Talk:2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Interested person

Hi, the article currently says 'An appropriately interested person, such as a losing candidate, may question the result (the "return of the writ")..... Does this mean it's generally accepted (or even been tested before?) that a voter in the candidate's electorate (state if it's a Senator) isn't an interested person and so may not directly petition the courts, and only the 'common informer' option is open to them? I appreciate given the costs etc, even if potentially available, it may have not been tested, especially since often these cases as hereonly seem to arise long after the election. (The general recommendation would probably for the person to complain to the AEC who may bring a petitition if there is sufficient evidence.) Also about "Alley v. Gillespie" while this is not that relevant to the article, perhaps it would still be useful to give a brief RS explanation, if there is any, why this is going through the common informer procedure rather than as a petition given that Peter Alley is the losing candidate. I presume it's because of the length of time passed since the election (well the return of the writ), but don't really know. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I've answered the first part of my question by checking out Court of Disputed Returns (Australia) which now has a longer sentence and I've copied it here. It's sourced directly to the legislation and while primary sources should be used with care, it seems to me to clearly allow either a candidate or a person qualified to vote. [1] I think I've also directly answered the second question as 'normally within 40 days of the result' seems a little confusing. It seems to always be within 40 days, just 40 days of what can vary depending on the precise case. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Common Informers Actions

The following is incorrect in the Article:

"The Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975 (Cth) has now provided otherwise, fixing the penalty at $200 per day for up to 12 months before the suit is instituted."

Section 3 of the Act provides:

Penalty for sitting when disqualified

(1) Any person who, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, has sat as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives while he or she was a person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of so sitting shall be liable to pay to any person who sues for it in the High Court a sum equal to the total of:

(a) $200 in respect of his or her having so sat on or before the day on which the originating process in the suit is served on him or her; and

(b) $200 for every day, subsequent to that day, on which he or she is proved in the suit to have so sat.

(2) A suit under this section shall not relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted.

...

I suggest the following revised content for the Article:

"The Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975 (Cth) has now provided otherwise, fixing the penalty at a total of $200 for any parliamentarian who has sat while ineligible in the past 12 months and $200 per sitting day after the suit is instituted."

I am the litigant in High Court of Australia Common Informers Action M140/2017 Barrow v Roberts & Ors instituted on 27 September 2017.

I have heard of at least 2 other actions lodged in NSW and WA. DCBarrow (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks: I've made the correction. What is happening (or has happened) with your September case and the others? Wikiain (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Full schedule of defendants: M140/2017 David Charles Barrow v Malcolm Roberts, Fiona Nash, Nick Xenophon, Matthew Canavan, Barnaby Joyce, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters.

The action I commenced on 27 September 2017 gave a pathway for politicians to pay the penalty to a person (me) who would donate it to a worthy charity (The Fred Hollows Foundation to "end avoidable blindness") without seeking legal costs against them. It is a matter for the politician as to whether he or she wants to embrace that, starting with accepting service of the writ. The alternative is to face perhaps more mercenary 'bounty hunters' in the 12 months after last sitting in Parliament while disqualified.

I discontinued against Senator Canavan on 24 October 2017, as I came to the view following the 10 to 12 October 2017 High Court hearings that a retrospective change to the Italian Constitution was not the safest foundation for disqualification. And so it turned out.

I congratulated Senator Xenophon via email on the referral question minutes after the 27 October 2017 decision and that is in the process of being discontinued.

Greens Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam consented to judgment back on 9 October 2017. I have not received the penalty funds as yet. The consent orders have been filed but not as yet made by the Court. I expect that the Court will deal with the various common informer actions together, at which time orders will be made.

Malcolm Roberts is waiting for developments as to whether he will consent to judgement against him; although I have also offered to discontinue with no order as to costs if he wants to deal with another 'bounty hunter'.

Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash have not made themselves available for personal service of the originating Writ of Summons and so I filed a discontinuance against each of them on 6 November 2017. They can deal with those other 'bounty hunters' now. DCBarrow (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting, David. I look forward to adding something here when there is a decision to cite. Wikiain (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

12 December 2017, Full Court of High Court heard argument as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of Parliamentarians in actions instituted by Common Informers or whether there must first be a referral from the Parliament. Decision reserved. See: "Alley v. Gillespie". Retrieved 14 December 2017. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) DCBarrow (talk)

Senator Pat Dodson

It has been suggested that Labor Senator and Aboriginal leader Pat Dodson may be a dual national through an Irish-Australian father who was so described when Dodson was proposed to the WA Parliament in May 2016 as a replacement Senator (he was then elected in July). The only documentation about his father seems to be that he was born in Launceston, Tasmania. Dodson has commented: "The only known Irish connection in my family is my mother's mother's father." Ref: Probyn, Andrew; Henderson, Anna (10 November 2017). "Even Patrick Dodson, an Aboriginal advocate and 'father of reconciliation', is answering citizenship questions". ABC News. Retrieved 17 November 2017. Irish citizenship can be traced to grandparents and possibly further; but, since neither of Dodson's parents was born in Ireland, it seems he is not an Irish citizen. This appears to be little more than a rumour, denied by the man himself, so perhaps just to be noted here. There may well be other Members with more definite Irish connections. Wikiain (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree - the article is already long. My view is that we need to be ruthless in removing allegations relating to previous parliaments - as was done with Lisa Singh but Stuart Robert keeps getting inserted - and only including the allegations that have been referred to court or the person has resigned. There is a fair bit of work that has gone into the detail of allegations & I'm not suggesting we discard it, but instead it seems like we should split the other allegations into a separate article. In this way Dodson would be relevant to a deeper understanding of how complex the factual issues are, without needing to be on the main article. Find bruce (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Singh is relevant here or important enough to go anywhere else: if there had been any action taken when it was relevant, it might have belonged in the Section 44 article, but it's a pretty unimportant footnote here. I also don't think the rumors (e.g. Dodson, Hanson, etc.) should go anywhere unless it looks like they actually could turn into something. I think "referred to court or the person is resigned" is too harsh a line, though: the stories of people like Keay and Lamb (who've been the subject of serious media attention and ongoing calls for referral, even if possibly unwarranted) are absolutely wrapped up in this even if they don't eventually get referred. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I think we mostly agree that (1) eligibility for previous parliaments are out (as per Singh) (2) the referred & resigned are obviously in & (3) the rumors are out. The issue is where we draw the line between 2 & 3. Do you have any suggestions for distinguishing between rumours & serious media attention ? Find bruce (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I think it's generally on the right track. I think Hanson and Sinodinos too far-fetched at this stage to have their own sections (no one has even brought up Sinodinos for months), and that Derryn Hinch should either be taken out or moved to a "resolved" category, because he's no longer under suspicion. Everyone else on that list could plausibly be referred to the High Court: Sharkie is clearly headed there and everyone else is either on Labor's or the Coalition's hit list of MPs from the other side. The article also doesn't mention Tony Pasin, who is on Labor's (I don't actually know anything about the details of his case.) The group that Jeremy Gans called "the hesitators" (those who took reasonable steps arguably too late) are really obviously headed to the High Court and should definitely stay. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I feel like the section on Hanson lacks any real basis. There's a recent article in the Oz about it, but it doesn't appear to be much more than rumour. I'd suggest that the Hinch section be rewritten as a bullet point in the Citizenship statements by other MPs and Senators section. I still feel like the whole section on Pecuniary interests doesn't really belong at all, and certainly doesn't belong before the bulk of the citizenship concerns are mentioned. There's already mention of Gillespie under Other Section 44 concerns so it seems redundant. Day isn't part of the current crisis and his situation is already detailed suffiently under Background. And Robert is no longer an MP – see previous talk. Kb.au (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife's suggestion is much better principled approach than mine. -- Find bruce (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur that The Drover's Wife's approach is the way to go. (By the by - Stuart Robert is definitely still an MP, although I agree with him being excluded here.) Frickeg (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. The s 44 issues in relation to him though relate to past elections, not the current election. Same principle I guess. Kb.au (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

RE Senator Pat Dodson

Irish citizenship can be conferred on anyone with a parent or grandparent born anywhere on the island of Ireland. There is no question but that numerous politicians hold Irish nationality or passports throughout the English-speaking world's diaspora, including the United States, where I live. The Republic of Ireland does not recognize pro-forma renunciations of citizenship, viewing such renunciations as the "empty political formulas" which they, in fact, are. (See Eamon de Valera for the provenance of the terminology in quotes.)

