Armadale-WA web site -
web page about
the 2017 referrals to the federal court of disputed returns
regarding s44(1) of the Australian federal Constitution

This web page relates to the referrals,
to the Australian federal court of disputed returns, as of August 2017
of the members of the Australian federal parliament who are Australian citizens who hold dual citizenship.

This web page is not refined and, it is not eloquent, and it does not pretend to be either, and it is, perhaps, not as structured as I would like it to be.

If anyone is offended by any of the content of this web page, I make no apology.

"Obsequium parit amicos, veritas parit odium"
- Cicero

I hold dual citizenship.

The Australian Constitutional racism:

Section 44 of The Australian Constitution, states:

Section 44 -
"44. Any person who -
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or
(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or
(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or
(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. "

Section 45 of the Australian Constitution, states

45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification
If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
(i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or
(ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
(iii) directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;
his place shall thereupon become vacant.

Section 46 of the Australian Constitution, states

46 Penalty for sitting when disqualified
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

A Notice relating to the referral to the Court Of Disputed Returns, of the matter of Scott Ludlam, was published on the High Court web site, which notice included the text
"Any person who desires to place any evidence before or make any submission to the Court should apply to the Court by email addressed to Senate.Reference.Ludlam@hcourt.gov.au by 12:00noon on Monday 21 August 2017 setting out the reasons why they should be granted leave to appear before the Court. The Court may determine such application on the papers or invite the person to appear and make oral submissions to the Court in Brisbane (or by video-link if required) at 10:15am (AEST) on Thursday 24 August 2017."

I followed the instructions, made an application, according to the published instructions, and, my application was rejected.

Regarding the decision of the High Court to reject my application to be heard

I was mistaken...
I said that due process and the rule of law should apply to the proceedings, but the court disagreed.
I said that each of the two Principles Of Natural Justice, should apply to the proceedings, but the court disagreed.
I said that the federal Constitution applies and should be upheld, but the court disagreed.
I said that the truth should be revealed, by evidence to be presented to the court, but the court disagreed.
I said that the court does not exist to benefit the rich and powerful, but, instead, to interpret and administer the law, but the court disagreed.

The court has made clear that the common people should, perhaps, be seen, if they really must be seen, but, the common people should definitely not be heard.

And, it should be noted and emphasised, that the notices published by the high court, on the high court web site, calling for applications to be heard in the matters of the referrals to the court of disputed returns, stated,quite clearly;

"Any person who desires to place any evidence before or make any submission to the Court should apply to the Court by email addressed to (particular reference address)@hcourt.gov.au by 12:00noon on (date of deadline for applications) setting out the reasons why they should be granted leave to appear before the Court."

Conspicuously, the notice did NOT require inclusion of the submissions to be made, or, inclusion of statement of the grounds and particulars of the submissions to be made, by the party seeking leave to be heard; what was explicitly required, was a statement of REASONS WHY the applicant should be heard; nothing more.

So, the high court corrupted the process involved, and, the making of the determinations of who should and who should not, be granted leave to be heard.

"The common people should, perhaps, be seen, if they really must be seen, but, the common people should definitely not be heard."

I am intending to publish both a copy of the content of my application to be heard, and, a copy of the submission that I had intended to make, so that, as the High Court Of Australia, has made clear that it believes that the common people should not be heard, at least, the common people would be able to see what one of the common people would have submitted, if the High Court Of Australia had not prohibited the common people from being heard, and then, the common people can make their own judgement, on what I, as one of the common people, would have had to say.

We plebs have a right to be heard.

It should be noted that the notice published by the High Court, of the first referral to the federal court of disputed returns; the referral of Scott Ludlam, inviting applications for leave to appear, is dated 11 August 2017, and gives a deadline of noon EST on 21 August, so, under ten calendar days, in which prospective parties are to make the applications for leave to be heard in the proceedings, thus, causing, with such short notice - less than a fortnight - such applications to be hastily made, and, thence, not as refined as the applications might be, except for the rich and powerful, who have millions of dollars, and QC's, at their disposal.

And, the process so far, with the dealing with applications for leave to be heard in the matter(s) before the federal court of disputed returns, has been quick and dirty, and, the High Court has tainted the whole of the proceedings, through its actions.



Content Of My Application For Leave To Be Heard in the Court Of Disputed Returns

I note that the application consists of a number of parts, as, with what was happening, new issues were being raised, and, new referrals being made, were happening daily.

Part 1


Why I should be granted leave to appear before the High Court, sitting as the federal Court Of Disputed Returns, in the matter of the referrals to the federal Court of Disputed Returns regarding the question of dual citizenship as relating to section 44(1) of the Australian Constitution, including but not limited to the referral of Scott Ludlam, and, other matters for consideration at the Directions Hearing scheduled for 24 August 2017

I note that I am an unqualified layman, and I intend to represent myself, should I be granted leave to be heard in this matter.

1. By virtue of the first Principle Of Natural Justice; "audi alteram partem", from Seneca's Medea, as an aggrieved party, the law justifies and requires my being granted leave to appear and make representations in the proceedings;

1) I am an Australian citizen and a voter in Western Australia, where the senate election results involving Scott Ludlam, have an effect on me and upon who supposedly represents me as a resident of the sate of Western Australia,

2) I am a dual citizen, and, as such, am adversely affected by the applicable legislation, the application of which is in question in this matter, and, in being a dual citizen, apart from me being prohibited from standing as a candidate for elections to the federal parliament (which even I know, with me being an unqualified layman with no university qualification), and, thence, I am prohibited from being represented in the federal parliament, as applicable to between one quarter and three quarters of the Australian population, the Australian Labor Party has also made clear to me, that dual citizenship should also prohibit Australian citizens from having suffrage,and

3) as a voter of Western Australia, I will be affected by the decision of the Court Of Disputed Returns, and, as according to the translation of the line from Seneca's Medea, which forms the First Principle Of Natural Justice; "audi alteram partem", "If a decision is made, without hearing all parties to be affected by the decision, then while the decision may be right, the making of the decision will not have been right", I invoke my right to be heard.

2. The day after the date (24 August 2017) scheduled for the directions hearing in this matter, is the twentieth anniversary of the tabling in the Australian federal parliament, of a parliamentary report relating to this matter;

"The Report, entitled "Aspects of Section 44 of the Australian Constitution" was tabled on 25 August 1997 in the House of Representatives by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Kevin Andrews MP."

with that report including

"
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that a referendum be held to make the following changes to the constitution:

delete subsection 44(i).
insert a new provision requiring candidates and members of parliament to be Australian citizens.
"

(http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/s44-constitution.htm as viewed at 1550WST on 2017-08-19)

Since that time, twenty years ago on 25 August, that no person holding any citizenship other than Australian citizenship, be allowed, in any circumstances, to nominate for candidacy for, or, hold, membership of either house of the Australian parliament, with no exceptions and no excuses, has been made clear, and, it has been made absolutely clear, that the voters of Australia, will have no say in the matter, by way of constitutional referendum, and, I would seek to show this, in submission to the Court, if allowed to be heard in the proceedings before the Court Of Disputed Returns.

I note that, in arguing the above point, and, elsewhere in my submission, I would be referring to sections of the Constitution, in addition to section 44, and to other material.

3. In the context of the proceeding point, as this involves a commonality across the cases of each of the referrals to the Court Of Disputed Returns, and, the whole issue of what exactly, applies, in relation to the disqualification of dual citizenship, applies to each of the referrals made to the Court Of Disputed Returns, and, as new instantiations of the question of eligibility of members of the current parliament, appear to be arising daily (as at the time of my writing this text, with the latest addition, being Nick Xenophon), I contend that all of the matters relating to the issue of the dual citizenship disqualification, need to be joined and determined as a single case, because of the commonality of what exactly, is held to be the present effect of the constitutional disqualification of dual citizenship.

4. I am aware of a previous judgement by the High Court or the High Court sitting as the Court Of Disputed Returns, that provides exemption from disqualification due to having citizenship other than Australian citizenship, in certain circumstances, but I would argue that any such exemptions do not now apply, and I would provide support for that argument.

5. I have evidence that Scott Ludlam and the Greens Party have deliberately been in breach of section 44(1) of the Constitution for at least seven years, which includes two senate elections, if not from the initial nomination of Scott Ludlam for the senate, and, the evidence also shows that the other Greens Party senator for Western Australia; Rachel Siewert, was party to the deliberate breach of section 44(1). I believe that similar deliberate breaching of section 44(1), also applies in the case of the other Greens Party (ex-)senator; Larissa Waters, who is subject to these proceedings, from the time of her initial nomination.

