Talk:Rod Culleton

Senator or not
Rather than engaging in an edit war, I bring the question here: Was Rod Culleton a senator for the period 2 July 2016 to 11 January 2017 (or any other period)? The Court of Disputed Returns has determined that he should not have been, but as far as I can tell, it has not said that he was not a senator during that period. I can't actually understand how it could have decided that, as if he wasn't a senator, then the history is being rewritten, in much the same way as the conviction anullment would have rewritten history to make it possible for him to have been validly elected. The writ was returned with Culleton's name on it, and I think the actions that have been left for a single justice are to determine that Culleton isn't, and someone else is validly elected despite the writ. --Scott Davis Talk 23:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Correct. The only cases that I know of where an MP has been unseated and hasn't been considered to have been an MP was those like Heather Hill - who, unlike Culleton, was unseated before her term would have begun. The federal parliament website has a gap between about 1983-1996 so there's no pages about any MPs from Cleary or Wood's era, but every other parliament treats unseated MPs like this example from Queensland. An obvious reason why they don't treat unseated MPs like they were never in office is that it would throw into question the outcome of every vote they made in parliament, which would cause chaos about what was and what wasn't invalidated and/or still in force. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss here.


 * The High Court found that Culleton was never eligible for election and therefore was not validly elected. To my mind it follows that he never was a Senator.  That "rewrites history" in the same awkward way as annulment of a marriage.  The Parliaments' different practice is very understandable.  Such considerations are canvassed in the High Court's judgments, relating to the effect of annulment of Culleton's NSW larceny conviction.


 * Parry's decision to describe Culleton as a "former Senator" was based on the bankruptcy issue, which has a different timescale from the eligibility issue. The current position is governed by the eligibility issue;  the bankruptcy issue is now irrelevant to the 2016 election.  So the legal position, I think, is clearly that Culleton never was a Senator.  It may then be open to the Parliament to treat him as if he had been a Senator.  I don't recall a vote in which his absence would have changed the outcome, so Parry might decide either way.  But, if Parry decides still to refer to Culleton as "former Senator', that would be a political fiction.  We will have to work out how to handle it.


 * The Court has decided that Culleton should never have been on the ballot paper.  Culleton is gone, the position is vacant, the Court has ruled that there be a recount (rather than probably a state-wide election) and the only legal question remaining is how the recount should be conducted.  The Court has left it to a single Justice to decide that question, i.e. hearing especially from the Australian Electoral Commission about timescale etc. Wikiain (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the "never was" position. This is consistent with The Sydney Morning Herald, a reliable source, which states Rodney Culleton was never legally elected to Senate, High Court rules. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to be blunt, but the above arguments are utter nonsense. As TDW says, if that logic were followed through, every vote Culleton made in parliament would be thrown into question. But it's not as though this hasn't happened before - see the Parliamentary Handbook on people like Phil Cleary, Jackie Kelly and Robert Wood. There really is no wriggle-room here at all. (Also: it is NOT open to Parry to decide that all of Culleton's votes were invalid!!!!! Can you imagine the chaos that precedent would set?) Frickeg (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I note that the headline has been changed (I've updated the reference in our article) to "...never legally elected..." where the original headline said "...never elected...". I saw that headline, but never saw a version of the article that asserted he had never been a senator in the interim. We probably need to give the Senate web site a few days to finalise any changes to their page which currently says "Former Senator Rod Culleton". The question we are trying to clarify here is whether he was "never elected", or "never validly elected". I believe it is the latter, and he was a senator from 2 August (and by convention that is extended back to 2 July) until 11 January (or possibly 23 December). The High Court has ruled that he should not have been elected, and the action of the single judge in the near future will be to implement Section 360(1)(v) and (vi) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, vis:
 * (v) To declare that any person who was returned as elected was not duly elected;
 * (vi) To declare any candidate duly elected who was not returned as elected;
 * on advice from the AEC of the result of a recount without Culleton.--Scott Davis Talk 02:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Right. It is very obviously "never validly elected", because his name definitely appeared on the return of the writs, etc. I mean, what, are we saying that a random citizen was just sitting in the Senate all that time? You can't rewrite history like that. It's not as though he will have to refund his salary. Frickeg (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, just to restate this point: the Parliamentary Handbook entry for Senator Robert Wood states "Wood, William Robert (13.11.1949 - ) NSW NDP 11.7.1987 - 12.5.1988n": noting, exactly as this article presently does with Culleton, that he took his seat when he physically took his seat, and ceased being a Senator when he was found to have not been validly elected. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Extremely sorry, but in law "never validly elected" and "never legally elected" mean the same and both of them amount to "never elected". This is not literally rewriting history ("alternative facts" ...);  it is to change the legal significance of past events and with retrospective effect. The events of the 2016 Senate election used to mean that Culleton had been elected;  the High Court has now identified that meaning as mistaken (and it is mistaken because the High Court says so).  As Frickeg says, this could lead to great difficulties and may have to be worked around with the use of fiction, as only the Parliament could get away with—which seems to be what is happening with the Parliamentary Handbook.  Or, as with the votes, letting sleeping dogs lie.