I also strongly suspect the Irish government would not reveal or make known, even upon an official request from another government, whether or if any particular individual, regardless or despite position or office, held/holds Irish citizenship or nationality. Irish-born individuals who are naturalised Australian citizens (such as Damien Leith) are yet another matter. (What is their status and are they eligible to hold parliamentary office?)

This is a structural inequity that cannot be cured, so a either a dual system of privileges exists or a reassessment of "parliamentary eligibility" must be performed. There is no squaring this circle. Quis separabit? 04:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sections vs statements list

I moved a few MPs and Senators into the Citizenship statements by other MPs and Senators section rather than leaving them in their own section (Hanson, Sudmalis, and Sharkie in relation to her alleged US citizenship) as they don't really seem to be live concerns and their main notability in the current context is the person's response to the concern (and because the article length was become rather unwieldy).

I am curious as to whether people believe Sinodinos deserves a section. I didn't move it because his response to the concerns did not seem as solid as most listed in the other statements list and because it's more notable due to him being a minister, but at the same time it hasn't been mentioned in any of the politicking or reporting post-Citizenship Register. Thoughts? Kb.au (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've truncated the Greek citizenship section - all three seem to have provided satisfactory answers in the Citizenship Register. Wikiain (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sam Dastyari

Another editor persists in including Sam Dastyari's resignation from the Senate as part of the eligibility crisis article [2]. Others think it is unrelated. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Two editors have reverted my insertion of the Dastyari resignation into the Timeline. I have rescued it (before seeing this comment), adding references that show how this is an important moment in the ongoing crisis. The crisis is now (and perhaps it always was) primarily about numbers in both houses: it now hardly matters how or why any number has changed or may change. Maybe this crisis (and there surely is one) should no longer be characterised an "eligibility" crisis, but (as I say above) I'm not inclined to alter the article title for the time being. Wikiain (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is, and always has been, about the crisis evolving from the disputed eligibility of parliamentarians under s 44 of the Constitution. Originally the page only covered foreign citizenship eligibility but over time concerns regarding other parts of s 44 have found their way in too. Sam Dastyari has nothing at all to do with the eligibility crisis. His eligibility is not in dispute and the balance of party numbers within each house is not the focus of the article. One section of the article relates to the crisis's effect on the Coalition's HoR majority, but again this is a consequence of the eligibility crisis and not the primary focus of it. The article is not a general timeline of the 45th Parliament of Australia. Maybe the content re Dastyari would be better placed on that page? Kb.au (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting the message. Wikiain (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Re Barrow

I'm the litigant. The following is incorrect in the Article:

"One unsuccessful candidate in the 2016 election, asked the High Court to declare that he had taken "reasonable steps" to renounce. His application to renounce British citizenship had been lodged on the day before nomination and had been only provisional, among other things requesting the British authorities to cancel a registration of the renunciation if he were not elected. A single Justice rejected his claim as seeking an advisory opinion, hence non-justiciable.<ref>"Re Barrow". 7 November 2017. Retrieved 16 November 2017."

On 31 August 2017 at 11:16am AEST (30 August 2017 at 6:16pm GMT), I announced my candidacy via a tweet on Twitter as a senate candidate for the Australian Capital Territory in the next election of Senators for Territories for the 46th Australian Parliament.

On 1 September 2017, I asked the High Court to make the following order:

“A declaration that the following steps are reasonable for Mr Barrow not to be incapable under s 44(i) of the Commonwealth Constitution of being chosen as a senator due to his dual Australian-British Citizenship, in the next election of Senators for Territories:

(1) Prior to Mr Barrow’s nomination as a senate candidate for the Australian Capital Territory at the date and time fixed for the nomination of candidates pursuant to s 156 and s 175 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, in the next election of Senators for Territories:

(a) Mr Barrow do all that is prescribed to be done by the Home Department of the United Kingdom and the laws of the United Kingdom to make an application to renounce his British Citizenship; and

(b) at the time of making that application, Mr Barrow write and send a letter (“Barrow Letter”), to the Home Secretary of the Home Department of the United Kingdom, with the following content:

(i) by the date nominations close in the forthcoming general election, Mr Barrow intends to nominate as a senate candidate for the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia;