6. As a voter of Western Australia, and, thence, after viewing the election results of the last two senate elections in which Scott Ludlam was involved, I would argue that, should he be found to have been disqualified to nominate in the elections, and, to have held office as a member of the parliament, his effect on the Western Australian senate elections, warrants at the least, a new, full, senate election for Western Australia, and, similarly, applicable to the state applicable for the other Greens Party (ex-)senator; Larissa Waters, and, in the context of the other members and ex-members of the senate, I believe that the Court needs to consider whether the senate election for the whole of Australia, was so damaged by the matter of the disqualifications due to the dual citizenship issue, as to require a new, full senate election for the whole of Australia, and, as I would argue, the validity of the membership of the whole of both chambers of the parliament,can not, at this stage, be safely established, without fully investigating the eligibility of each of the members of both houses of the parliament, and, otherwise, can not be safely determined, I suggest that consideration would need to be given, and, the prospect raised, for consideration of the proceedings, of voiding the whole of the 2016 federal general parliamentary election, as a double dissolution, with a recommendation, to the Australian Electoral Commission, that all nominations submitted in a new general, full, parliamentary election, and, for as long as section 44(1) remains in its current form, be required to be accompanied by an affidavit from each nominee, that the nominee has checked regarding both of the nominee's parents, and, each of the nominee's grandparents, and, has ascertained, with each applicable foreign consulate or, applicable foreign government ministry, and, similarly, for any current and previous spouses of the nominee, and, has confirmed that no risk of of the nominee having any citizenship other than Australian citizenship, or, any foreswearable right to permanent residency or other such benefits, applies to the nominee.

7. Due to the actions of the prime minister of Australia, wherein the prime minister has perceivably ordered the Court Of Disputed Returns, to make a judgement in favour of the prime minister's "little mate" - the deputy prime minister; Barnaby Joyce, and has therefore, conceivably, influenced the proceedings before the High Court, where the judgements made, in relation to Barnaby Joyce, and, any and every other member of the current government, who is subject to the proceedings involving the issue of the disqualification due to the issue of dual citizenship, could be quite reasonably held to fail the test of the second Principle Of Natural Justice; the requirement of the clear absence of bias, where the test has been established as being as follows.

From page 24 of the document
"Administrative Law II for Assessment Review Board Members and the Municipal Government Board Members"
- The Government Of Alberta - Municipal Affairs
is

"
The Test for Perception of Bias
The courts created a test to evaluate a concern about an appearance of bias. The test is the reasonable bystander test: Would a reasonable bystander informed of all the circumstances reasonably conclude the decision maker holds a predisposed result for the case?
Regardless of whether a member is consciously or unconsciously biased, or even unbiased, what matters is whether a reasonable, informed person looking at all the facts would conclude that the decision maker could not act impartially. The objector need not show that the apprehended bias actually prejudiced one of the parties or affected the result. It is sufficient for disqualification if this might occur. Even decision makers who are confident that they can act impartially, notwithstanding the appearance of bias, must disqualify themselves from the case.
"

It must be noted, emphatically (providing that the belief is correct) that no appeal lays from a decision of the Court Of Disputed Returns, and so, a perception of bias, in the Court of Disputed Returns, could not be tested in an appellate court.

In this context, given the actions of the prime minister of Australia; Malcolm Turnbull, regarding these proceedings, I suggest that the Court needs to consider the question as to whether the prime minister has deliberately made the status of the Court, untenable, in determining these proceedings, and, whether the Court should write to the Governor General, stating that, as the Court has been deliberately placed in a position where it has been made untenable for the Court to decide the question of the effect of section 44(1) on the members of the current parliament, which question has been referred to the Court, the Court is left with no alternative but to request a double dissolution of the parliament,with the requirement that each subsequent nominee for membership of the parliament, be required to provide irrefutable evidence of the nominee not having any citizenship other than Australian citizenship.

The prime minister of Australia; Malcolm Turnbull, QC, has deliberately and maliciously, subverted the independence of the High Court Of Australia. And, in this, I am not referring to an uneducated layperson with no concept of the law, of whom, it could be said, knows no better. I am referring to one of the most prominent Queens Councils in Australia, for whose actions, there is absolutely no excuse, and this does not bode well for the doctrine of separation of powers in Australia.

8.I lay claim to be paid the penalty payable under section 46 of the Australian Constitution, for each person found to have been disqualified by section 44(1) of the Constitution, on the ground of having dual citizenship, for the whole of their time that they have sat as members of the federal parliament. Where the individuals involved, do not have the funds to pay the penalty, I would argue that it should be paid by their parliamentary political parties, due to the wilful involvement of the parliamentary political parties, in the breaching of section 44(1) of the Constitution.

9.I would argue that both of the chambers of the parliament have deliberately breached section 45(1) of the Constitution, in terms of the members of the government, who have been allowed to retain their membership of the parliament, after having been found to hold dual citizenship, and thus, the members of the parliament, appear to be flouting the Constitution..

10. In consideration of their acts of gross misconduct, and, gross contempt of the High Court Of Australia, by Malcolm Turnbull, prime minister of Australia, and, Julie Bishop, foreign minister of Australia, I would argue that they should both be arrested and held in solitary confinement, with no contact with the outside world, until the matter of the disqualifications due to dual citizenship, are heard and determined, and, until, subsequent to the determination(s) regarding the question of the disqualifications due to dual citizenship, are made and published, the two offenders be thence tried for contempt of the Court, and, required to show why they should not be referred for prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and, required to show cause why they should not be be referred with recommendations to be struck off as lawyers and prohibited for life, from practising law. And, the prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, should be called upon to explain the constitutional authority for him to order the High Court Of Australia, to make a finding beneficial to his friend and colleague, in the same context as the use of the term "my little mate". No person, especially, ministers of the government of Australia, should be allowed to use threats and intimidation, to influence court cases, especially, threatening a foreign parliament and acting to influence a foreign parliamentary election, for the benefit of one of their mates, being a person before the High Court Of Australia. And, in this, I am mindful of Albert Langer, who was reportedly locked up for the duration of a federal election, for the offence of telling voters how they could exercise their parliamentary votes so as to vote for only candidates that they wanted elected, the imprisoning of him, apparently to silence him until the then parliamentary election voting, was concluded, so that the voters could not be informed as to how they could make their votes democratic. So also, similarly, should Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop, be silenced until the proceedings relating to the question of the section 44(1) disqualifications, are determined, so that no more threats and intimidations, including apparent intimidation by Julie Bishop, of witnesses involved in the proceedings, and, otherwise attempts to subvert the proceedings, are made, and, so that the New Zealand parliamentary election, can not be further subverted by Australian federal government malice and corruption as already clearly demonstrated by these two people.

11. With the permission of the Court, I would make my submissions in writing, via email, for a number of reasons, including the logistics involved, including the time differences between here and the venue of the proceedings, and, (other personal reasons deleted from, this publication).

12. Due to the short period of time from the announcements of the referrals to the Court Of Disputed Returns, to the deadline for applications for leave to be heard in these proceedings and the timing of the (first) directions hearing in the proceedings, and, with additional referrals arising, on a daily basis, I ask that I be not limited in my submissions that I would make, to the content included above.

13. I note and I emphasise that this text is my application for leave to be heard in the proceedings, and, is not the totality of the submission that I would make, and should not be construed to comprise of all of the pints that I would argue, if granted leave to be heard.

Part 2
In addition to the above, in the context of section 45 of the Australian Constitution;

"
45 Vacancy on happening of disqualification
If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
(i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or
(ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
(iii) directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;
his place shall thereupon become vacant.
"

given that, in the 8th Edition of The Shorter Oxford Dictionary,
the word "subject", on p1214
is shown as
"-adj. ... 2. (foll. by to) liable, exposed, or prone to (is subject to infection)"


and, "prone", on p956, is shown as
"3. ... more than usually likely to suffer"

(I have a family history of, and, am therefore, prone to (a particular disease) - it does not mean that I will definitely get it, but, I am more than usually likely, to get it, as, Barnaby Joyce, with his father having been born in New Zealand, is more likely to have had dual citizenship from that, than a person who, with the last four generations of the family, had none who had anything other than Australian citizenship, and, were not, for the last four generations of the family,born outside Australia)

and, in the context of the news report published at
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/check-the-tape#.wgV9zlNx9Q
which, as viewed at the time of my writing this text, contained

"
Barnaby Joyce Literally Said "Ignorance Is Not An Excuse" To Dual Citizens Who Resigned
"The outcome is black and white. That's just, that's just the way it is."

Posted on August 15, 2017, at 8:09 a.m.
Mark Di Stefano

In a July radio interview, deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said it was "black and white" that dual citizens couldn't sit in parliament, adding that "ignorance is not an excuse".

Just 28 days after the interview, the New Zealand government confirmed the deputy prime minister was a Kiwi dual citizen, through descent from his father.

Joyce is not resigning or standing down from cabinet, as have other MP's who've run afoul of Section 44 of the constitution, with the government suggesting it is confident it'll win a High Court case because of Joyce's apparent ignorance about his Kiwi citizenship.

But during an interview with ABC Radio National's Patricia Karvelas on Tuesday July 18 Joyce said this, in the wake of Greens senators Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam resigning:

JOYCE: I don't think for either Scott Ludlam or Larissa Waters there was anything malicious about it. I think merely an oversight, but unfortunately that's the law. It's like if you're driving on the road without a licence and you get pulled over. Well, you're in a spot of bother. They were members of parliament. It's quite clear under Section 44, you can't be a member of parliament and have dual citizenship. It's black and white. The outcome is black and white. That's just, that's just the way it is.

KARVELAS: Does the law set the bar too high? Is it time to have a look at Section 44 of the Constitution?

JOYCE: Nah, I don't think it is. I think you just have got to do your homework and make sure you're not a citizen of two countries when you stand for parliament. That's basically it. Larissa said she believed that was not the case and I am sure that would be the outcome for Scott Ludlam. But unfortunately ignorance is not an excuse, you're in strife and as I said, there's nothing malicious about it, being sneaky, but they were outside what Section 44 explicitly says. The reason it says that, is that you can only have one master, Australia. If you're going to serve in the Australian parliament, Australia is your master.

