DOCSLIB.ORG

Role of Integrity Agencies Section 44 of the Constitution Parliaments and Their Watchdogs Delegated Legislation and the Democrat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Role of Integrity Agencies Section 44 of the Constitution Parliaments and Their Watchdogs Delegated Legislation and the Democrat Role of Integrity Agencies Section 44 of the Constitution Parliaments and Their Watchdogs Delegated Legislation and the Democratic Deficit SPRING / SUMMER 2017 Vol 32.2 AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW Australasian Study of Parliament Group Established in 1978, the Australasian Study of Parliament Group (ASPG) is a politically non- partisan body, focused on encouraging and stimulating research, writing, teaching and discussion about parliamentary institutions, particularly those of Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific. The ASPG has a main Executive body and has established Chapters in all States and Territories of Australia and in New Zealand. These Chapters are supported by the institutions providing secretariat services to the respective legislatures in Australia and New Zealand. ASPG membership consists of parliamentarians, parliamentary officers, academics, teachers, journalists, students and other interested individuals. For more information about the ASPG and its membership go to www.aspg.org.au. The Australasian Parliamentary Review (APR) is the official journal of the ASPG. _________________________________________________________________________ Australasian Parliamentary Review Editor: Professor Rodney Smith _________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Board Dr Peter Aimer, University of Auckland Kirsten Robinson, Parliament of Western Australia Jennifer Aldred, Consultant Kevin Rozzoli, University of Sydney Dr David Clune, University of Sydney Professor Cheryl Saunders, University of Melbourne Dr Ken Coghill, Monash University Emeritus Professor Marian Sawer, Australian Professor Brian Costar, Swinburne University National University Dr Jennifer Curtin, University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Roger Scott, University of Dr Gareth Griffith, New South Wales Parliamentary Queensland Library Professor Marian Simms, Deakin University Professor John Halligan, University of Canberra Dr Robyn Smith, Parliament of the Northern Associate Professor Graham Hassall, Victoria Territory University of Wellington Dr Rodney Smith, University of Sydney Dr Richard Herr, University of Tasmania Dr David Solomon, Queensland Integrity Dr Michael Hogan, University of Sydney Commissioner Professor Bryan Horrigan, Monash University Dr Katrin Steinack, University of Melbourne Professor Helen Irving, University of Sydney Dr Elaine Thompson, University of New South Dr Rosemary Laing, Australian Senate Wales (retired) Dr Colleen Lewis, Adjunct Professor, Monash Wayne Tunnecliffe, Parliament of Victoria University Ken Turner, University of Sydney Dr Clement MacIntyre, University of Adelaide Professor Anne Twomey, University of Sydney Dr Isla Macphail, Parliament of Western Australia Dr June Verrier (former Head of Australian Associate Professor Raymond Miller, University of Parliamentary Information and Research Services) Auckland Professor George Williams, University of New Dr Harry Phillips, Parliament of Western Australia South Wales Dr Stephen Redenbach, Parliament of Victoria Dr Paul Reynolds, Parliament of Queensland For more information about the editorial process or contributing to the APR, go to www.aspg.org.au. Material published in the Australasian Parliamentary Review is subject to copyright. Requests for permission to reproduce material from the APR should be directed to the Editor. © Australasian Study of Parliament Group ISSN 1447-9125 2 | P a g e SPRING / SUMMER 2017 VOL 32.2 Table of Contents From the Editor .................................................................................................................. 4 Articles................................................................................................................................. 5 Section 44 of the Constitution – What Have We Learnt and What Problems Do We Still Face? * Anne Twomey ........................................................................................................... 6 Purity of Election: Foreign Allegiance and Membership of the Parliament of New South Wales * Mel Keenan ............................................................................................................ 22 Delegated Legislation and the Democratic Deficit: The Case of Christmas Island * Kelvin Matthews ...................................................................................................... 32 The Western Australian Parliament’s Relationship with the Executive: Recent Executive Actions and Their Impact on the Ability of Parliamentary Committees to Undertake Scrutiny * Alex Hickman .......................................................................................................... 39 Developing an Ethical Culture in Public Sector Governance: The Role of Integrity Agencies * Chris Aulich and Roger Wettenhall .......................................................................... 51 Parliaments and Their Watchdogs: Evaluating the Role of Periodic Statutory Reviews of Auditors General * Peter Wilkins ........................................................................................................... 63 Book Review ..................................................................................................................... 75 John Curtin’s War, Volume One: the coming of war in the Pacific and reinventing Australia by John Edwards David Clune ............................................................................................................ 