(ii) Mr Barrow’s application to renounce his British Citizenship is for the sole purpose of not being incapable under s 44(i) of the Australian Constitution of being chosen as a senator;

(iii) in the event that Mr Barrow is not elected as a senator, he will notify the Home Department to immediately withdraw his application to renounce his British Citizenship, if possible;

(iv) if Mr Barrow’s declaration for renunciation is registered by the Home Department, and he is not elected as a senator, Mr Barrow requests that he may send the formal evidence that his declaration of renunciation has become effective, together with a letter from him confirming and explaining the situation, to the Home Secretary, and at her discretion, such steps as necessary will kindly be taken to endorse the formal evidence to show that Mr Barrow’s renunciation never took effect.”

I suggest the following revised note for the Article:

"One unsuccessful candidate in the 2016 election, with a view to standing again, asked the High Court to declare that certain steps were reasonable for him not to be incapable under s 44(i) of the Commonwealth Constitution of being chosen as a senator due to his dual Australian-British [c]itizenship, in the next election of Senators for Territories. A single Justice rejected his claim as seeking an advisory opinion, which was held on this occasion to be non-justiciable.<ref>"Re Barrow". 7 November 2017. Retrieved 16 November 2017."

Among other things, I made reference to "CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2". 11 February 2016. Retrieved 22 November 2017. -- in which Justice Nettle commented:

“83. In Ainsworth, the plurality stated that the power to grant declaratory relief is “confined by the considerations which mark out the boundaries of judicial power”. Consequently, a party seeking declaratory relief must demonstrate a “real interest” in the subject matter of the declaration and it must be apparent that the declaration will be productive of foreseeable consequences for the parties. Relief will not be granted if the question is “purely hypothetical” in the sense that it is “claimed in relation to circumstances that [have] not occurred and might never happen”.

84. As the law has developed since Ainsworth, it is now apparent that there are also three further considerations relating to the jurisdiction to entertain a claim for declaratory relief in courts exercising federal jurisdiction. First, whether a claim for a declaration of liability constitutes a “matter” sufficient to attract federal jurisdiction is to be determined according to the “tripartite inquiry” adumbrated by Gaudron and Gummow JJ in Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference as follows:

“[F]irst, the identification of the subject matter for determination … secondly, the identification of the right, duty or liability to be established … thirdly, the identification of the controversy between the parties … for the quelling of which the judicial power of the Commonwealth is invoked”.

85. Secondly, it is not a requirement of a “matter” that the right, duty or liability exist as between opposing parties. As Gaudron and Gummow JJ stated in Re McBain:

“[T]here is no general proposition respecting Ch III [of the Constitution] that the ‘immediate right, duty or liability to be established by the determination of the Court’ … must be a right, duty or liability in which the opposing parties have correlative interests.”

86. Thirdly, where a claim that depends on non-federal law…

…

102. [T]he issue in this case is not theoretical but, even if it were, the court does not lack jurisdiction to make a declaration concerning a theoretical issue, in the sense of an issue that does not presently exist but which is likely to arise in future, where the issue is productive of a real and pressing dispute, is of real practical importance or is one in which the claimant has a real commercial interest. Thus, for example, it is now well established that, where a claimant intends to take action which would subject him or her to a “theoretical” possibility of being subjected to legal process, the risk of being so subjected to that process is sufficient to ground standing to claim a declaration that the basis of the process (in that case, the offence) is invalid106 and, co-ordinately, that in such cases there is a matter upon which the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate107. Similarly, where a claimant has a real commercial interest in establishing the claimant’s legal status or entitlement in relation to proposed commercial conduct and there is a real controversy with some contradictor as to the existence or extent of the claimant’s legal status or entitlement, the claimant may have standing to obtain, and the court co-ordinately will have jurisdiction to grant, a declaration as to the existence or extent of the status or entitlement108.”