On Monday night, attorney-general George Brandis cited legal advice from the solicitor-general which suggested Joyce's ignorance would form the basis of the defence.

"The government has taken advice from the solicitor-general Dr Donaghue," Brandis said.

"On the basis of that advice we are confident that on the proper interpretation of Section 44, Mr Joyce — because of his unawareness of his status as a New Zealand citizen, if indeed that turns out to be the case — would not be disqualified."

Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam said they were unaware they were dual citizens until they checked into their status in recent weeks.

Mark Di Stefano is a political editor for BuzzFeed News and is based in Sydney.
Contact Mark Di Stefano at mark.distefano@buzzfeed.com.
"

I note that the words of Barnaby Joyce, in his capacity as leader of the national party, "It's quite clear under Section 44, you can't be a member of parliament and have dual citizenship. It's black and white. The outcome is black and white. That's just, that's just the way it is." should be binding on both him and his deputy leader of the national party; Fiona Nash

I contend that Barnaby Joyce, in admitting that he was a dual citizen, and, thence, was, by his own words, ineligible to be a member of the federal parliament, has, by not immediately resigning from the federal parliament, apart from deliberately breaching section 45 of the Australian Constitution, has, deliberately, since he was made aware of his dual citizenship, been defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia, as have his two colleagues who have also not resigned from the parliament, immediately upon finding that they had dual citizenship, and, I believe that the Court needs to consider referring Barnaby Joyce, and, his government colleagues, to whom this would apply, for prosecution for the serious criminal offence of defrauding the Commonwealth. If social security beneficiaries can be prosecuted, convicted, and, imprisoned, for fraud, so then should members of the government, suffer the same fate, if they should also be defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia.

I suggest that this is another consideration that the Court needs to determine, in the consideration of the dual citizenship issue, as section 44(1) applies also to section 45, and, when 45 is not properly implemented, then, the offence of fraud, applies. And, being party to that fraud, should also apply to the prime minister and attorney general, for not properly applying section 45 of the Constitution.

And, in all of the circumstances, I suggest that, as the status of the government is at stake, and, could lead to a double dissolution, I suggest that a recommendation should be made, at the directions hearing on 24 August 2017, that the federal government go into "caretaker mode", until the determinations of the matter(s) of the disqualifications applicable by section 44(1) of the Constitution, are finalised.

So, this extra text is sent, to put two further aspects of the issue of the dual citizenship disqualification, as Barnaby Joyce himself, has made it clear that
"It's quite clear under Section 44, you can't be a member of parliament and have dual citizenship."

Those words of Barnaby Joyce, are in addition to the argument that I would put, to the same effect; that it has been made quite clear, that having any citizenship other than Australian citizenship is an absolute disqualification from membership of the parliament, with no excuses and no exceptions, excluding between a quarter and three quarters, of Australia's population, from representation in the parliament.

Part 3

I have overnight, read that Nick Xenophon is having himself referred to the Court Of Disputed Returns, on the same issue of the question of the application of section 44(1) of the Constitution;

at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-19/nick-xenophon-refers-election-high-court-citizenship-questions/8823384
is

"
Influential crossbench senator Nick Xenophon has announced he will refer his election to the High Court after discovering he has a form of British citizenship.

Senator Xenophon's father, Theodoros Xenophou, is from Cyprus, which was a British colony until 1960.

But Mr Xenophou retained a form of British citizenship — and passed it onto his son — because Australia is one of only nine countries which allowed him to keep it.

Speaking outside a British pub in Adelaide, Senator Xenophon said the UK Home Office had confirmed that made him a British overseas citizen, meaning he may be ineligible to sit in Parliament.
"
and

"Senator Xenophon said he would will stay in Parliament and continue to vote on legislation in the meantime."

So, in the knowledge that he holds citizenship other than Australian citizenship, and, is therefore disqualified by section 44(1) of the Constitution, he is, like other people who are at present, referred to the Court of Disputed Returns, regarding the issue of the s44(1) disqualification due to holding citizenship other than Australian citizenship,, wilfully flouting s45 of the Constitution, and, defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia.

I contend that the Court, in this matter, apart from needing to amalgamate all of the referrals to the Court, that are occurring, relating to the s44(1) disqualification, to be heard and determined concurrently, as I have already suggested/contended, needs also to determine the question of whether, as I believe, s45 applies to these people, and, whether their wilfully illegal continued membership of the parliament, should be investigated and, as applicable, prosecuted for the criminal offence of defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia.

I note that the exact wording of s45(1) of the Constitution, is not

"If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
(i) is found to be disqualified by any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or"

but, is

"If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
(i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or"

therefore, the last part of s45;

"his place shall thereupon become vacant."

should be applied to each of the people so referred to the Court Of Disputed Returns, immediately upon the person becoming aware that their eligibility for membership of the parliament, is questionable, and, needs to be determined by the Court.

Thence, as the hearing scheduled on 24 August 2017, is a Directions Hearing in the matter(s), and, is the first Directions hearing in the matter, I contend that the Court needs to make a determination as to whether s45 of the Constitution, applies to these people, especially, as I have contended, that s45 requires their places in the parliament, to be declared vacant as from the time that they became aware that they have or may have citizenship other than Australian citizenship, or may otherwise be disqualified from membership of the parliament, by virtue of s44(1) of the Constitution.

Also, thus, on the assumption that I am, as I believe is my right in these circumstances and as already argued, allowed to be heard in the matter(s) of the referrals to the Court Of Disputed Returns, regarding the question of the application of s44(1) of the Constitution to all of the people referred to the Court, regarding this issue, I request, as the hearing scheduled on 24 August 2017, is a Directions Hearing in the matter(s), and, is the first Directions hearing in the matter, an order to be made at that directions hearing,

"that a copy of each of the completed nomination forms for each person referred to the Court for the determination of the person's status regarding s44(1) of the Constitution, in these proceedings, for each of the elections which led to the person becoming a member of the parliament, be provided to Bret Busby, and, to any other party to these proceedings, who so requests such copies, by the Australian Electoral Commission."

Part 4

I have this afternoon; 2017-08-22, read the news report published at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-22/joyce-canavan-to-concede-they-are-dual-citizens/8831596
which includes, as at the time of me commencing writing this text; 1700WST;

"
Neither Barnaby Joyce nor Matt Canavan will contest the fact they are dual citizens under New Zealand and Italian law, according to the solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue QC.

That means the only issue that will be debated is whether that rules the pair ineligible to sit in Parliament under an interpretation of section 44(1) of Australia's constitution.

The nation's chief counsel also said the Commonwealth is ready to step in and give the High Court legal advice on the citizenship status of the other parliamentarians awaiting a decision on their fate.

But if those other parties, such as One Nation's Malcolm Roberts, do not agree with the advice the Commonwealth gets from lawyers overseas, they can get their own, but risk delaying any judgement on their case.

Acting on behalf of the Attorney-General, Mr Donaghue has filed submissions to the High Court on five parliamentarians who have had their alleged dual citizenship referred by Parliament for judgement.

Mr Donaghue has suggested the cases should be heard by the court on September 13 and 14 — a quick turnaround because they relate to the current makeup of the Parliament.

"The Attorney-General submits that there is a compelling public interest in the references being determined as quickly as possible," Mr Donaghue said.

Another two senators, Nationals deputy leader Fiona Nash and South Australian Nick Xenophon, will have their citizenship status referred to the High Court when Parliament returns next month.

Mr Donaghue said he understood lawyers for Mr Joyce and Senator Canavan will not dispute the fact that under New Zealand and Italian law respectively, they are citizens of foreign countries.

The first hearing of the matters will be held this Thursday in Brisbane.
"

On the assumption that I am granted leave to be heard in the matter of the referral of Scott Ludlam to the Court Of Disputed Returns, and, as I have submitted, in the amalgamated matter of the referrals of each of the people so referred to the Court Of Disputed Returns, including the two yet to be referred, as mentioned above, due to the commonality of the significant issue to be determined in each and all of these matters; whether, as I contend, s44(1) of the Constitution is to be applied in these matters, as disqualifying absolutely every person who has citizenship other than Australian citizenship, from nominating for, standing for election for, and, holding, membership of the federal parliament of Australia, as Thursday 24 August 2017 is scheduled as the first Directions hearing in the matter(s), I submit the following;

1. due to the requirements of the audi alteram partem rule of Natural Justice, each party to the proceedings should know all of the information raised at each Directions hearing scheduled for the matter, and, be provided with sufficient time to deal with that material, in the making of submissions for the trial of the matter, and, thence, the trial of the matter, should be no earlier than 28 days after each party to the proceedings, has been provided with the transcript, and orders made, from each Directions Hearing in the matter(s),

2. as the above news report includes

"Another two senators, Nationals deputy leader Fiona Nash and South Australian Nick Xenophon, will have their citizenship status referred to the High Court when Parliament returns next month."
then, if the Court can not determine those issues also, before they are formally referred to the Court, then I submit that the proceedings should be deferred until those referrals are made, so as to prevent this turning into a perpetual, repeated, tying up of the resources of the High Court, due to a parliament that is clearly showing that it has no idea as to what it is doing,