76 Membership of the Australasian Study of Parliament Group ........................................ 78 * Indicates these papers have been double blind refereed. 3 | P a g e AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW From the Editor Rodney Smith Professor of Australian Politics, University of Sydney _________________________________________________________________________ This is my first issue of the Australasian Parliamentary Review as editor. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Professor Colleen Lewis for editing the Australasian Parliamentary Review from 2014 to August 2017. She has left her mark on the journal and will be a difficult act to follow. Partly due to the editorial changeover and partly due to some other factors, this issue of the Australasian Parliamentary Review has appeared later than scheduled and is shorter than most recent issues. I apologise for those shortcomings but am confident that this issue of the journal still contains much of current and future interest. In the first article in this issue, Anne Twomey provides a thorough analysis of the recent Section 44 controversies and High Court cases, from their origins until mid-February 2018. Mel Keenan examines the equivalent issues at state level, focusing particularly on eligibility to sit in the New South Wales Parliament. On a different issue of parliamentary representation, Kelvin Matthews argues that the existing governance arrangements for Christmas Island leave the Island’s residents facing a democratic deficit. Alex Hickman explores recent cases in which actions by the Executive in Western Australia have made parliamentary scrutiny more difficult and suggests some remedies. The final two articles explore aspects of the relationship between parliaments and other parts of integrity systems. Chris Aulich and Roger Wettenhall provide an overview of integrity systems before analyzing the importance of independence for integrity agencies. Peter Wilkins focuses more specifically on statutory reviews of Auditors General, using a comparison of four recent reviews to suggest ways in which Australian parliaments might make such reviews more effective, while maintaining the independence of watchdog bodies. David Clune closes the issue with a review of the first volume of John Edward’s biography of John Curtin. I would like to thank the helpful experts who refereed papers for this issue of the Australasian Parliamentary Review. All six articles in the current issue were double-blind refereed. The authors found the comments of the referees constructive. When enough people have acted as referees to ensure that their identities cannot be linked to particular papers, I will publish a list of those who have helped the Australasian Parliamentary Review in this way. At its 2017 Meeting, the Australasian Study of Parliament Group Executive agreed to move the Australasian Parliamentary Review from its long-standing hard copy format to an on-line only format. This is the first entirely on-line issue of the Australasian Parliamentary Review. The basic structure of the journal remains the same. Readers can read articles on screen or download and print them as desired. Apart from its environmental and cost advantages, the online journal format allows for easier article searches, as well as the inclusion of electronic links and graphical material that is difficult to reproduce in a paper-based journal. The change to online production has been led by Lesley Ferguson. I would like to thank her for the skills and hard work she has put into in ensuring the transition has been a smooth one. Finally, an apology arising from the last issue of the journal: in a review of the book Party Rules? Dilemmas of Political Party Regulation in Australia (Canberra, ANU Press, 2017), co- edited by Anika Gauja and Marian Sawer, Anika Gauja’s name was misspelt several times as ‘Gaula’. 4 | P a g e SPRING / SUMMER 2017 VOL 32.2 Articles ___________________________________________________________________ 5 | P a g e AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW Section 44 of the Constitution – What Have
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recorder 285.Pages
    RECORDER RecorderOfficial organ of the Melbourne Branch of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History Issue No. 285—March 2016 ; IN THIS EDITION: • The Workers’ Museum, Copenhagen, Peter Love, pp. 5-6 • Young Workers’ Centre, Peter Love, p. 1 • Commemorating Ireland’s 1916 Easter Rising, p. 6 • The Eighties, James Walter, pp. 1-2. • Hugh Williamson Foundation Research Fellowships, p. 6 • Liquor Laws and Alcohol Control in Victoria, Ainsley Symons, • Ky and 1967, Humphrey McQueen, pp. 7-8 pp. 2-3. • Celebrating Joe Hill, Teresa Pitt, pp. 8-9 • Frank Scully, Lyle Allan, pp. 3-4 • Two books of interest, Chris White, p. 9 • Colin Cleary, Lyle Allan, p. 4 • Settling the Office, Paul Rodan, pp. 9-10 • Dick Gray, Brian Smiddy, p. 4 • The Devil Is Here in These Hills, John Tully, pp. 10-12 • I’ll be There!, Susanne Provis, p. 5 • No^ceboard & Branch contacts, p. 12 Young Workers’ Centre The Eighties Q Peter Love James Walter The Victorian Trades Hall Council has launched a Young Frank Bongiorno, The Eighties: The Workers’ Centre (YWC) to help young people understand Decade that Transformed Australia (Black their rights at work and to advocate when those rights Inc., Melbourne, 2015), xiii and 370 pp. are threatened. They're calling for volunteers to support ISBN 9781863957762. Hb.$45.00. the Centre. The launch of the YWC on Wednesday 17 February at Trades Hall was astonishingly well attended, Frank Bongiorno’s history of the 1980s with a queue extending out along the Victoria Street is an ambitious exercise in marrying footpath.