(citations omitted; emphasis added) DCBarrow (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I've changed the text a little, but keeping close reference to the topic of the article. Please respond if it is still inaccurate. Wikiain (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. My 7 September 2017 ex parte application to commence HCA proceedings (in the form of orders sought 1 September 2017) was for the next federal election of Senators in ACT which has an expected election date of between August 2018 and May 2019. The Edelman J judgment of 7 November 2017 gave some background of my 2016 application for British renunciation (which I withdrew on 4 July 2016) but that was not the subject of my HCA application. So your suggested wording is looking at the wrong timeframe. DCBarrow (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Statement remains incorrect> DCBarrow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Happy Holidays!} 19:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis → Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis – Because (a) there has only ever been one crisis, so no need to distinguish between years, and (b) the crisis is continuing on into a new year. 2017-18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis is a bad option because it is awkward and adds unnecessarily to an already long title. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't move – At the moment I feel the current name should remain. It is consistent with other articles of this type (ie. 1975 Australian constitutional crisis) and the bulk of the crisis has so far happened in 2017. If this changes I'd be open to reconsidering my viewpoint. Kb.au (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't move – I agree with Kb.au. Committee deliberations and High Court hearings are set to continue into 2018, but there's no way to tell whether the crisis will. Wikiain (talk) 22:55, 11 December 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.

Requested move 22 January 2018

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 by Canley (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

---

2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis → 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis – With the directions hearing on 19 January, the timeline of this crisis has continued into 2018. The fates of five parliamentarians have not yet been decided and can only be decided after 2017. Regardless of whether potential disqualification of five politicians amounts to a crisis, it is part of the event that this page documents. Leaving the title as is erroneously suggests that eligibility issues only existed in 2017 and were resolved before 2018. This suggested title format, while arguably awkward, would be consistent with political events such as the 2017–18 Iranian protests. Neegzistuoja (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Makes sense to update the page title to reflect the current facts. It's too early to say how far into 2018 this might stretch, but it's clear it's not over. Kb.au (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support.. Non-contentious move. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose suggested title, support move to just Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis. There has never been another crisis of this nature, so it is not ambiguous, and the proposed title is clunky and not the common name. Zero hits on Google. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support suggested title. It's going to run for a while yet—with Feeney and Gallagher, perhaps Bernardi and possibly Anning (Hanson's threatened challenge)—and it could happen again unless the Constitution is changed (yeah...). Wikiain (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2018 (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.

Machete needed

This article is unreadable. It needs a machete taken to it. EEng 12:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel feel to start slashing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Third. It seems like much of the "Citizenship Seven" information would be better placed in Re Canavan, for instance. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that last comment - it was the central case of the crisis, and people are far more likely to come looking for it here rather than Re Canavan - which should be focused on the details of the High Court ruling in that case rather than the wider context. As for Hilo48 and EEng: what would you take an axe to? It's a complicated article - but it's a complicated subject, and I'm not seeing much obvious crud on a quick read. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that would be the place to start working it down, there's nothing really in this article that doesn't belong. It should definitely still be a key component to the article, if not the most important, but that's essentially what's ballooned this article, and to some extent the timeline which I don't think any of us expected would be dragged out that long. Definitely not saying remove it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Somebody has added (not in the revision history) this hatnote:

The rule-of-thumb criterion there for an article longer than 60kB is: "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". In this case, I think, the scope certainly requires the length. The article has been extensively subheaded and a great deal of related material is elsewhere, linked. Life sometimes just does get complicated. Wikiain (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

By what criteria are we deciding the crisis is over?

The article uses 2018-07-28 as the end date, but section 44 is still providing political entertainment e.g. Kerryn Phelps zeroes in on climate change and Peter Dutton's eligibility (The Guardian, 2018-11-05). Would an unsuccessful attempt to move a motion to refer someone to the High Court be sufficient to update the article's end date, or must the motion be moved? If the motion succeeds, should we remove the end date until the hearing and then update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garthk (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"The crisis" is surely over, at the very least because in May 2019 there has been a federal election, but there might be small aftershocks that should be briefly mentioned.

The penalty on Malcolm Roberts under the Common Informers Act (24 June 2019) was a surprise, especially because in Alley v Gillespie the High Court seemed to have made the Act a dead letter: I've added some mentions and, when the judgment becomes available, will add more in Section 46 of the Constitution of Australia.