3. apart from the application of s44(1) in this/these matter(s), as portrayed repeatedly by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as worded in the news report published at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/labor-refuses-to-release-citizenship-documents-for-their-mps/8827206 ,
as viewed at the time of my writing this text; being
"The constitution prevents anyone with dual citizenship from holding office",
being the public perception of the public of Australia; of common, reasonable people, of the application of s44(1) in this/these matter(s), where the common people of Australia, are not rich and powerful people who can use expensive, high-ranking lawyers, with unlimited resources, to get the law bent for them, I would submit that, as mention is made in the above news report;
"
"The Attorney-General submits that there is a compelling public interest in the references being determined as quickly as possible," Mr Donaghue said.
"
the current federal attorney general is directly and deliberately, responsible, for s44(1) rendering anyone who has any citizenship other than Australian citizenship, disqualified from from nominating for, standing for election for, and, holding, membership of the federal parliament of Australia, and is therefore, directly and deliberately responsible for each of these matters having been caused to be brought before the Court, which, if I am granted leave to be heard in this/these matter(s), I would seek to show to the Court, and, and, emphatically,

4. the High Court Of Australia, and, thence, the High Court Of Australia, sitting as the federal Court Of Disputed Returns, do not exist to serve the interests of the rich and the powerful, or, the interests of the federal government, or, to comply with the orders made to it by the prime minister, to make particular findings for the benefit of the prime minister and his mates, and, do not exist for the benefit of the federal attorney general, but, instead, exist to administer the law, according to due process, and, according to the rule of law, and, thence, the trial of the matter, should be no earlier than 28 days after each party to the proceedings, has been provided with the transcript, and orders made, from each Directions Hearing in the matter(s). It would not be right for the Court to rush into a hasty, wrongful, outcome, that the public could reasonably perceive to be simply to benefit the current federal attorney general or the current government, or the current prime minister who has made it clear that he believes that he can simply order the High Court to do his bidding. Due process of law, should be applied, and, the rule of law, must be applied.

As a senator has suggested, apart from the immediate double dissolution of parliament, which, all of the current circumstances, suggest, would be appropriate, to defer that, the current parliament can instead, be prorogued, until all of the matters involving s44(1) of the Constitution, have been finally determined, for the members of the current parliament. The prime minister and the federal attorney general, together, are quite capable of getting the parliament to be prorogued.

At this stage, the proverb applies; "The most powerful crooks in Australia, are the members of the federal parliament", and, we need to see whether the High Court will obey the order of the prime minister, and exempt the prime minister's "little mate" and the prime minister's other mates, from the law.

Added 15 September 2017

At
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/dual-citizenship-crisis-high-court-nash-xenophon/8946886
as viewed at 0148WST (UTC+0800) on 15 September 2017, is

"
Lawyers for deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash and key crossbench senator Nick Xenophon will appear before the High Court today for the first hearings in their citizenship challenges.

Senator Nash and Senator Xenophon were the last of seven federal politicians to admit they were dual citizens, as the citizenship crisis swept through Canberra.

Section 44 of the constitution stops foreign nationals from being elected to federal parliament.

In submissions to the High Court, Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue QC said the Commonwealth had obtained legal advice from a British QC that Senator Nash was indeed a British citizen at the time of the last election.

Mr Donaghue said the Commonwealth understood that "conclusion will not be disputed".

Senator Nash admitted to Parliament she had discovered she was a British citizen through her father, who was born in Scotland.

Acting on behalf of the Attorney-General, Mr Donaghue said the Commonwealth had sought advice from the same British QC in relation to Senator Xenophon.

He also offered to obtain advice from Greek and Cypriot legal experts about Senator Xenophon's privileges under their respective citizenship regimes.

Senator Xenophon admitted he was considered to be a UK Overseas Citizen, as his father was born in Cyprus when the Mediterranean Island was still a British colony.

Nash, Joyce draw Labor's ire for remaining in ministry

The five other cases — Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, former Nationals minister Matt Canavan, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts and former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters — were heard for the first time in Brisbane last month.

At the time, Mr Donaghue said the Commonwealth was dealing with the five cases in two categories.

He said Mr Joyce, Senator Canavan and Ms Waters would have had no knowledge they were considered citizens of New Zealand, Italy and Canada respectively.

But the Solicitor-General argued the cases of Senator Roberts and Mr Ludlam were different, and they ought to have been aware.

Labor has criticised Senator Nash and Mr Joyce for remaining in the Turnbull ministry while their eligibility for Parliament remained uncertain.
"

As stated above,

"
I note that the words of Barnaby Joyce, in his capacity as leader of the national party, "It's quite clear under Section 44, you can't be a member of parliament and have dual citizenship. It's black and white. The outcome is black and white. That's just, that's just the way it is." should be binding on both him and his deputy leader of the national party; Fiona Nash
"

and

"
JOYCE: I don't think for either Scott Ludlam or Larissa Waters there was anything malicious about it. I think merely an oversight, but unfortunately that's the law. It's like if you're driving on the road without a licence and you get pulled over. Well, you're in a spot of bother. They were members of parliament. It's quite clear under Section 44, you can't be a member of parliament and have dual citizenship. It's black and white. The outcome is black and white. That's just, that's just the way it is.

KARVELAS: Does the law set the bar too high? Is it time to have a look at Section 44 of the Constitution?

JOYCE: Nah, I don't think it is. I think you just have got to do your homework and make sure you're not a citizen of two countries when you stand for parliament. That's basically it. Larissa said she believed that was not the case and I am sure that would be the outcome for Scott Ludlam. But unfortunately ignorance is not an excuse, you're in strife and as I said, there's nothing malicious about it, being sneaky, but they were outside what Section 44 explicitly says. The reason it says that, is that you can only have one master, Australia. If you're going to serve in the Australian parliament, Australia is your master.
"

and

"
I note that the exact wording of s45(1) of the Constitution, is not

"If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
(i) is found to be disqualified by any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or"

but, is

"If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
(i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or"

therefore, the last part of s45;

"his place shall thereupon become vacant."

should be applied to each of the people so referred to the Court Of Disputed Returns, immediately upon the person becoming aware that their eligibility for membership of the parliament, is questionable, and, needs to be determined by the Court.
"

and thence, as the members of the parliament who are subject to the proceedings before the federal Court Of Disputed Returns, that have not had their seats in the parliament, declared vacant as required by s45 of the Constitution, are fraudulently retaining their memberships of the parliament, and, fraudulently drawing benefits of membership of the federal parliament,to which benefits, they are knowingly, not entitled;

"
At this stage, the proverb applies; "The most powerful crooks in Australia, are the members of the federal parliament", and, we need to see whether the High Court will obey the order of the prime minister, and exempt the prime minister's "little mate" and the prime minister's other mates, from the law, or, act according to the law..
"

Unfortunately, as the high court of Australia has already shown that that court and the law, are mutually exclusive, we can not have much confidence in the court doing the right thing and act according to the law.

Added 15 September 2017

At
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/dual-citizenship-cases-return-to-high-court/8949286
as viewed at 1540WST (UTC+0800) on 15 September 2017, is

"
Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Nationals Senators Fiona Nash and Matt Canavan, and South Australian Nick Xenophon will either all survive their citizenship challenges or all be kicked out, according to the Solicitor-General.

They are four of the seven politicians facing a fight for their political lives and reputations, after it was revealed they were dual citizens.

That rules them ineligible to hold office under the Constitution.

Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue QC appeared before the High Court this morning, and said the facts of law in those four cases were very similar.

He told the court it was "virtually inevitable that they will stand or fall together".
"

and

"
Lawyers for former MP Tony Windsor told the court they want to produce expert legal advice on French, German and US citizenship law as part of their challenge to Mr Joyce's eligibility for Parliament.

Mr Joyce comprehensively defeated his political nemesis at last year's federal election.

Mr Windsor's lawyers said the evidence of other countries' citizenship law would assist their argument that being a foreign national by descent is not a new concept, and was well understood around the world at the time Australia's constitution was being drafted in the late 1800s.

Last month, the Solicitor-General had suggested Mr Joyce, Senator Canavan, Senator Nash, and former Greens senator Larissa Waters would not have known they could have been dual citizens.

The full hearings in all seven citizenship cases will be heard on October 10, 11 and 12.
"

The bottom line is simple; as stated above; s44(1) makes explicitly clear that no person who holds citizenship other than Australian citizenship, is allowed to stand for, or, hold, a seat in the federal parliament, and, upon being found out to be subject to being so ineligible (not requiring a court decision to find the person to be ineligible, only to be found to have a reasonable prospect of being so ineligible), s45(1) requires the person's seat to be immediately declared vacant.

The seven people involved are, and have been, from the beginning, simply ineligible to have held their seats in parliament, and, ineligible to have stood for election, for seats in the parliament, and, have defrauded the Australian people, and, have further (than it already has been) corrupted the proceedings of the parliament (one of them, Nick Xenophon, made a deal with the government, to change the media laws for Australia, to the detriment of Australia, in what is clearly, a corrupt action by the government, in using known ineligible people to pass its now explicitly corrupt laws), by holding their seats in the parliament, while being known to be ineligible to hold the seats in the parliament.

"The most powerful crooks in Australia, are the members of the federal parliament"

And, once again;
"we need to see whether the High Court will obey the order of the prime minister, and exempt the prime minister's "little mate" and the prime minister's other mates, from the law, or, instead, create a precedent, and, act according to the law.

