Update – 11 August – 6.05pm The Minister for Finance and Acting Special Minister of State, Mathias Cormann, has given statements to journalists pursuing this issue. It echoes (but more concisely) the advice of the AEC that 16 and 17 year olds are not on the roll, and so will not be able to take part in the survey.
Update – 11 August – 5.45pm The Australian Electoral Commission has tweeted to say that speculation that 16 and 17 year olds would be allowed to take part in the survey is incorrect. They refer to the practice of only “provisionally” enrolling 16 and 17 years. I’d argue that the provisions of the Act set out below has the effect of enrolling 16 and 17 year olds, but prevents them from voting until they turn 18.
The argument can be easily resolved by an amended or new Treasurer’s Direction to the ABS.
But as it stands at the moment, I don’t think it’s as clear cut as the AEC makes it to be in their statement.
Could over 47, 000 16 and 17 year olds who have made an application to be on the Electoral Roll, to have practical effect when they turn 18, be entitled to a say in the ABS marriage law survey?
While 16 and 17 year olds are barred from voting, they may currently make a claim to be on the electoral roll, and would be considered to be on the roll, other than for the purpose of an election. Continue reading “Could 16 and 17 year olds have a say in the marriage law postal survey?”
Update – 11 August – 1.50pm The Minister for Finance and Acting Special Minister of State (responsible for the AEC), Mathias Cormann, has tweeted to say that “Our commitment for all Australians on Electoral Roll incl silent electors to have opportunity to have their say in Marriage Law Survey. ABS will make further announcements in relation to this as soon as arrangements have been finalised.”
Update – 11 August – 11.30am – I have been told that people who have contacted the AEC today have been assured that silent electors will be sent surveys; even those who are not registered general postal voters. No particulars on the means by which this will be done – whether through the ABS or the AEC.
Could an estimated 113,000 silent electors, whose addresses do not appear on the electoral roll for personal safety reasons, be denied a say in the proposed Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) postal survey on marriage law? Continue reading “Could silent voters be denied a say in the marriage equality survey?”
The documents behind the Buzzfeed story on how Senator Malcolm Roberts, indicating he was a British subject in his 1974 application for Australian citizenship, suggests a “just in time” application regarding his citizenship status. Roberts, and his father, were among the last to be recognised by a streamlined process intended to provide long standing British subjects with fast, simple recognition of citizenship. Continue reading “Just in Time? Malcolm Roberts’ 1974 Application for Citizenship by Notification”
The possibility that the election of Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts might be voided because he was disqualified by standing while still a British citizen, without having taken sufficient steps by nomination day to renounce that citizenship, has given rise to further questions as to what would occur if a likely successor were also disqualified.
This is complicated by the possibility of the disqualifying circumstances occurring after the 2016 election, but before (or while) the High Court considered how a person might fill a Senate seat vacated by any disqualification of Roberts.
The third placed candidate on the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) ticket, Fraser Anning, is reportedly facing bankruptcy proceedings. If he were bankrupt or insolvent, the Constitution would seem to indicate he would be incapable of being chosen or sitting as a Senator. If it were ruled that he too was incapable of being chosen by reason of disqualification, then the likely outcome would be that the fourth member of the PHON ticket, Judy Smith (Pauline Hanson’s sister), would be declared the second PHON Senator for Queensland. Continue reading “Section 44: Questions about the timing of a disqualification.”
Australia’s premier award for criticism, the Geraldine Pascall Prize, is now administered as one of two arts focused awards by the Walkley Foundation, responsible for the major awards in Australian journalism.
It brings to an end a stand alone prize that conferred recognition (and no small amount of cash) on some of Australia’s best and most highly regarded critics and reviewers. It also invites renewed discussion about the value given to arts and cultural criticism in Australia’s media. Continue reading “Pascall’s Saviour?”
Yesterday’s announcement that the vacant role of Commonwealth Ombudsman would be filled by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), Michael Manthorpe, brings to an end a forty year bipartisan tradition of appointments not being directly made from the ranks of frontline departmental management.
While the post was reportedly offered to several departmental heads in the early years of the Hawke Government, every previous appointee since the establishment of the Office in 1977 has held a post in academia, consumer advocacy, legal or judicial administration, or oversight and complaints handling immediately prior to appointment. Continue reading “Forty Year Ombudsman Tradition Trashed by Turnbull”
Prominent ABC current affairs presenter and editor, Stan Grant, is the featured speaker at an $85 a head dinner scheduled for April, co-hosted by a branch of the NSW ALP, to honour former Labor leader, H V Evatt.
The speaking engagement has the potential to ignite controversy akin to that caused by former Trade Union Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon agreeing to deliver a lecture for a Liberal Party event in 2015 to honour Evatt’s contemporary and rival, Sir Garfield Barwick. In the face of widespread criticism, Heydon eventually withdrew from the Lecture, and later ruled against an application that he stand down from the Royal Commission. Continue reading “ABC Presenter Featured Speaker at $85 a Head ALP Branch Dinner”
[Updated on 6 April 2017, to address the High Court findings in Re Day [No. 2] (2017) as well as other changes in circumstances since the original post].
With the High Court finding that Rod Culleton and Bob Day were each ineligible to contest the 2016 Senate Election, and thus ineligible to be elected and sit in the Senate during the 45th Parliament, and with Day disqualified from sitting as a Senator for several months in the previous Parliament, a number of questions arise as to the consequences of this decisions for their votes while sitting in the Senate, and the recovery of any payments made to them. Continue reading “Consequences of Disqualification as a Senator on Votes and Payments”
At the heart of the High Court challenge to Bob Day’s qualification to contest the Double Dissolution election of 2016 lies the case of Senator James Webster in 1975. Contentious at the time in the midst of wider political controversy, and thought potentially capable of opening up to scrutiny all manner of contractual arrangements, including residential leases, held between MPs and the Commonwealth, the relevant clause was narrowly interpreted by a single judge of the High Court and benefit of the legal doubt given to the Senator.
Since then, it has been the subject of criticism, and may well be overturned in the course of current proceedings. In its submissions in the current case, the Commonwealth has argued that, while Bob Day would fall foul even if the case were applied, Re Webster was too narrowly decided. Herewith the background to the original case, and its aftermath. Continue reading “Re Webster: Members of Parliament, Pecuniary Interests and Disqualification – A Background”
Revelations that fomer Minister and Member of Parliament, Philip Ruddock, has continued to receive his full parliamentary retirement benefits whilst in receipt of payment for his role as the Government’s Special Envoy on Human Rights are at odds with a stance he took early in his parliamentary career.
In Senate Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade yesterday, the Department indicated that Mr Ruddock’s parliamentary pension had not been reduced, as a result of legal advice on the status of his role as a “Special Envoy”. The DFAT officer to which the role reports, Dr Lachlan Strahan, First Assistant Secretary, Multilateral Policy Division, told the Estimates session that Ruddock had obtained the legal advice on his own initiative. Continue reading “The Time Philip Ruddock Opposed Double Dipping by Retired MPs”