Greens Senator Scott Ludlam Resigns †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Greens Senator Scott Ludlam Resigns. Answer: Introduction: There have been a number of referrals in the recent history to the High Court which relate to the eligibility of different MPs to be elected in the Federal Parliament of the nation. These have made it clear that Australian Constitution requires the non-Australian citizenship to be renounced before an individual could become a representative of the people, despite the fact that the multicultural people are from the nation (Lim, 2017). This has even led to the different MPs fearing on their position being next and that they too could have to bear the disadvantage associated with section 44(i). I think it is time that this section is changed so that the constitutional crisis which is currently being posed on the MPs can be eradicated. There have been a number of cases where the eligibility of elected parliamentarians is referred to the High Court. This is done on the basis of section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, which provides that a person under acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to foreign power, or where such a person is citizen/ subjected to/ entitled to rights or privileges of foreign power, would be considered as incapable in being chosen as a senator or as a House of Representative. Now, the High Court interprets this section as giving the meaning that the people who hold dual citizens are not permitted to stand for election and the need of fulfilling certain steps in order to renounce the citizenship of other country. I find that the interpretation of this section is very complex. There is a preliminary awkwardness where the Australian constitution does not necessitate the MP to be Australian citizen. Though, there is a requirement posed on MP through section 42 of the Australia n constitution to swear an oath allegiance to monarch (Saunders, 2010). Now this is a weird position. Even though you do not have to be a citizen of Australia to be an MP, you need to give up dual citizenship of other nation. The matter is further complicated where the statutory condition for being eligible for election as being the citizen of Australia. In 1981, the committee of Senate recommended for the removal of this section and for a new provision to be brought it where Australian citizenship had to be posed as the requirement and this was covered in the Constitutional Commission report of 1988 (Bennett, 2002). Yet, these changes were never implemented. This could have easily clarified the position on a person required to an Australian nation, instead of going round and round across a matter, and stating it indirectly. The present situation is that you cannot hold the citizenship of another nation to be a MP, but do not have to be an Australian citizenship. Why cannot we work on making the law clear, instead of leaving people guessing and prone to be sacked as MP for the lack of fulfilment of this requirement? This section has been used at a range of places and in various cases as well. For instance, there was the case of Crittenden v Anderson (1950) 51 ALJ 171 where Henry William Crittenden was an independent candidate petitioning for Gordon Andersons disqualification as he was a Catholic. Fullagar J gave the ruling against Crittenden stating that where this premise given by him was accepted, it would mean that the Catholics could not hold a seat in Australian Parliament. The religious test factor in this case and the imposition of it on public office was considered as violation of section 116 of the Australian Constitution. Fullagar J the ordered Crittenden to pay Andersons costs by dismissing the case. Sarina v O'Connor (1946) Tabled in the House of Representatives by the Clerk on '20 November 1946 saw similar ruling being given where Ronald Grafton Sarina had been an unsuccessful candidate during the 1946 federal elections. He made a petition to the High Court for declaring William OCo nnors election as void based on section 66(i) stating that a Roman Catholic would mean that there were allegiances with the foreign power. Though, the petition was later on withdrawn. There is also the case of Elaine Nile v Robert Wood [1987] HCA 63 made against the elected NSW Senator, Robert Wood. This election was challenged by Elaine Nile on the grounds that the actions of Wood had been against the vessels of friendly nation which indicated adherence, obedience and allegiance to foreign power. The reason for this was that Wood had been fined $120 for paddling kayak in front of the USS Joseph Strauss at Sydney Harbor as this was a US warship. Though, this petition had been dismissed on the basis of technical grounds by the High Court. In context of section 44(i), a number of observations had been made, which included the need of identifying foreign power and also showing the presence of such allegiance (Holland, 2004). The matter of Re Wood [1988] HCA 22, (1988) 167 CLR 145 showed that Wood was not an Australian citizen when he had been elected. This led to unanimous determination that he was not entitled to be nominated for senator elections and that his elect ion had not been undertaken validly. The reason for this was that the Commonwealth Electoral Act, 1918 imposed the need for the candidate to be Australian citizen. The matter of dual citizenship was denied by the High Court and Woof was disqualified from