Unfortunately, as the high court of Australia has already shown that that court and the law, are mutually exclusive, we can not have much confidence in the court doing the right thing and act according to the law.
"

Added 18 September 2017

At
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/barnaby-joyce-hold-on-new-england-seat-under-threat/8958300
as viewed at 2324WST (UTC+0800) on 18 September 2017, is

"
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has also expressed absolute confidence the High Court will not strip Mr Joyce of the seat.

"The government is very confident that the court will not find the member for New England is disqualified from being a member of this house," Mr Turnbull, who is himself a lawyer, told parliament last month.

"Very confident indeed."

Mr Turnbull left the chamber in no doubt about his view of the outcome of the case.

"The Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Prime Minister is qualified to sit in this house and the High Court will so hold," he said.
"

"The High Court will do as it is told."

Added 02 October 2017 -
Why s44(i) requires that anyone with citizenship other than Australian,is disqualified, with no exceptions

Due to extreme misconduct by a telecommunications company (the telecommunications industry is not regulated or subject to any form of consumer protection, in Australia, and telecommunications companies are free to do what they want), completely disrupting our lives for a couple of weeks, and, severing our access to the World Wide Web, I have lost a couple of weeks' time in which to work on my submission that I would have made, if the High Court had chosen to act lawfully, and, if the High Court had not determined that we plebs should not be allowed to participate in, thence, not allowed to be heard, in that exclusive club for the rich and powerful, so I shall include here, a few salient points, that would have been included in the submission that I would have made.

Some have said words to the effect of "This is a tricky issue. The Constitution is not clear (well, yes it is, regarding s44(i), but, anyway...). We need to look at the intent of the people who created the Constitution, and, what they had to say about the intent of section 44"

But, I say that the material below, supersedes what the people who originally created the Constitution, said about s44 and its intent.

s128 of the Constitution, specifies the only allowed process for amending the Constitution;
"
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.
"

So, any proposed change to the Constitution, must originate in a chamber of the parliament, and, must be passed by an "absolute majority" of that chamber of the parliament, then, by an "absolute majority" of the other chamber of the parliament, and, then, and, only then,be put to a constitutional referendum of the voters.

Any change to the Constitution, can not be initiated by the voters, but, must originate in a chamber of the parliament, and, must be passed by an "absolute majority of that chamber, and, then, the other chamber, before being put to the people.

So, the chambers of the parliament, have absolute control, over what may be changed, and, what may not be changed, as the chambers of the parliament, can determine that the people have a right to determine whether a change to the Constitution may be made, or, can prohibit the people from being allowed to determine whether a change should be made to the Constitution.

The LNP prohibited the people of Australia, from determining whether the Constitution should be changed, to allow Australian citizens who also have other citizenship(s) to nominate for, and thence, to hold, seats in the federal parliament. They did this, by rejecting the "Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998" on "Thursday, 15 May 2003".

In addition to the significance of s128 of the Constitution, in this matter, is s47 of the Constitution;

"
47 Disputed elections
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.
"

Now, if a proposed change to the Constitution, for example, the Bill of Bob Brown, and mentioned extensively below, is passed, as required, through both chambers of the parliament, and then, put to a referendum, and, passed, so that, as proposed in the Bill, s44(i) is replaced simply with a requirement that a person have Australian citizenship, in order to nominate for, and, to hold, a seat in the federal parliament, instead of the current restrictions that prohibit about a quarter of Australian citizens from nominating for, and, holding, a seat in the federal parliament, then, whatever the original creators of the Constitution, wanted or intended, regarding s44(i), is superseded by the change to s44(i) of the Constitution, and, therefore, whatever the original creators of the Constitution, wanted or intended, regarding that section of the Constitution, becomes irrelevant.

Now, to extrapolate that consideration, a little, as the parliamentary discussions preceding the creation or amending of legislation, are to be taken into account, in the interpreting of the legislation, then, also, in considering sections 47 and 128 of the Constitution, as cited above, where legislation is proposed to be amended, but, is subsequently, not amended, after the existing legislation, and, the proposed amendments to the existing legislation, have been discussed, then, the content of those discussions, should be considered, in interpreting the existing legislation, as those discussions indicate the more recent intent of the legislation, and, why the existing legislation exists as it does, worded as it is worded, superseding the original intent of the legislation.

Thence, in the case of s44(i) of the Australian federal Constitution, the section has been analysed, and, a Bill to amend that section of the Australian federal Constitution, has been put to the senate, as the originating chamber of the Bill, and, so, the analysis of that section, that led to the creation of the Bill to amend that section, and, the content of the parliamentary discussions, relating to that Bill, and, to s44(i), in the context of that Bill, should be considered here, rather than the intent of the original creators of the Constitution, with the intent of the original creators of the Constitution, being superseded by the content of the analysis of s44(i), which led to the Bill to amend s44(i), and, by the content of the discussions relating to both the Bill and to s44(i), in the dealings with the Bill to amend s44(i) of the Constitution. And, this is especially so, given s47 of the Constitution.

It has been recognised, for decades, in Australia, that as much as a quarter, or more, of Australians; in 1998, estimated to have been 5-6 million, who have not been allowed to nominate for, and, thence, to hold seats, in the Australian federal parliament, and, thence, who are not allowed to be represented in the Australian federal parliament.

Inserted 04 October 2017

At
http://www.rssfeeds.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/Section44
(as viewed at 1505WST on 2017-10-04)
was
"
Proposals to Change Section 44

Section 44 has been the topic of regular review and debate. In 1980, the Senate referred constitutional qualification and disqualification issues to its Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Committee reported in 1981. Its report, The Constitutional Qualifications of Members of Parliament recommended that every one of the five subsections of section 44 be either amended or deleted.
"

The title of the report in that paragraph, is a hypertext link to
www.rssfeeds.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/intguide/pol/two.doc
which, as viewed at 1505WST on 2017-10-04, contained
"
Recommendations

Age, citizenship, residence and allegiance (ss. 16, 34 and 44 (i))

1. Section 34 of the Constitution should be deleted and a section to the following effect inserted in its stead: 34. A member of the House of Representatives must be at least eighteen years of age and must be an Australian citizen (paras 2.5, 2.1 3).
2. As an immediate measure the following amendments should be made to section 69 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918:
(i) section 69 (1) (b) should be amended by omitting the words 'a British subject' and substituting the words 'an Australian citizen' (para. 2.13).
(ii) section 69 (1) (c) should be deleted (para. 2.8).
(iii) section 69 (1) (d) should be deleted (para. 2.23).
3. Section 44 (i) of the Constitution should be deleted (para. 2.19).
"

So, thirty six years ago, it was formally recognised by the federal parliament of Australia , that s44(i) of the Australian federal Constitution, was problematic, and, that the dual citizenship disqualification should have been eliminated.

If, at that time, s44(i) had been eliminated, as recommended by the 1981 report, Australia would not be in the parliamentary crisis in which it finds itself, deliberately caused by the subsequent federal LNP governments, including members of the current federal LNP government, including the current federal attorney general, who was amongst those who deliberately determined all seven of the people currently referred to the federal court of disputed returns, to be disqualified from nominating for, and, from holdiing and having held, seats in the federal parliament.

So, the problem of the s44(i) disqualifications, currently before the federal court of disputed returns, could quite easily have been avoided, but, it has been the clear intent of the federal LNP governments,going back, at least as far as 1981, that all seven of the people who have been referred to the federal court of disputed returns, have been, and, are, disqualified from nominating for, and, from holding and having held, seats in the federal parliament, for all of, and, at least, the last thirty six years.

That ends this insert of 04 October 2017, and, now, back to the addition of 02 October 2017...

As stated above,
.
On 24 August 2017, was the twentieth anniversary of the tabling in the Australian federal parliament, of a parliamentary report relating to this matter;

"The Report, entitled "Aspects of Section 44 of the Australian Constitution" was tabled on 25 August 1997 in the House of Representatives by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Kevin Andrews MP."

(Note - Kevin Andrews MP was a member of the then LNP federal government of Australia - this is where partisan politics is of very great significance, as it is integral to the determination that was made, that no person holding dual citizenship, should, under any circumstances, be allowed to nominate for, or, hold, a seat in the federal parliament of Australia)

with that report including

"
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that a referendum be held to make the following changes to the constitution:

delete subsection 44(i).
insert a new provision requiring candidates and members of parliament to be Australian citizens.
"

(http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/s44-constitution.htm as viewed at 1550WST on 2017-08-19)

Since that time, twenty years ago on 25 August, that no person holding any citizenship other than Australian citizenship, be allowed, in any circumstances, to nominate for candidacy for, or, hold, membership of either house of the Australian parliament, with no exceptions and no excuses, has been made clear, and, it has been made absolutely clear, that the voters of Australia, will have no say in the matter, by way of constitutional referendum,

At
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/laca/section44\chap2.pdf
(as viewed at 1855WST on 2017-10-01)
was
"
Subsection 44(i) expresses the principle that members of parliament must have a clear and undivided loyalty to Australia and must not be subject to the influence of foreign governments. The language in which the principle is expressed is archaic. It was drafted before the concept of Australian citizenship developed and the scope of the subsection is uncertain.

The exclusion from federal politics of persons who have dual or multiple citizenship is problematic. First, there is a question whether the many Australian citizens who are dual citizens should be excluded from the political process. Second, the steps necessary to renounce other citizenships may be cumbersome or uncertain. Third, many Australians may be unaware that they are dual citizens.