 * Let's see what the Parliament does. The position as from the High Court's decision is that Culleton is not and has never been a Senator.  If the Parliament wants to count him as if he had been a Senator, we can decide whether to prefer that view.


 * The High Court has decided a reference made by the Senate under Commonwealth Electoral Act section 376. The judgements do not refer to section 360.  The main judgement says only (para [46] at (b)):  "The vacancy should be filled by a special count of the ballot papers. Any directions necessary to give effect to the conduct of the special count should be made by a single Justice."  That judge might make that decision with reference to section 360, but as to Culleton it would be a formality.  The question of whether Culleton is or has ever been a Senator is over and done with.


 * Citing the SMH is fine (I do it all the time), unless there's something better. That story was almost certainly based on the Court's one-page summary issued by email at 10:31 (anyone can sign up to the service).  The story happens to be accurate (as usually with the SMH), but reading the decision itself is better. Wikiain (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (Wikiain, I think you may have misunderstood Scott and thus my response to him - the distinction was between "never elected" and "never validly elected", not between "legally" and "validly", which may or may not change your point - I'm not sure, although surely the Court cannot possibly do anything about the first one.) We do not need to wait to see what the parliament will do - we know what they will do, because this has happened before. And this may seem like a technicality, but the High Court decision does not say that he was never a senator. It says his election as a senator was invalid, and that he should not have been a senator, not that he was not.


 * There seems to be an impression that this kind of thing is new. It is not. It is uncommon, sure, but far from unheard of for people to be declared ineligible. In that case, when that person has already been seated, then without exception they have been treated as having served the term from their election to the decision to invalidate it. I am no lawyer, but the idea above that the parliament is working around these kind of issues with fiction seems to me so ripe for constitutional crisis that it cannot be right, but perhaps someone could point to some kind of source backing it up. Either way, we have acres and acres of precedent here: Culleton was a senator, even if he shouldn't have been, and isn't now. The High Court may presume to change history (though by my reading that is not what it is doing), but we do not. Frickeg (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (Just as an addendum to the above - following whatever recount method is followed, Peter Georgiou will be declared elected. Although he will have been elected from the 2016 election, he will not be regarded - by anyone - as already been a senator for seven months, which would be the only possible view to take if Culleton was "never a senator". See Irina Dunn.) Frickeg (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I was reading to come up with a reply that would have not been that clear, then when I came to type it, found you had already done a better job. I was indeed considering the difference between "never elected" and "never legally/validly elected". Culleton was elected, it now turns out that he should not have been, and steps are being taken to fix it. The judgement refers to In Re Wood several times. The reference to Section 376 relates to the reason that the court is considering the matter, not to what it can do about it. --Scott Davis Talk 06:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am quite happy to wait and see what happens to this page. If it is expunged then we can do likewise and remove Culleton's senatorship from Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think that Culleton never was a senator, but if we are going to assert that we need a good source, better than the SMH. Nevertheless, this page has to be clear that he did sit in the Senate. Otherwise future readers will be confused.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Very sensible, Jack. I'll have a go tomorrow! To others:  as to legal/valid I was only seeking whether there is a common understanding, which clearly there is on that point. Wikiain (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made a few minor amendments, but not addressed anything major as yet. I've added to external links leading constitutional lawyer Tony Blackshield's exhaustive and I think immensely helpful analysis of the whole saga, published today. However, I'll be holding my horses until, perhaps, Parry makes a statement on the matter when the Senate resumes tomorrow. Wikiain (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Parry began the Senate proceedings with made a statement about Culleton, who was in the public gallery (The Guardian has reported online). Wikiain (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Wikiain (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Parry's statement describes Culleton's election as "void", which I take to mean that in his view Culleton never was elected. Culleton's homepage still identifies him as "former Senator", but of course changes to websites normally take a while.

