve got a great idea. Considering the polli’s don’t know if they r coming or goin, not sure of their nationality, having a kiwi as stand in PM, and others that consistently “do not recall” giving away millions, or even receiving said millions, leaves me to suggest this lot, the class of 2016, are a somewhat dumb lot.
We haven’t heard “the dog ate it” as yet, but given the collective honesty of these representatives of us, I would suggest that we call the last election “Null & Void”.
You know, similar to the clowns elected who have trouble with their nationality, their memory, and should I suggest, their honesty! They really are Null and Void of all things we expect.
There are 7 judges who sit on the bench of the high court.
Justice Bell… appointed by Kevin Rudd.”
Justice Gageler..appointed by Julia Gillard.
Justice Keane… appointed by Julia Gillard.
Justice Kiefel…..appointed by John Howard.
Justice Nettle….appointed by Tony Abbott.
Justice Gordon.. appointed by Tony Abbott.
Justice Edelman..appointed by Malcom Turnbull.
I’m with Owen on this. The rules are pretty clear: renounce dual citizenship BEFORE entering politics. It doesn’t matter how the person became a dual citizen. All that matters is that being a dual citizen is considered a risk for corrupting the political process because of the chance of their allegiance not being fully with Australia. That’s really the whole point. If a politician has the luxury of being a dual citizen and can benefit by it who cares if it comes from parentage or birth?
It’s not exactly difficult to renounce it before becoming a politician. And if you are caught short, unaware that you were a dual citizen (and I can see how this might happen to some) then you should remedy the situation immediately by resigning from politics because you’re there under false pretenses. It really is simple. There’s nothing complicated about it.
Let’s face it, those who don’t abide by the law on this are just crooks. There really is no wiggle room, no matter what our slimy PM might say.
upon nomination at the electoral office candidates must execute a stat dec regarding their eligibility. it is now apparent that both roberts and canavan must have knowlingly made false statements on their stat decs. that is a criminal offence. doesnt that evince the type of swamp scum that sits in the aust parliament?
owen…exactly. s 44 is not there to be fair to everyone it is there to ensure undivided loyalty. it would defeat the purpose of the section to give it the construction bennet qc and turbull advocate.
OTMP, didn’t Roberts also sign a stat dec a couple of weeks ago that contained another lie about his citizenship?
The man is a worry.
owen and miriam if the constitution doesn’t define how then the how is debatable?
If china declared the population of every country visited by the chinese are chinese.by association then by your words we are all dual citizens that is no crazier that saying because NZ declares everybody sired by a kiwi is a kiwi making joyce a dual citizen that is ludicrous. why not matrilineal?
the boys and girls born overseas yes they are culpable and deserve to be charged with an offence and to pay back their salaries. Shouldn’t be hard the pricks don’t put their hand into their own pockets so the cash is there somewhere
No person, should be allowed to become an Australian Citizen, unless they renounce, all claims to another deity.
Make up your bloody mind. I am here, or am I bloody well there.
Here……..No, then bugger OFF.
Can’t be simpler than that.
Simple,
Mark Needham.
Sign a Statuary Declaration. billy bob. e&oe.
not hard is it,
the way I have signed every SD,
Mark Needham
PS. Not a Citizen, then, bugger off, in the political world.
wam, I agree that being a New Zealander by parentage is silly. Some laws are silly and need to be fixed, but it is the conservatives who keep arguing that laws, silly or not, must be followed. Barnaby Joyce, in particular, was making sneering remarks about the Greens senators not realising they had dual citizenship, and insisted the law had to be followed… until he ended up on the pointy end.
Mark Needham, just to clarify, I think a lot of good can result from normal members of the public being dual citizens. It is the politicians who have to sign a declaration that they have allegiance only to Australia.
Personally, I consider myself a citizen of Earth. I’d love all national borders to be abolished.
I am as concerned about those with extremist religious affiliations as I am about dual citizenship. The benighted religious views of some pollies are, to me, more dangerous than having an affiliation to, say NZ, Canada or Italy. I would like to see those religious affiliations spelt out. We know the pernicious influence the Catholic Church can impose on its adherents, and how they can affect voting on a wide range of issues, think funding to non govt. schools, abortion, birth control, And now SSM. A little tongue in cheek I would suggest only affirmed atheists or agnostics should be able to be elected to Parliament. We are, after all, supposed to be a secular democracy.
Ricardo29, I wish we had a law prohibiting people from holding office if they have any religious beliefs. It is true that religion makes it very likely that the believer will distort their use of power, but what bothers me the most is that all religion is delusion. The very last thing we need is a deluded person holding the reins of power.
Unfortunately, we don’t have any such law on the books… maybe one day, after the rise of another Hitler. Just one of him should have been enough, but sadly religious people have been very successful in rewriting history — I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve met who believe Hitler was atheist, when he and all his top decision makers were devoutly Christian, with Hitler carrying a bible with him wherever he went and constantly referring to god and Jesus in his speeches. The pope of the day firmly instructed the German and Italian people to do as Hitler said because he was doing god’s work.
Religion is incredibly dangerous.
Perhaps the constitutional requirement of religion being separated from politics could be interpreted more literally. We might use that one day to ban religious people from office. That would be a great step forward.
Regarding the High Court, the Liberal/Nationals have been the ones to insist on black letter law Judges who have a rigid attitude rather than activist Judges who look for wriggle room. Why do they think their High Court will be lenient on this Constitutional issue? Do they believe that individual Judges will make their decision based on who appointed them?
Yes. In a sane world (doesn’t even have to be ideal).
However, we are in the loony tunes world created by politicians, business monopolies, obscenely wealthy individuals and other greedy and power hungry whose goal is to possess and control.
We have s. 44 which is quite clear what is required BEFORE aspiring to elected office. Yes, it is rather antiquated – I mean, being born to Australian parents in another country and leaving said country while less than 12 months old as in Larissa Waters case or, In Joyce’s case having father born in another country – somewhat extreme IMHO. However, s. 44 is very clear and as the conservatives love to repeat “the law is the law”…
However, we are seeing the usual and everyday hypocrisy that accompanies those who believe they are “born to rule”. The same logic that will cost tax-payers millions drug testing people who are unemployed but creating heroes out of drunken mavericks who can’t be arsed staying sober enough to perform their job and vote in parliament.
FFS
Politicians tell lies? No shit?
I agree with the sentiments expressed by all here. Even Roswell.
Now I gotta lay down again.
Lets see how corrupt the high court is after all this?
Miriam English religion in politics ,you do realise we are run by vatican dont you.