The principle is as fundamental today as it was in the nineteenth century. The Committee concludes that the community would be better served if the current provision were to be deleted and the constitution recognised the primacy of Australian citizenship in the parliamentary system.
"

That document is timestamped "Wed 24 Jun 1998 14:03:58 AWST".

I note, and, I emphasise, the text from that parliamentary committee report;
"Third, many Australians may be unaware that they are dual citizens."

Also, subsequently in that report, is

"
2.10 The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs foreshadowed a likely increase in the number of problem cases given the growing number of Australians with dual nationality (up to five million). The Department expects that this number could increase.
"

And the report subsequently includes

"
The distinction between a subject and a citizen
2.21 The concept of 'subject' appears to be archaic. It appears that it was intended to have the equivalent meaning of 'citizen' – the distinction being that citizenship seems to have been the expression used in republican forms of government. According to the Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England:
A subject is one who, from his birth or oath, owes lawful obedience or allegiance to his liege lord or sovereign. "Citizen" is the term usually employed, under a republican form of government, as the equivalent of "subject" in monarchies of feudal origin.
2.22 Quick and Garran wrote:
In view of the historical associations and the peculiar significance of the terms "citizens" and "subjects", one being used to express the membership of a republican community, and the other that of a community acknowledging an allegiance to a personal sovereign, it was obvious that there might have been an impropriety in discarding the time-honoured word "subject" and in adopting a nomenclature unobjectionable in itself but associated with a different system of political government.
"

and

"
Issue 2: extent of dual nationality among Australian citizens
2.23 A significant number of Australian citizens are also dual citizens. Estimates vary, but there are probably three to four million, or possibly up to five million, dual (or multiple) citizens in Australia. 31 The Committee notes that these people may or may not be aware that they are dual citizens. Those Australians are ineligible to be chosen or to sit in the parliament under subsection 44(i).

How foreign citizenship may be acquired
2.24 Mr Mark Sullivan, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, explained that one of the difficulties in working out more precisely the number of dual citizens is that it is hard to know how many Australian born citizens are eligible to take up the nationality of their father or parents.

2.25 An Australian citizen may acquire another citizenship in several ways.

2.26 First, since Australian law does not require a person to renounce any other citizenship on assuming Australian citizenship, a migrant who acquires Australian citizenship is a dual citizen if the citizenship laws of the other country allow the person to retain that prior citizenship.

2.27 Second, an Australian born person could acquire Australian citizenship by birth and a foreign citizenship by virtue of a parent's non-Australian citizenship. For example, the child of an Australian father and an Irish citizen mother is an Australian citizen by birth and Irish citizen by descent.

2.28 Third, a person who is born overseas could acquire Australian citizenship by descent and another citizenship by reason of being born overseas. Thus a person born in New Zealand to an Australian citizen parent acquires New Zealand citizenship and is generally eligible to register as an Australian citizen by descent.

2.29 Fourth, an adult Australian who acquires a foreign citizenship automatically by operation of the laws of another country will not lose his or her Australian citizenship. This may happen with the acquisition of another citizenship through marriage.

2.30 Finally, an Australian citizen who loses his or her Australian citizenship by reason of acquiring another citizenship may be able to resume the Australian citizenship. The person will have dual citizenship if the other country allows the person to retain that citizenship.

2.31 The Committee received direct evidence showing that dual citizenship may be easily acquired. One witness with dual citizenship (Australia and Britain) also has an entitlement to Irish citizenship. 34 Another submission described the circumstances of a person with multiple citizenship. The person concerned, an Australian citizen who has lived in Australia for 32 years, since the age of four, acquired one citizenship by birth (United Kingdom) and another by descent (parents came from the Republic of Ireland).

2.32 As Dr Jupp pointed out, under the principle of jus sanguinis, some countries extend citizenship to second, third or even more distant descendants. Examples include Greece (286,941 first and second generation Greeks in Australia), Germany (249,596), Ireland (146,810) and Israel (for all Jews). "

and

"
Many Australian citizens unaware that they are dual citizens

2.33 One complication caused by the ways dual citizenship can be acquired is that there are probably many Australian born citizens who are not aware that they are, or are eligible to be, dual nationals. Mr Sullivan speculated that some time in the future a parliamentarian could declare that he or she is unaware that he or she is a dual citizen and therefore does not know that there is any other citizenship to renounce.

2.34 The issue of whether people are aware that they are dual citizens is possibly particularly acute for persons from Britain or persons whose parents were born in Britain or in British colonies or former British colonies. Since British citizenship is not, under British law, surrendered on taking up the citizenship of another country, virtually all UK born Australian citizens have dual citizenship. 39 British citizenship may extend to the Australian born children of British citizens or the Australian born children of persons born in British colonies or former British colonies. However, as the Attorney-General's Department noted, ignorance of citizenship status will not discharge a person from the need to comply with subsection 44(i)
"

I note, and, I emphasise that that parliamentary report explicitly states
"as the Attorney-General's Department noted, ignorance of citizenship status will not discharge a person from the need to comply with subsection 44(i)"

and the report subsequently includes

"
2.41 Despite the problems outlined above the Committee heard support for the view that subsection 44(i) should be retained in its present form. For example Mr Dean Smith, Liberal Party of Australia, put the view that the intention of subsection 44(i) is clear and the existing section is quite appropriate. The Liberal Party submitted that the (coalition) shadow cabinet opposed any change to subsection 44(i) in 1993 when it considered the issue of a referendum on the subject. In the Liberal Party's view, the High Court in Sykes v Cleary eliminated fears that a literal interpretation of the provision may result in some Australian citizens being permanently denied the right to stand for election to the federal parliament.
"

and

Committee's conclusion on the 'no change' case

2.42 The Committee accepts that in Sykes v Cleary the High Court partly relieved the problems presented by subsection 44(i) by rejecting a literal interpretation of the provision and allowing persons with a foreign citizenship from countries that do not permit renunciation to overcome the disqualification by taking 'reasonable steps' to do so.
"

So, the High Court acts and determines, outside "the letter of the law", being creative with its determinations, and, thus, crosses the line, into overruling the federal Constitution.

Also, of note, especially with the partisan nature of the actions involved, where all that matters, is a parliamentary political party, showing that it "can flex its muscle", without regard for the consequences, as is shown below, and, as is shown by the LNP, having deliberately caused the current crisis;

"
Mr Dean Smith, Liberal Party of Australia, put the view that the intention of subsection 44(i) is clear and the existing section is quite appropriate. The Liberal Party submitted that the (coalition) shadow cabinet opposed any change to subsection 44(i) in 1993 when it considered the issue of a referendum on the subject.
"

The report subsequently goes on to say

"
2.43 However, the Committee remains concerned that this is only part of the difficulty inherent in subsection 44(i). First, as is noted above, a large number of Australian born citizens probably do not know that they are dual citizens. Such persons could stand for parliament unaware that they need to take steps to comply with subsection 44(i). Second, the prohibition on dual citizenship is not the only component of the provision. Subsection 44(i) also prevents a person from standing for or sitting in the parliament if the person '[i]s under an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power' or is 'entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen or a foreign power'. As discussed above, the meaning of these expressions is uncertain. Finally, what constitutes 'reasonable steps' remains uncertain.

2.44 For these reasons the Committee is unable to support the "no change" case.
"

The report subsequently includes

" 2.72 The Committee considers that the potential exists for challenges to the eligibility of a significant number of parliamentarians especially in view of the fact that a large number of Australian citizens possess dual citizenship. This represents a risk to the integrity and stability of the parliamentary system and to the government of the nation. For example, it is not difficult to envisage a situation where, following an election, the balance between the major political parties, or coalitions of parties, in the House of Representatives was fairly even and where challenges to five or six elected representatives could throw into doubt the outcome of the whole election. It could make government virtually impossible since neither political grouping could take office confident of majority support. In those circumstances, it could take months for High Court challenges to be resolved and for by-elections to occur. The Committee agrees with Sir Maurice Byers that:

Certainty in the conduct of the affairs of the Parliament is essential to the well-being of the nation. Its composition, following an election, should be capable of challenge only upon the most compelling and clearly stated grounds.

2.73 In evidence, Sir Maurice argued:

... it is ... of paramount importance that the procedures of an election be stable and recognised so that the membership of the parliament is not susceptible to unnecessary challenge. It is ... very important that the legislators who pass the laws are entitled to their seats. Hence, the provisions dealing with disqualification and qualifications should be as clear as it is possible to make them.

The report subsequently includes

"
Conclusions on deleting subsection 44(i) and substituting a requirement that candidates and members be Australian citizens

2.77 The Committee acknowledges the problems outlined above, particularly, the difficulty of achieving the proposed change. Nonetheless most members of the Committee consider that the policy arguments in favour of the proposal are persuasive. One of the most important objectives to be pursued is the achievement of certainty in the electoral process. The most satisfactory method of delivering electoral certainty would be to delete subsection 44(i) and to insert a simple provision requiring that to be eligible to be chosen and to sit as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives, a person must be an Australian citizen.

2.78 The Committee agrees with the Attorney-General's Department and Mr Lindell that parliamentarians should, under the constitution, be required to retain Australian citizenship. The Committee accepts that there is a reluctance to excite the emotional and controversial debates that would surround a constitutional referendum to amend subsection 44(i). Nevertheless, it considers that the parliament has a duty to lead such debates.