    [Show full text]
  • From Constitutional Convention to Republic Referendum: a Guide to the Processes, the Issues and the Participants ISSN 1328-7478
    Department of the Parliamentary Library INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES •~J..>t~)~.J&~l<~t~& Research Paper No. 25 1998-99 From Constitutional Convention to Republic Referendum: A Guide to the Processes, the Issues and the Participants ISSN 1328-7478 © Copyright Commonwealth ofAustralia 1999 Except to the exteot of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department ofthe Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members ofthe Australian Parliament in the course oftheir official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribntion to Senators and Members ofthe Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced,the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian govermnent document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staffbut not with members ofthe public. , ,. Published by the Department ofthe Parliamentary Library, 1999 INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES , Research Paper No. 25 1998-99 From Constitutional Convention to Republic Referendum: A Guide to the Processes, the Issues and the Participants Professor John Warhurst Consultant, Politics and Public Administration Group , 29 June 1999 Acknowledgments This is to acknowledge the considerable help that I was given in producing this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Profit Under the Crown
    RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, 2017–18 14 JUNE 2018 Office of profit under the Crown Professor Anne Twomey, University of Sydney Law School Executive summary • Section 44(iv) of the Constitution provides that a person is incapable of being chosen as a Member of Parliament if he or she holds an ‘office of profit under the Crown’. This is also a ground for disqualification from office for existing members and senators under section 45. There has been considerable uncertainty about what is meant by holding an office of profit under the Crown. • First the person must hold an ‘office’. This is a position to which duties attach of a work-like nature. It is usually, but not always the case, that the office continues to exist independently of the person who holds it. However, a person on the ‘unattached’ list of the public service still holds an office. • Second, it must be an ‘office of profit’. This means that some form of ‘profit’ or remuneration must attach to the office, regardless of whether or not that profit is transferred to the office- holder. Reimbursement of actual expenses does not amount to ‘profit’, but a public servant who is on leave without pay or an office-holder who declines to accept a salary or allowances still holds an office of profit. The source of the profit does not matter. Even if it comes from fees paid by members of the public or other private sources, as long as the profit is attached to the office, that is sufficient. • Third, the office of profit must be ‘under the Crown’.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Law Reform Commission the Judicial Power of The
    Australian Law Reform Commission Discussion Paper 64 The judicial power of the Commonwealth A review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and related legislation You are invited to make a submission or comment on this Discussion Paper DP 64 December 2000 How to make comments or submissions You are invited to make comments or submissions on the issues raised in this Paper, which should be sent to The Secretary Australian Law Reform Commission Level 10, 131 York Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 (GPO Box 3708 SYDNEY NSW 1044) Phone: (02) 9284 6333 TTY: (02) 9284 6379 Fax: (02) 9284 6363 E-mail: [email protected] ALRC homepage: http://www.alrc.gov.au Closing date: 16 March 2001 It would be helpful if comments addressed specific issues or paragraphs in the Paper. Confidentiality Unless a submission is marked confidential, it will be made available to any person or organisation on request. If you want your submission, or any part of it, to be treated as confidential, please indicate this clearly. A request for access to a submission marked ‘confidential’ will be determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The Commission will include in its final report on this project a list of submissions received in response to this Paper. It may also refer to those submissions in the text of the report and other Commission publications. It may decide to publish them. If you do not want your submission or any part of it to be used in any one of these ways please indicate this clearly. © Commonwealth of Australia 2000 This work is copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Independents in Australian Parliaments