being a candidate of Senate elections. Some might raise an issue that this was all in history. However, this is far from the truth. There have been a number of recent cases which show the problems faced by the MPs due to the applicability of section 44(i), where they even fear that they might be next to be disqualified as valid candidate for election. Let us take the example of two of the cases which took place in 2017 only. These are the cases of Scott Ludlam and that of Larissa Waters who were Australian Greens Sentors, and who had resigned from MPs position. The resignation of Scott Ludlam came owing to his failure in renouncing the dual citizenship. Scott Ludlam was both the citizen of Australia and that of New Zealand (Strutt Kagi, 2017). The resignation of Larissa Waters came owing to her failure in renouncing the dual citizenship. Larissa Waters was both the citizen of Australia and that of Canada (Belot, 2017). So, the dual citizenship poses a problem as the individual is not only the citizen of Australia, but al so of a foreign nation. The basic theme of Australian constitution is that we do not care if you are an Australian citizens or not, but as soon as you hold the citizenship of a foreign nation, you cannot do well of Australia. But what if such person was merely born in another nation, and has soul in Australia? The need for change of this provision was even highlighted in 1997 with the motive called The Castle. This matter has become a matter of interest amongst the general public due to the number of individuals being affected by it, which included two of the Greens Senators, and one each of Nationals Minster and One Nation. There were also names like Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and his deputy Fiona Nash (ABC News, 2017). Nash did not want to give up her UK citizenship and it is but right. Why should one have to give up on their dual citizenship? How does it prove that the person would work in interest of Australia only? Have we not seen enough Bond movies to know the contrary? There is a need to pause and decide on who can be made to hold the position of a politician in the nation on more practical basis (ABC News, 2017). There is again the grey area in section 44(i) with the term entitled (Gans, 2017). This brings the question that whether the person needs to be an Australian citizen or whether they need to have the position where they would be entitled to claim Australian citizenship at a later stage. Lets see the case of Joyce here. Till 1940s, the citizens of both UK and Australia were deemed as subjects of UK. There is the case of New Zealand citizenship being given to a child born in the nation without any registration (ABC News, 2017). So, what if a person got citizenship by being born in another nation? They were born and brought up in Australia and are true Australians. Is that not enough? Just having a foreign citizenship cannot be made to disqualify them. This is being stereotypical and bringing out hypocrisy at time where Australia prides itself in being multicultural. What would renouncing the citizenship of another nation do to a person more Australian? All in all, it is undeniable that section 44(i) propagates absurd standards for a person wanting to be an MP. The need for renouncing a citizenship of different nation goes against the very theme of multicultural Australia, as it does not allow a person from another culture of another region to hold their identity, if they want to hold parliamentary position in the nation. Thus, there is a crucial need for changing this provision. References ABC News. (2017). Who's who and what's what in Australia's constitutional citizenship mess. Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-19/who-is-who-dual-citizenship-scandal/8819510 Belot, H. (2017). Larissa Waters, deputy Greens leader, quits in latest citizenship bungle. Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/larissa-waters-greens-resigns-senate-over-citizenship-bungle/8720066 Bennett, B. (2002). Candidates, Members and the Constitution. Retrieved from: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02RP18 Crittenden v Anderson (1950) 51 ALJ 171 Crittenden v Anderson (1950) 51 ALJ 171 Doran, M. (2017). 'Entitled' to dual citizenship? The grey area in Section 44 of the constitution. Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/citizenship-grey-area-in-constitution-tripping-up-mps-senators/8754586 Elaine Nile v Robert Wood [1987] HCA 63 Elaine Nile v Robert Wood [1987] HCA 63 Gans, J. (2017). News: The High Court on dual citizen MPs. Retrieved from: https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2017/07/20/news-the-high-court-on-dual-citizen-mps/ Holland, I. (2004). Section 44 of the Constitution. Retrieved from: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/Section44 Lim, B. (2017). Australia's Constitution after Whitlam. Victoria: Cambridge University Press. Sarina v O'Connor (1946) Tabled in the House of Representatives by the Clerk on '20 November 1946 Sarina v O'Connor (1946) Tabled in the House of Representatives by the Clerk on '20 November 1946 Saunders, C. (2010).The Constitution of Australia: a contextual analysis. Portland, OR: Bloomsbury Publishing. Strutt, J., Kagi, J. (2017). Greens senator Scott Ludlam resigns over failure to renounce dual citizenship. Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-14/senator-scott-ludlam-resign-constitution-dual-citizenship/8708606