2.79 The Committee concludes that the constitution should be amended to require that Australian citizenship be a qualification for those who wish to stand for or sit in the federal parliament and that loss of Australian citizenship should disqualify candidates or members of the federal parliament.
"

Of particular significance, from that report, that is directly applicable to the matter of each of the referrals to the Court Of Disputed Returns; for each of the seven members of the federal parliament, whose eligibilities to have nominated for, and, to hold and to have held, seats in the federal parliament, is, from 2.34,

"as the Attorney-General's Department noted, ignorance of citizenship status will not discharge a person from the need to comply with subsection 44(i)"

Now, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/roberts-says-his-case-stronger-than-rest-of-citizenship-seven/9001562
as viewed at 0155WST on 2017-10-02, is
"
Earlier in the week, the Commonwealth's submissions to the High Court argued Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash, former Nationals minister Matt Canavan, South Australian senator Nick Xenophon and former Greens senator Larissa Waters should be saved because they would not have known they were dual citizens.
"

and, at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/dual-citizenship-saga-politicians-back-ignorance-legal-argument/8998202
as viewed at 0200WST on 2017-10-02, is
"
Submissions from lawyers for Senator Canavan, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash, South Australian senator Nick Xenophon, and former Greens senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters have so far been made public by the High Court. Malcolm Roberts' submission was expected to be made available later on Thursday evening.

All but the former Greens senators agree with arguments put forward earlier in the week by the Commonwealth that they had no way of knowing they were dual nationals, and therefore were not in breach of the constitution.

Ms Waters and Mr Ludlam are going as far as to dispute the Commonwealth's interpretation of the constitution, conceding they breached the rules and arguing the others probably have as well.

"There is no reason, as a matter of principle, to distinguish between Australian citizens who derive their citizenship by birth from those who derive it from descent," their lawyers said, claiming the Commonwealth was being tricky and arguing for a complex reading of the nation's founding document.
"

and

" Solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue QC, representing Senator Brandis, had argued the only two who should not be saved by the High Court were One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts and former Greens senator Scott Ludlam.
"

and, at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-26/only-roberts-and-ludlam-wrongly-elected-commonwealth/8990398
as viewed at 0206WST on 2017-10-02, is
"
The Commonwealth will argue only One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts and former Greens senator Scott Ludlam should be found to have been wrongly elected to Parliament at the last election.

If that argument is successful, the political career of former Greens senator Larissa Waters could be revived just months after her snap resignation.

Senator Roberts, Mr Ludlam and Ms Waters are among seven politicians facing the High Court, after questions were raised about whether their dual citizenship made them ineligible to hold office.

Section 44 of the constitution bans anyone with dual citizenship from being elected to Parliament.

Submissions filed on behalf of Attorney-General George Brandis this afternoon argued the other five politicians, including Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, should not be kicked out of Parliament.

The Commonwealth's submissions, written by Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue, argue the constitution should only be interpreted to disqualify those who have "voluntarily obtained, or retained" foreign citizenship.

It argues a "person who does not know that they are, or ever were, a foreign citizen" should not be ruled ineligible.

That argument goes to the heart of the cases put forward by Mr Joyce, Nationals deputy leader Fiona Nash, former minister Matt Canavan and South Australian senator Nick Xenophon.

All claim they never had any knowledge they could be foreign nationals by descent, and the laws of other countries should not force them out of Parliament.

Mr Donaghue's argument would also defend Ms Waters.

Ms Waters and former colleague Mr Ludlam already quit Parliament after it was revealed they were dual citizens of Canada and New Zealand, respectively.

Both Ms Waters and Mr Ludlam were born overseas, but Mr Donaghue argued Mr Ludlam knew he was a dual citizen and did not take action to renounce it.

Mr Donaghue said Ms Waters "was not aware that she was or had even been a Canadian citizen" when she nominated for Parliament, which meant she couldn't be expected to renounce her dual citizenship.
"

but, once again, from the report of the federal parliamentary committee for legal and constitutional affairs, as published on the federal parliament web site, as cited above, is, from 2.34,

"as the Attorney-General's Department noted, ignorance of citizenship status will not discharge a person from the need to comply with subsection 44(i)"

So, for each and every one of the seven members and ex-members of the federal parliament, who have been referred to the Court Of Disputed Returns, in this matter of the question of disqualification by s44(i) of the Australian federal Constitution, as the proverb states, "Ignorance is no defence under the law", as stated explicitly by the office of the federal Attorney General.

At
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/Section44
as viewed at 0225WST on 2017-10-02, is
"
The Australian Electoral Commission published a summary and analysis of the House of Representatives report, in its Electoral Backgrounder No. 2, Parliamentary Report on Section 44 of the Constitution.

The government response to the House of Representatives Committee report was tabled on 9 December 1997.The government accepted the major recommendations of the Committee in principle, stating that:

it accepts that constitutional and legislative action is the only realistic way in which to overcome these shortcomings [of section 44]. Given adequate support for a suitable proposal, the government would be disposed to put the constitutional issue to a referendum at an appropriate time.

On the other hand, it also indicated:

that a proposal should not be formulated without first considering whether it would be appropriate also to amend ther (sic) parts of section 44, or any other relevant constitutional provision.

There has been no such formal consideration of this issue since the government made its response.

On 29 October 1996 , following the High Court ruling in Free v Kelly, Senator Bob Brown moved a motion calling on the Government to formulate a proposal for amendment of the Constitution to deal with section 44.[5] The motion was passed without a division.

Two years later, there having been no further action on the House of Representatives Committee Report, Senator Bob Brown introduced a Bill into the Senate, titled the Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998. Its intention was to alter both subsections 44(i.) and 44(iv.) of the Constitution. Senator Brown s Bill highlighted one of the problems with reforming section 44. Everyone agrees that the section is unsatisfactory. However, there are significant differences of opinion over how it should be changed. Senator Brown wanted to replace subsection 44(i.) with a requirement that a candidate be an Australian citizen. During debate on the Bill on 3 December 1998, however, it was clear that others, such as National Party Senator Bill O Chee, believed that a candidate should hold only Australian citizenship.
"

Much interesting information comes from following the Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998 through the "readings" and debates in the senate, from 1998 to the third reading and vote, in 2003, using Hansard as the record.

One of the aspects that comes of reading the records of what was said and done in the senate, regarding the Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998, is that senator Bob Brown reiterated the concerns stated in the LACA committee report cited above, regarding people being unaware of having citizenship(s) in addition to Australian citizenship.

Another thing of extremely great significance in this matter, is that, from the beginning, when the report of the LACA committee, regarding s44 of the Constitution was being written, it was acknowledged, in that report, and, in the senate, that s44(i) is a problem, and, should either be deleted, or replaced with the simple requirement that a person hold Australian citizenship, and, the Bill of senator Bob Brown, was seen as a simple way of doing this, but, when it came to the final vote on the Bill, the vote was according to "party lines" - the LNP voted against it, and everyone else voted for it.Significantly, the people who voted against the amendment; the people who determined that each of the seven people referred to the Court of Disputed Returns, should be disqualified from having nominated for, and, disqualified from holding, and, disqualified from having held, seats in the federal parliament, included the current federal attorney general, George Brandis.

In Hansard, for "Thursday, 15 May 2003", for the senate, pp 11286-11287, show how the votes were cast, for and against the Bill; "CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RIGHT TO STAND FOR PARLIAMENT—QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES) 1998 (No. 2) [2002]", which Bill was designed to prevent the disruption and uncertainty caused by the current seven referrals to the Court of Disputed Returns, and, to allow about six million Australians, who are resident in Australia, who are currently forbidden from being represented in the Australian federal parliament, to be represented in the Australian federal parliament.

And, the votes against the Bill?
"
Abetz, E.
Boswell, R.L.D.
Calvert, P.H.
Colbeck, R.
Ferguson, A.B.
Heffernan, W.
Kemp, C.R.
Lightfoot, P.R.
Macdonald, J.A.L.
McGauran, J.J.J.
Payne, M.A.
Barnett, G.
Brandis, G.H.
Chapman, H.G.P.
Eggleston, A.
Ferris, J.M.
Johnston, D.
Knowles, S.C.
Macdonald, I.
Mason, B.J.
Patterson, K.C.
Santoro, S.
Tchen, T.
Troeth, J.M.
Tierney, J.W.
Watson, J.O.W.
"
with the result;
"
The PRESIDENT—Order! The result of the vote being 36 ayes and 26 noes, I declare that the Constitution Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament—Qualification of Members and Candidates) 1998 (No. 2) [2002] has not been carried by an absolute majority. The bill is therefore laid aside pur- suant to standing order 135.
"

And, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Brandis
as viewed at 14325WST on 2017-10-02, is

"
George Henry Brandis QC (born 22 June 1957) is the 36th Attorney-General for Australia and has been a Liberal member of the Australian Senate representing Queensland since May 2000. Brandis served as Attorney-General in the Abbott Government from 2013 to 2015, then the Turnbull Government thereafter. He is also Leader of the Government in the Senate and has been the Vice-President of the Executive Council during that period. He also held the post of Minister for the Arts and Sport from 23 January 2007 until the Howard Government lost the 2007 election.
"

so, the "Brandis, G.H."
listed in the senators who voted against the
"Constitution Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament—Qualification of Members and Candidates) 1998 Bill"
would appear to be "on the balance of probability", the current federal attorney general, who voted to cause the current scenario, of government members and their cronies, as members of the parliament, being ineligible to sit in the parliament.