Channel 7 News (but nowhere else, it seems) has been making much of an article (which I can't get hold of) in the Western Sydney University Law Review which apparently claims that 29 (to my recollection) members, including some who renounced and were re-elected, are still ineligible owing to the second bit of section 44(i), "entitled to ...", since they may still be entitled to a right of abode. I'll keep trying to find that article, then consider adding to the WP article on s 44. Wikiain (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikiain, it was University of Western Australia not WSU? The paper is this one? JennyOz (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenny, but your links aren't working for me. If you mean Fabian Di Lizia, "More than just a humble abode", that isn't the article and he wasn't the person interviewed. It was a young woman, whom I can't find at WSU because the WSU law staff list isn't working. Wikiain (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

OK Wikiain, if the pdf link is not working for you, it's also available from here - University of Western Australia Law Review, titled But wait ... there's more: The ongoing complexities of section 44(I), authored by Hussein Al Asedy and Lorraine Finlay. (Finlay's profile with pic is on this Murdoch Uni page). She was the woman you saw on 7?. JennyOz (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you JennyOz. Will read pronto. I see there’s just been a M6.9 earthquake off the coast of WA and that some goods fell off supermarket shelves. Wikiain (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, JennyOz. I've added a section "2.7 'or entitled'" to Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia. Wikiain (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove date in title?

I've shifted from the previous section a proposal (not mine) to remove the date from the title. In discussing this proposal, please note the move proposals above, at 11 December 2017 and 22 January 2018. The new contributions are unaltered except for usual emboldenings. Wikiain (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Let's remove the date in the title altogether. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Also support removing the date from the title, there's only ever been one so there's no need to disambiguate. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The date isn't there for disambiguation from other parliamentary eligibility crises, it's there for clarity so it doesn't turn into a rehash of the s 44 article itself. An undated article on a "parliamentary eligibility crisis" could quite reasonably be assumed to begin with Cleary in 1994 and not Ludlam in 2017 and to include the whole slow-burning storm over many years instead of the events this article refers to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If we're discussing the title of the article, it should actually include "Section 44" since that is the common phrase used by the media, and we should be titling these articles to correspond with their common names. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. The date was removed on 14 July by Anthony Appleyard—although there had not been much time for discussion, but he's an experienced editor. Let's see if any difficulty arises. Wikiain (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Specifically they're an admin who acted on my request to move the page. I think we should strongly consider changing the name of the article further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: There's been a mistake here. The previous consensus to change the title was in 2018 to update the year from 2017 to 2017-18. It did not consider the issue of having years in the title at all, so it was well within my rightful actions to have the article boldly renamed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Onetwothreeip, you made a new request here and I created a new section in order to identify it as such. I have no criticism of the admin. Please, everybody, comment solely on the move that has just occurred—or, I anticipate, there might be confusion. If you would like to raise issues that have been discussed earlier, please raise them here and only in relation to the recent move. Wikiain (talk)

@Timrollpickering: @Onetwothreeip: Timrollpickering (an admin) has reverted the move, "that directly went against standing RM consensus; no new RM discussion superseded it". I agree. Now—in this section—there are two voices for removing the date and two against, so no consensus for removal. Wikiain (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I support removing the dates. I understand that it's good to fix the crisis chronologically, but I don't think that can easily be done in this case. The crisis was a long time coming, developing from changes in Australian nationality and citizenship law from the 1940s onwards, particularly with the acceptance of dual citizenship, coupled with a lack of change in the Constitution. The crisis erupted in 2017, but has not been resolved. Currently, Scomo and Josh Frydenberg are under attack. Given the complex nature of global citizenship laws and the migrant background of so many Australians, I don't think this is going to be resolved short of a referendum. There is no clearcut end of the crisis, so the simplest solution is to remove the dates.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: There was a parliamentary crisis in 2017-18, which ended. There are still s 44 difficulties, which I agree are likely to continue for as long as s 44 remains or is unchanged, but they don't seem to be threatening the parliamentary process. The dates here conveniently identify the event, just as with 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, a kind of thing that could also occur again. Errantius (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There have been other Australian constitutional crises, but no other parliamentary eligibility crises. We should disambiguate by year only if it is necessary, not just because an event might happen again. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The proposed title is vague as heck and makes it likely to spread: instead of being a defined crisis between 2017-18 the undated article brings both anything that happens today and anything that happened before it. Who's to say Hill or Cleary wasn't part of it if it's undated? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per Errantius' logic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