Parry cites authority that a parliamentary vote is not invalidated by the fact that a member or senator voting was ineligible. I take this to mean that none of the votes in which Culleton participated will be revisited.

Parry also considers whether any of Culleton's senatorial salary must be repaid and says that this is to be decided by the government. The government will have to identify the moment at which wrongful payments began, i.e. when if ever Culleton became a Senator. The government's view of that will have to reflect what it understands to be the legal position. The government cannot itself determine the legal position—although the view that it takes will presumably be based upon top-level legal advice, as well perhaps as advice from the clerks of the two houses. Whether any or all of the repayment will be waived will be a subsequent matter. Wikiain (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion of Senate voting and Culleton needing to repay his salary indicates that he was, in fact, never s senator. I don't necessarily think websites are going to be updated, because they will want to record him in some way, and the distinction is somewhat pedantic. What should they call him — a "former putative senator"?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, people are making shit up. "Void" is the word they use when they invalidate any MPs election, which in all parliamentary sources, state and federal, is always dealt with in the same way, which you've been provided tons of examples of. It does not mean that you can ignore all parliamentary sources and add your own WP:OR interpretation. What Parry does about his salary or about your personal take on the specific words he used to describe Culleton is completely irrelevant: there is not the slightest hint of evidence that they're going to break with 150 years of handling this situation in the same way. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The HCA in the Culleton decision of 3 February cites its own unanimous decision in In re Wood (1988), although only about the Court's jurisdiction as a Court of Disputed Returns. However, the Wood judgment also states that, if a candidate was not qualified for nomination, their "election and return could not create the legal capacity to be a senator":  para [14].  I'm not sure whether my citing that passage is WP:OR, so I have desisted from it thus far.   But I do think it answers the question:  Culleton was never a Senator.


 * Parry states clearly that what should be done about Culleton's salary is a decision for the government and not for the Senate, and he has asked the government what he should do. What Parry may do about the Parliamentary Handbook or the  Parliament's website, if anything, is an entirely different matter. Frickeg, I don't have a source for the idea that referring to a never-qualified Senator as a "former Senator" is a "fiction" (though I won't claim that my idea is original), which is why I am not proposing to include it in the article.  But I'm content to leave the "never was" issue, as mainly an issue of the infobox, until we hear from the government or from Parry about the salary. Wikiain (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've updated the article with wording that is intended not to prejudge this issue. Wikiain (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ironic that were are debating the extent to which a court decision has retrospective effect, given the debate on that topic before the High Court. The High Court has determined that he was incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator, none of which changes the fact that Culleton was sworn in as a Senator & sat as a Senator, nor does it invalidate the proceedings in the senate - he was a Senator de facto, but not de jure -. Pretty much the same as being convicted of an offence & then the conviction was set aside. The Constitution expressly contemplates a person sitting in such circumstances and provides for the penalty - see &. A little known aspect of parliamentary privilege is that no one outside of parliament can challenge the validity of proceedings in Parliament as ordinarily constituted - see for example per Gibbs J at [32]. Hence I agree with The Drover&#39;s Wife & for as long as the Senate describes him as former Senator, so should wikipedia.

I suggest a compromise, adopting the same methodology as the Senate in relation to O'Loughlin, Wood & others, which is to put a note at the end of the dates in the info box, something along the lines of "Vacated due to bankruptcy 11 January 2017, Held to be incapable of sitting as a senator under the provisions of 3 February 2017"  Find bruce (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Find bruce, in Vardon the plurality judgment speaks of de facto (in obiter BTW) regarding the position where someone has been declared elected but a challenge to the election has yet to be determined.  As to the position after a challenge has succeeded, both judgments agree that invalidity of the election means that the person was never "chosen by the people" (Constitution sections 7 and 24) and consequently never was a member of the parliament.  They do not find room in the Constitutional meaning of "senator" for a distinction between de facto and de jure.  Isaacs does say that "The validity of his public acts as a senator prior to the declaration is, of course, unaffected".  But I think this must be read as meaning "as [if] a senator", because shortly afterwards he explicitly rejects the description "former senator" for someone who had not been validly elected.