    The Age of Independence? Independents in Australian Parliaments Mark Rodrigues and Scott Brenton* Abstract Over the past 30 years, independent candidates have improved their share of the vote in Australian elections. The number of independents elected to sit in Australian parliaments is still small, but it is growing. In 2004 Brian Costar and Jennifer Curtin examined the rise of independents and noted that independents ‘hold an allure for an increasing number of electors disenchanted with the ageing party system’ (p. 8). This paper provides an overview of the current representation of independents in Australia’s parliaments taking into account the most recent election results. The second part of the paper examines trends and makes observations concerning the influence of former party affiliations to the success of independents, the representa- tion of independents in rural and regional areas, and the extent to which independ- ents, rather than minor parties, are threats to the major parities. There have been 14 Australian elections at the federal, state and territory level since Costar and Curtain observed the allure of independents. But do independents still hold such an allure? Introduction The year 2009 marks the centenary of the two-party system of parliamentary democracy in Australia. It was in May 1909 that the Protectionist and Anti-Socialist parties joined forces to create the Commonwealth Liberal Party and form a united opposition against the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government at the federal level.1 Most states had seen the creation of Liberal and Labor parties by 1910. Following the 1910 federal election the number of parties represented in the House * Dr Mark Rodrigues (Senior Researcher) and Dr Scott Brenton (2009 Australian Parliamentary Fellow), Politics and Public Administration Section, Australian Parliamentary Library.
    [Show full text]
  • This Time, the Republic Movement Must Be Community Driven
    Saturday Feb 6, 2016 4542 online now Do you know more about a story? Real Estate Cars Jobs Dating Newsletters Fairfax Media Network January 26, 2016 Comments 30 Greg Barns The Australian people, not politicians, should decide how we become a republic, and what it looks like, if the 1999 failure is not to be repeated. Email article Print ARM leader Malcolm Turnbull in 1999. Josh Gordon: Andrews backs republic push We want a republic On this Australia Day, those of us who support replacing a British monarch with an Australian head of state have some good news: all state and territory premiers and chief ministers, with the exception of the republican Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett, have signed an unprecedented joint letter calling for an Australian republic. Barnett presumably didn't sign the letter because his state has a large number of English migrants and it's an election year in the West. But having political consensus on the need for Australia to finally untie the knot to Buckingham Palace is one thing. Translating that into a reality of a successful constitutional referendum outcome, which requires four of the six states and the national vote to be in favour of a change, is another thing altogether. There needs to be a mechanism for a genuine, transparent community-driven consensus on how we become a republic, and what it looks like, if the failure of the 1999 Republic Referendum is not to be repeated. The 1999 referendum, which saw a nationwide 45 per cent support for an Australian head of state (with Victoria closest to gaining 50 per cent plus 1 of voter support), and the lead-up to it, had some valuable lessons and we need to take careful note of them in planning for a successful push this time around.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Nationality and Parliamentary Eligibility in Japanese and Australian Law MULTIPLE NATIONALITY and PARLIAMENTARY ELIGIBILITY
    Multiple Nationality and Parliamentary Eligibility in Japanese and Australian Law MULTIPLE NATIONALITY AND PARLIAMENTARY ELIGIBILITY Yasuhiro Okuda* / Trevor Ryan** Yasuhiro Okuda / Trevor Ryan Introduction I. Japanese Law 1. Nationality of Taiwanese 2. Applicability of Unrecognized Government’s Law 3. Election of One Nationality Under the Nationality Act 4. Eligibility of Multiple Nationals to Public Office II. Australian Law 1. Dual Nationality and Disqualification from Parliament 2. Sykes v Cleary 3. Re Canavan 4. Reform Options Conclusion INTRODUCTION Multiple nationality arises often from cross-cultural marriage of parents under the jus sanguinis rule found in Japanese law on the one hand, and from the birth of children to foreign residents in national territory under the jus soli rule found in Australian law on the other hand. Interestingly, despite such different nationality laws, the parliamentary eligibility of multiple nationals has become topical in both countries in recent times. For a long time, foreign residents in Japan numbered fewer than one mil- lion, and most of these were Koreans and Taiwanese who came as Japanese nationals before World War II, when Korea and Taiwan were a part of Japa- nese territory, as well as their descendants.1 They are generally called ‘old comers’.2 However, since the late 1980s foreign residents have rapidly in- * Prof. Dr. Yasuhiro Okuda, Chūō University, Law School, Japan. ** Ass. Prof. Dr. Trevor Ryan, School of Law & Justice, University of Canberra, Aus- tralia. 1 According to the Nihon Tōkei Nenkan [Japan Statistical Yearbook], 664,536 Kore- ans and 52,896 Chinese (most of them Taiwanese) made up 91.6 percent of 782,910 foreign residents in 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Convention
    CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION [2nd to 13th FEBRUARY 1998] TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 11 February 1998 Old Parliament House, Canberra INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansards of the Constitutional Convention are available on the Internet http://www.dpmc.gov.au/convention http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard RADIO BROADCASTS Broadcasts of proceedings of the Constitutional Convention can be heard on the following Parliamentary and News Network radio stations, in the areas identified. CANBERRA 1440 AM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM BRISBANE 936 AM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 729 AM DARWIN 102.5 FM INTERNET BROADCAST The Parliamentary and News Network has established an Internet site containing over 120 pages of information. Also it is streaming live its radio broadcast of the proceedings which may be heard anywhere in the world on the following address: http://www.abc.net.au/concon CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Old Parliament House, Canberra 2nd to 13th February 1998 Chairman—The Rt Hon. Ian McCahon Sinclair MP The Deputy Chairman—The Hon. Barry Owen Jones AO, MP ELECTED DELEGATES New South Wales Mr Malcolm Turnbull (Australian Republican Movement) Mr Doug Sutherland AM (No Republic—ACM) Mr Ted Mack (Ted Mack) Ms Wendy Machin (Australian Republican Movement) Mrs Kerry Jones (No Republic—ACM) Mr Ed Haber (Ted Mack) The Hon Neville Wran AC QC (Australian Republican Movement) Cr Julian Leeser (No Republic—ACM) Ms Karin Sowada (Australian Republican Movement) Mr Peter Grogan (Australian Republican Movement) Ms Jennie George
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Monarchy Or Republic? the November 1999 Referendum
    NSW PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE Constitutional Monarchy or Republic? The November 1999 Referendum by Gareth Griffith Briefing Paper No 19/99 RELATED PUBLICATIONS C Constitutional Monarchy or Republic? Implications for New South Wales, Briefing Paper No 3/98 by Gareth Griffith C Republicanism: Review of Issues and Summary of the Republic Advisory Committee Report, Briefing Paper No 5/93 by Gareth Griffith ISSN 1325-5142 ISBN 0 7313 1660 6 October 1999 © 1999 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, with the prior written consent from the Librarian, New South Wales Parliamentary Library, other than by Members of the New South Wales Parliament in the course of their official duties. NSW PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH SERVICE Dr David Clune, Manager ..........................(02) 9230 2484 Dr Gareth Griffith, Senior Research Officer, Politics and Government / Law ......................(02) 9230 2356 Ms Abigail Rath, Research Officer, Law ...............(02) 9230 2768 Ms Rachel Simpson, Research Officer, Law ............(02) 9230 3085 Mr Stewart Smith, Research Officer, Environment .......(02) 9230 2798 Ms Marie Swain, Research Officer, Law/Social Issues ....(02) 9230 2003 Mr John Wilkinson, Research Officer, Economics ........(02) 9230 2006 Should Members or their staff require further information about this publication please contact the author. Information about Research Publications can be found on the Internet at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/gi/library/publicn.html CONTENTS Executive Summary 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................1 2. DEFINING TERMS ............................................1 Defining terms - constitutional monarchy .............................1 Defining terms - republicanism .....................................1 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Papers on Parliament No. 27
    Republicanism, Politicians, and People’s Conventions— Goulburn 1854 to Canberra 1998* David Headon Perusing the pages of Australian social and political history, these last one hundred and fifty years, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Australians have always looked with either bemusement, apathy or the keen eye of disapproval at their political representatives—and politics in general. In the later 1840s Robert Lowe (eventually to be William Gladstone’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, and after that Viscount Sherbrooke) noted in the pages of his Sydney weekly journal, the Atlas, that New South Wales: ... is the colony that’s under the Governor, that’s under the Clerk, that’s under the Lord, that’s under the Commons, who are under the people, who know and care nothing about it.1 Political disinterest, Lowe claimed, plagued the citizenry in Britain and in the colonies. The decades that followed self-government in the lead-up to federation, it seems, did little to alter popular prejudices. William Goodge, a prominent Bulletin poet at the turn of the century spoke for many in his poem entitled ‘Australia’s Wisdom’. He retained a healthy scepticism about the elected few: * This paper was presented as a lecture in the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House on 28 August 1998. 1 From the Atlas (Sydney), quoted in Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol. 2, p. 135. 1 In other lands the wise men and the great, The greatest minds, are given to rule the State; Each seeks to make his own the ascendant star And genius leads them to the verge of war.