By Errantius' logic, there never was a crisis. What happened in 2017–18 was not "threatening the parliamentary process". All that happened was a large number of MPs were ruled ineligible and there had to be by-elections and Senate replacements. However, if George Williams is right and the problem widens, it could get far worse. I think arguably Hill, Cleary etc were part of the "crisis". Perhaps a solution would be to choose a word other than "crisis". The fact is that the problem came to a head in 2017, but I don't know of a way to put that in a title. I don't believe there was a "defined crisis between 2017–18", and I don't think the article should imply there was. If another bunch of MPs is ruled ineligible next year, has the "crisis" continued, or is it a new "crisis"???--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack, I do think that what happened in 2017–18 was "threatening the parliamentary process", because these revelations about the eligibility of a number of members raised a scare as to how many others, possibly very many, there might be. If you want to remove "crisis" from the title, that would be a different proposal, but I wouldn't be keen to get into defining "crisis". The present title doesn't seem to me to be producing a problem. Errantius (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is the scare, and the scare is still there. Scomo and Frydenberg could be next. Elections could be invalid because of preference flows. Therefore it's not good to define a date range.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One could debate the meaning of "scare" and I think the issue on that is whether there is substantial and widespread concern. I don't see it. The Scomo and Frydenberg cases alone aren't threatening parliamentary process, as happened in 2017-18 when the government had a single-seat majority. Poor Frydenberg's issue has been running since 2017 or 2018 and may never be resolved against him: that is, it may never be possible to prove that he is a dual citizen. The question about Scomo is legally complicated, but it seems not unusually so. Now that members of both houses have been required to examine and declare their citizenship status, the chance of a large number of upsets appears to be reduced below causing many people to lose sleep. Errantius (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the threat to the parliamentary process. By-elections are common. We have had two minority governments in recent years. That actually is how parliament is supposed to work. It's the cloud of uncertainty that continues to hang over MPs which is the problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Nobody seems to have cited any reliable sources for there being a general "Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis". The only things I have been able to find refer to a crisis in 2017-18. There may be other citizenship issues, but the role of wikipedia is to reflect the reliable sources, not lead the charge for their being some ongoing crisis. --Find bruce (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I cited this.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes you did & no it doesn't refer to any crisis. Repeating yourself doesn't amount to support for your apparent contention that there is some ongoing crisis or that the citizenship of Canavan et al has some connection to whether Phil Cleary had an office of profit under the crown. --Find bruce (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. The article says, "The election result could be challenged in the High Court, after the publication of hundreds of eligibility checklists late last week failed to settle the section 44 havoc that has plagued Parliament". A "havoc" that has "plagued" the parliament seems to be the equivalent of a "crisis" to me. (Though, as I have said, "crisis" might not be the best word. But clearly the problem has not been resolved at all). The connection between Cleary and Canavan is that they were challenged under section 44. Clearly challenges under section 44 are becoming more common, as demonstrated in Blackshield and Williams, Australian Constitutional Law, chapter 15. This is illustrated by the fact that Andrew Bartlett who replaced Larissa Waters in the Senate was himself subject to claims that he was ineligible. It never ends. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible Sections for Condensing

• The lead section is very lengthy and can probably be reduced to just a basic summary of the events with more detail in the following sections
• The procedure section probably belong on a separate article as it deals more with the legal procedure rather than the historical event that this article covers

Another thing that could be done would be to break up the timeline into sections for each individual person involved. And then to have a section about the effects it had on parliament procedure (e.g. procedure for disclosure of citizenship status). A lot of the information in this section is also summarised better in the Overview of Changes and Citizenship Seven sections.

There are also several people under the "Other MPs and Senators whose status is to be determined" section who have now been determined so that needs to be shifted around.

Contrawwftw (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Contrawwftw, thank you for your clarificatory changes today. This article was written as events unrolled and it shows. I agree as to the lead. Also as to the Procedure section - some of that material is already in other articles, which were expanded around the same time. Not sure that splitting the timeline would be an advantage: thematically, it would create several threads to follow; factually, it is important that the cases cumulated so that members of both houses were under increasing pressure to check their eligibility and fess up if they were unsafe (there was a daily game, played out in the media, of "who's next?"), until eventually there was so much pressure that a register was established. "Other MPs and Senators whose status is to be determined" of course needs an update. Unfortunately I don't have any time for these matters right now. Errantius (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)