 * Constitution section 46 penalises someone who sits although is "incapable of sitting", i.e. constitutionally disqualified from sitting, but says nothing about their status while sitting.


 * The Senate footnotes that you refer to (and thank you for doing so) might indeed be a way to go. They are not consistently formulated, but they do not have force of law and we are free to formulate a suitable equivalent.


 * However, the High Court's decision on the election of Bob Day should be handed down soon and may well assist us in this matter. The Culleton and Day articles will have to note both cases anyway.


 * Note to non-lawyers (intended for at least some consolation): as can be seen in the High Court's Culleton judgments, (even) lawyers find this issue extremely difficult in several spheres. Wikiain (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the farm: as of today the Senate website lists under "Former Senators" only former Presidents of the Senate and a search for "Culleton" gets no hits. Maybe the site is being revised, so I'm inclined to watch and wait. Wikiain (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed personal attacks & original research. Faroutyouaregood1 raised content issues that they thought important. These should be discussed, so I have listed the referenced material. Just to be clear I am not an admin & claim no special authority, insight or experience. Wikipedia is collaborative & everyone is welcome to express their view on the content, provided it complies with Wikipedia policies, factual, properly sourced, neutral, balanced etc. Enough from me, lets stick to discussing the content. Politics in general and Culleton in particular are controversial, so it would be good if we are able to find a consensus.-- Find bruce (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The High Court's decision in Re Day seems not - as I had earnestly hoped - to have provided a usable formula. It didn't have to. Accordingly I now support the "compromise" proposed by Find bruce, with thanks for the proposal. Wikiain (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Wikiain (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Financial Difficulty
The added material based on the following references

I think a brief summary of the issue covered in the first two articles is warranted - they deal with the liquidators report to creditors for a company associated with Culleton, Elite Grains and are part of the background to his bankruptcy. On that note there are three judgement debts & a previous bankruptcy that was subsequently set aside.
 * Dakin Farms Pty Ltd v Elite Grains Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013 WADC 160]
 * Dakin Farms Pty Ltd v Elite Grains Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013 WADC 160]
 * Dakin Farms Pty Ltd v Elite Grains Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013 WADC 160]

I am unsure about how to deal with the issues from the farm weekly article. Perhaps I am a little technical, but to me the claims relate to debts that have yet to be determined. As they have not been before a court it will be up to Culleton's trustee as to whether those debts are proved in his bankruptcy.

In my view the page as currently written is confusing, largely because it was written as events unfolded & there was quite a bit of overlap both in time & events, between the bankruptcy & the criminal charges. It seems to me to be clearer if the various proceedings are untangled. I am happy to prepare a draft on the debts & bankruptcy for comment. Find bruce (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to get the three issues untangled: crime, bankruptcy, and Senate disqualification.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Tony Blackshield has done a lot on that in AUSPUBLAW.  I'm planning to return to this when the Day decision is handed down (as I have flagged elsewhere), which hopefully will provide some assistance with expressing the nature and consequences of electoral invalidity.  Shouldn't be long now. Wikiain (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A draft is at Talk:Rod Culleton/Draft I have probably gone into too much detail, but I thought it easier to set it all out & then pare it back. I am comforted that even Tony Blackshield had difficulty in making it simple.-- Find bruce (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have updated the draft taking into account the comments here, in an attempt to untagle the web of litigation. Hopefully it is now simpler without two much legalese. Any comments or changes are welcome. Find bruce (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any further comment I have added the material to the main page. I have not changed the info box pending the High Court decision in Day and have left the suggested footnote approach at Talk:Rod Culleton/Draft. Find bruce (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy claims
The added material based on the following reference

The other matter referred to was a letter from Culleton to the High Court. I though t I had seen a pdf of the letter, but I cannot now locate it. The closest I have seen is Culleton's own website