    [Show full text]
  • READING DOWN SECTION 44(I) of the AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION AS a METHOD of AFFIRMING AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP in the 21ST CENTURY
    Denning Law Journal 2018 Vol 30 Special Issue pp 79-99 READING DOWN SECTION 44(i) OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION AS A METHOD OF AFFIRMING AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY Noa Bloch* and Kim Rubenstein# ABSTRACT Until 2017, the most recent disqualification of a member of the Australian Parliament under section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution (‘Constitution’) was Senator Heather Hill in 1998. Remarkably, since 2017, almost twenty years after Sue v Hill, ten parliamentarians have resigned or been disqualified, triggering a series of by-elections. The catalyst for this flurry of activity occurred in July 2017, when Greens senator Scott Ludlam announced that at the time of his election, he was a citizen of New Zealand and was incapable of sitting in parliament under section 44(i). He was the first of ten senators and members of Parliament to be referred to the High Court of Australia in the cases of Re Canavan and later Re Gallagher on questions of eligibility under section 44(i). Eight of these parliamentarians were disqualified, sparking national debate around parliamentary representation and membership within the Australian community. Since Re Canavan and Re Gallagher and indeed well before those cases, the section had and has continued to attract popular, journalistic, parliamentary and academic criticism. Consequently, there have been calls for a referendum on section 44(i) for a significant period of time. Whilst the authors support this call, this article reflects on the cases and develops a different interpretive approach to section 44(i) which if argued by the parties and adopted by the Court, would have rendered a referendum unnecessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Hung Parliament Jennifer Curtin
    16 Independents Return and the ‘Almost’ Hung Parliament Jennifer Curtin One wonders if, when Malcolm Turnbull called the federal election early, the chance of another hung parliament crossed his mind. In 2010, a first-term government, whose electoral position had seemed unassailable six months earlier, was almost defeated and with it came the first ‘hung’ parliament since 1940. It was interpreted as an exceptional moment in Australia’s political history (Costar 2012). However, by the end of May 2016, the proposition of a hung parliament was back in the mix and the likely (re)election of several Independents to the House of Representatives increased in significance. On 6 June, the Australian’s Newspoll indicated that 15 per cent of respondents were considering voting for an Independent or micro party, the highest level of support (during a formal election campaign) in the poll’s 31-year history (Hudson 2016). An Ipsos (2016) poll 10 days later also suggested the vote for ‘Others’ stood at almost half that of Labor’s support. Although seat-specific polls were particularly unreliable (see Jackman and Mansillo, Chapter 6, this volume), that the national polls were showing a combined vote of 28 per cent support for Greens, micro parties and Independents was sufficiently perturbing to prompt both Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce to urge voters to avoid the ‘chaos of a hung parliament’ (Davey 2016). 359 DOUBLE DISILLUSION In the end, these calls fell on deaf ears. The combined vote for minor and micro parties as well as Independents remained sufficiently high to result in the narrowest possible victory for the Coalition.
    [Show full text]