To me neutral point of view requires refraining from making comment about the conclusions that should be drawn from these letters. Reference the article as part of the High Court case & leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion. Its a little simpler with some of his other claims, that have been considered & rejected by the: It seems to me that both these matters fit best as part of the context of the bankruptcy proceedings.-- Find bruce (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * where Culleton sought a declaration that "no valid proceedings have been conducted in the Courts of Western Australia" since 2005 "when Judges were ordered to cease swearing Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second the Lawful Sovereign of the Commonwealth". The application was dismissed by Justice McKerracher as being erroneous and "entirely unarguable".
 * where Barker J sets out similar arguments, before dismissing each of them
 * I'm inclined to leave this alone, as not notable at least until there is some sort of decision about it. Culleton is just picking up on some stuff that is "out there" in more senses than one, advocated by the guy who interrupted one of his cases and has a history of interrupting hearings.  Wikiain (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to give some indication of Culleton's political views, backed by a reliable secondary source.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The High Court chose to ignore the letter, it was not adopted in his written submissions & it is not on the case website, so I would support ignoring at well. There is however a decision (in fact lots of them) on the argument that WA courts were invalid since 2005 because judges didn't sear an oath to the Queen. How about including this quote by Barker J "129 The time has arrived for people who consider that this is a constitutional issue of some moment to appreciate that the courts have long since discredited the theory." See the draft at Talk:Rod Culleton/Draft -- Find bruce (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The "people who consider" I take to be the fringe freaks who bother the courts with wild claims allegedly based in constitutional law, Magna Carta and the Bible. Another is the claim, used by Culleton and dismissed by the Federal Court, about an extensive right to a jury.  Let's consider notable only arguments that a court has taken seriously.  Wikiain (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Barker J took the request for a jury seriously. Not for the reasons given by fringe freaks, but because (3) still gives people the right to ask for one. Barker J also treated the argument about WA since 2005 with sufficient seriousness to spend the time setting them out & then 4 paragraphs hosing it out, including the occasions on which the same argument has been hosed out. Find bruce (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Find bruce. While Barker J's "people who consider" comment is about the oath argument, its context is a serious of wild arguments by Culleton (let us be most grateful that he was provided with counsel for the High Court proceedings).  As to the jury arguments, I was thinking of the more extensive claim relating to Constitution s 80, which was wholly misconceived and was dismissed in a few words;  I've seen it in some lunar literature.  However, the WA s 30 argument for a jury was worthwhile and, as you say, was seriously considered. Nonetheless, I note the terms in which Culleton's Submission introduces it:  "I am asking for a jury trial under S 30 (3) Bankruptcy Act 1966 introduced in 1966, as a part of the lawyers takeover of Australia that has merged State and Church into a single authority" and then on about the Queen and Communism ...
 * I've now read your draft and much appreciate the work that has gone into it. But the draft is already so LONG and would have to get at least twice as long.  I also see that you have been reading Blackshield and maybe many words could be avoided by referring interested parties to his article.  I think he may write more, once the High Court's Day judgement is out.
 * All this about someone who has got into the national limelight almost entirely because of the problems with his election, which therefore must be a strong focus of the article. And not only as to Culleton himself but, along with Day, as to the issues arising from an invalid parliamentary election.
 * As to Culleton's s political views, Jack Upland, maybe that could be brief: he seems to be a single-issue politician, focussing on banks' mistreatment of farmers such as himself, though I don't recall that he has been able to influence national developments in that respect. Wikiain (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I deliberately went long in teasing out the different bits, with the intention that it would be substantially pruned. Feel free to trim it back, an invitation that goes to any other editor. As for his wild claims, quite how trial by jury & s 116 of the Constitution go together is a matter that escapes me. I don't think his wild claims should be given any credence, but I would like to mention them as Culleton became something of a flag bearer for those claims & it should be clear that they were rejected as misconceived and unarguable, in much the same way as the sovereign citizens, nunc pro tunc etc are mentioned & discredited. It strikes me that someone interested in these sort of claims is more likely to turn to wikipedia than any academic article. Probably a vain hope that someone in that desperate situation might be dissuaded. Find bruce (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are being too kind. I don't think that any wild fringe stuff belongs in an encyclopaedia unless it is already a notable belief, such as flat earth or Holocaust denial. To suppose that Culleton is a "flag bearer" seems to be to suppose that behind him is a movement with a flag.  I don't see that with any of his more obscure legal claims.  My test is:  given that tertiary teaching draws attention to much more than appears in encyclopedias, would a tertiary teacher ask students to consider the point?  As to these points, I think not.
 * Anyway, I think that's enough for now of what "I think". As I have repeatedly flagged, I'd like to stay out of this until the High Court hands down its decision in Day. Wikiain (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal mumbo jumbo
I think this article has too much legal mumbo jumbo. It should be aimed at the general reader, and be trying to describe the politician rather than detailing his voluminous and often nonsensical legal misadventures.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jack, the mumbo points to the jumbo in the room. We have to identify it before we can chase it away and its identity is, in important ways, defined legally.  I share your frustration, but am still hoping for some clarification in the Day judgement from the High Court. Wikiain (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But legal mumbo jumbo is right up Culleton's veggie patch. I agree the article should be aimed at the general reader, wikipedia is not intended to be legal research. The challenge though is how do we summarise it simply when:
 * Culleton's legal battles were a big part of his political agenda - see for example his first speech
 * It's an important context to his position on banks (esp the ANZ) & the proposed royal commission
 * Culleton's disqualification for bankruptcy is relatively easy to explain, but the background is complex
 * By my quick count Culleton has been involved in 15 different legal proceedings (& is batting 1-14) he seems to have spent more days in court that he did sitting in the Senate
 * The invalidity issue & whether a judgment has a retrospective effect is something lawyers struggle with. Kable No 2 is another good example of this.
 * I can see the complexity, but I am struggling with how to describe it simply. Find bruce (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just in case you thought Culleton was done, two more matters in the High Court, both failed 2017 HCATrans 41 (stay of bankruptcy) and 2017 HCATrans 47 to do with the recount. Find bruce (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Date of bankruptcy
I undid a good faith edit by you & this is my explanation so that you and other editors can understand my reasons & agree or disagree. Your edit was that the effect of declaring Culleton bankrupt was "retroactive to 30 August 2016". The (2) provides "Upon the making of a sequestration order against the estate of a debtor, the debtor becomes a bankrupt." Although Culleton had committed an act of bankruptcy on 30 August 2016, he "became" a bankrupt only "upon" the making of the sequestration order on 23 December 2016. The date of the act of bankruptcy is important in relation to the distribution of any estate, but the bankruptcy itself is not retroactive. Because the reason is technical, even for lawyers, in my view it is unnecessary to include in the article. Happy to discuss should anyone feel so inclined Find bruce (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree it is a technicality, and it will only confuse readers to include it.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Tense
There have been various edits to change the tense from saying that Culleton "is an Australian politician" to "was an Australia politician": see edit 1 edit 2 edit 3, edit 4 and edit 5. Each of these edits have been promptly reverted by a variety of editors.

While there is no doubt that Culleton is not a senator, I have not seen any authority for the proposition that Culleton has retired from politics - that is being a politician is not the same as being a current member of parliament. Just to pick one example, it is stated that Kristina Keneally "is a journalist and Australian politician" despite the fact that she has not been a member of parliament since 2012 although that is about to change. Find bruce (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is quite right. The "was a politician" thing is used when someone is dead. You don't stop being a politician when you leave parliament, and that includes those who do essentially go into retirement (unlike Culleton). Frickeg (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree about Culleton. I'm not sure about retired politicians etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If they are still living, then "is" is the right tense. If we wish to express that they were politicians but are not any more, then the phrase would be "...is a retired..." or "...is a former...". Perhaps for Culleton we could avoid the judgement of whether he remains a politicion by "Rod Culleton is a former senator for Western Australia." I think that is true irrespective of whether he should have been at the time. --Scott Davis Talk 10:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is unnecessary. He is a politician, regardless of how we classify his exact history in political office. That label is completely unaffected by what one thinks about his Senate service. He is not dead. Therefore, "is a politician", and get into whatever in the next sentence. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Structure
I don't think the current structure is very good. For example, having all criminal charges in one section whether they related to his senate eligibility or not. There is virtually no chronological order in the article. Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)