And, with his background, the federal attorney general would have, or, should have (with no excuse otherwise), read the preceding material, which I, as an unqualified layman, was able to find, and therefore, the current federal attorney general clearly knew, as with the other members of the government at the time, who so voted, that the current scenario, with all of its effects and implications;
"
2.72 The Committee considers that the potential exists for challenges to the eligibility of a significant number of parliamentarians especially in view of the fact that a large number of Australian citizens possess dual citizenship. This represents a risk to the integrity and stability of the parliamentary system and to the government of the nation. For example, it is not difficult to envisage a situation where, following an election, the balance between the major political parties, or coalitions of parties, in the House of Representatives was fairly even and where challenges to five or six elected representatives could throw into doubt the outcome of the whole election. It could make government virtually impossible since neither political grouping could take office confident of majority support. In those circumstances, it could take months for High Court challenges to be resolved and for by-elections to occur.
"

would likely arise, as a consequence of the rejection of the Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998, by the current federal attorney general, and his then colleagues in the LNP government.

So, this current scenario, with the seven referrals to the federal court of Disputed returns, and, the constitutional ineligibility, for each of the seven people and any others, so referred to the federal court of disputed returns, to have nominated for, and, to hold, and, to have held, seats in the federal parliament, was deliberately caused by the current federal attorney general, and, the other members of the LNP federal government.

I note that, of those who voted against the Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998, thus, explicitly prohibiting anyone with any citizenship in addition to Australian citizenship, from nominating for, of, holding a seat in the federal parliament, thereby, prohibiting us from being represented in the federal parliament, George Brandis, current federal attorney general, is not the only one, who is a member of the current federal LNP government, and, is not the only one, who is a minister in the current federal LNP government.

It is interesting, that the current federal attorney general, and, his colleagues in the federal LNP government, clearly determined that the current deputy prime minister is disqualified from having nominated for, and, from holding, and, from having held, a seat in the federal parliament; and, regarding this, section 45 of the Constitution, as cited by me, above, applies to the deputy prime minister, and, to the others of the referrals to the federal court of disputed returns, and, so, their seats should have immediately been declared vacant, from the time when it was discovered, and/or, made known, that they may have been ineligible, under s44(i) of the Constitution, as I have explained above, and, continued holding of their seats in the federal parliament, is simply fraud - defrauding the commonwealth of Australia, apart from constituting an illegal parliament.

So, if you who are reading this, are a member of the public, who has dual citizenship, these people who voted against the "Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998", are the people who determined that you should not be represented in the Australian federal parliament, even though you are forced to vote for people who do not represent you.

Now... In the Hansard records of the debates relating to the Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998, from "Thursday, 3 December 1998", p 1239, is, spoken by "Senator ELLISON (Western Australia Special Minister of State) (4.30 p.m)"
(Note - Chris Ellison, senator for Western Australia, was a member of the Liberal Party -part of the LNP federal government - important due to the partisan politics involved)
-

"
While the government recognises the need for legislative reform of section 44, it does not believe the public interest in changing this section is so great as to merit the cost to the public of a referendum solely on this issue. This is particularly the case as the Australian Electoral Commission has amended the nomination form for candidates so that it contains a declaration to be signed by the candidate that explicitly states that the candidate is not disqualified by virtue of section 44 of the constitution. The form also includes a copy of the full text of section 44, a check list for candidates and a warning. Whilst these measures do not address the fundamental objection to the operation of section 44, they do remove the possibility of a person acting in ignorance by standing as a candidate when they are not qualified by virtue of section 44.
"

The words are quite clear, indicating that no excuse is acceptable; "they do remove the possibility of a person acting in ignorance by standing as a candidate when they are not qualified by virtue of section 44."

Of particular note, from the report cited above, from twenty years ago, is:

"2.72 The Committee considers that the potential exists for challenges to the eligibility of a significant number of parliamentarians especially in view of the fact that a large number of Australian citizens possess dual citizenship. This represents a risk to the integrity and stability of the parliamentary system and to the government of the nation. For example, it is not difficult to envisage a situation where, following an election, the balance between the major political parties, or coalitions of parties, in the House of Representatives was fairly even and where challenges to five or six elected representatives could throw into doubt the outcome of the whole election. It could make government virtually impossible since neither political grouping could take office confident of majority support. In those circumstances, it could take months for High Court challenges to be resolved and for by-elections to occur. The Committee agrees with Sir Maurice Byers that:

Certainty in the conduct of the affairs of the Parliament is essential to the well-being of the nation. Its composition, following an election, should be capable of challenge only upon the most compelling and clearly stated grounds.

2.73 In evidence, Sir Maurice argued:

... it is ... of paramount importance that the procedures of an election be stable and recognised so that the membership of the parliament is not susceptible to unnecessary challenge. It is ... very important that the legislators who pass the laws are entitled to their seats. Hence, the provisions dealing with disqualification and qualifications should be as clear as it is possible to make them.
"

which pretty well describes the "Monty Python's Flying Circus" that we currently have, in terms of the instability of the Australian federal parliament, which is entirely, self-inflicted, and, deliberately caused, by the federal LNP government, due to the simple issue of the LNP gratuitously sabotaging an attempt to fix the broken Australian federal Constitution.

Now...

In the Australian Constitution, s128; "Mode of altering the Constitution", is specified, the only allowed path to change the federal Constitution;

"
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.
"

So, any proposed change to the Constitution, must originate in a chamber of the parliament, and, must be passed by an "absolute majority" of that chamber of the parliament, then, by an "absolute majority" of the other chamber of the parliament, and, then, and, only then,be put to a constitutional referendum of the voters.

Any change to the Constitution, can not be initiated by the voters, but, must originate in a chamber of the parliament, and, must be passed by an "absolute majority of that chamber, and, then, the other chamber, before being put to the people.

So, the chambers of the parliament, have absolute control, over what may be changed, and, what may not be changed, as the chambers of the parliament, can determine that the people have a right to determine whether a change to the Constitution may be made, or, can prohibit the people from being allowed to determine whether a change should be made to the Constitution.

The LNP prohibited the people of Australia, from determining whether the Constitution should be changed, to allow Australian citizens who also have other citizenship(s) to nominate for, and thence, to hold, seats in the federal parliament. They did this, by rejecting the "Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998" on "Thursday, 15 May 2003".

In addition to the significance of s128 of the Constitution, in this matter, is s47 of the Constitution;

"
47 Disputed elections
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.
"

"Eh, what?", you may say.

Well, think of what was said, and, what was done, regarding the "Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998". As was stated, at
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/Section44
as viewed at 0225WST on 2017-10-02,

"
Senator Brown wanted to replace subsection 44(i.) with a requirement that a candidate be an Australian citizen. During debate on the Bill on 3 December 1998, however, it was clear that others, such as National Party Senator Bill O Chee, believed that a candidate should hold only Australian citizenship.
"

and, as stated above,

"
In the Hansard records of the debates relating to the Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998, from "Thursday, 3 December 1998", p 1239, is, spoken by "Senator ELLISON (Western Australia Special Minister of State) (4.30 p.m)" -

"
While the government recognises the need for legislative reform of section 44, it does not believe the public interest in changing this section is so great as to merit the cost to the public of a referendum solely on this issue. This is particularly the case as the Australian Electoral Commission has amended the nomination form for candidates so that it contains a declaration to be signed by the candidate that explicitly states that the candidate is not disqualified by virtue of section 44 of the constitution. The form also includes a copy of the full text of section 44, a check list for candidates and a warning. Whilst these measures do not address the fundamental objection to the operation of section 44, they do remove the possibility of a person acting in ignorance by standing as a candidate when they are not qualified by virtue of section 44.
"

and then,

"
In Hansard, for "Thursday, 15 May 2003", for the senate, pp 11286-11287, show how the votes were cast, for and against the Bill; "CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RIGHT TO STAND FOR PARLIAMENT—QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES) 1998 (No. 2) [2002]", which Bill was designed to prevent the disruption and uncertainty caused by the current seven referrals to the Court of Disputed Returns, and, to allow about six million Australians, who are resident in Australia, who are currently forbidden from being represented in the Australian federal parliament, to be represented in the Australian federal parliament.
"

So, the federal LNP government, through its members in the senate, determined, quite clearly, that no person who holds any citizenship other than Australian citizenship, will be allowed to be eligible for membership of the Australian federal parliament, and, determined also, that lack of knowledge of having any citizenships other than solely Australian citizenship, would not alleviate the disqualification from membership of the parliament, due to having citizenships) other than solely Australian citizenship.

And, the federal LNP government, through the absolute dictatorship, as afforded by the Australian federal Constitution, prohibited the Australian public from having any say in the matter.

And, the Australian federal parliament knew full well, that the current scenario involving the seven referrals to the Court of Disputed Returns, could happen, due to the parliamentary LACA committee report cited above, and, deliberately caused the current instability and referrals to the Court of Disputed Returns, to happen, by the actions of the LNP government.

And, as cited above, from the relevant news report;

"
Submissions filed on behalf of Attorney-General George Brandis this afternoon argued the other five politicians, including Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, should not be kicked out of Parliament.

The Commonwealth's submissions, written by Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue, argue the constitution should only be interpreted to disqualify those who have "voluntarily obtained, or retained" foreign citizenship.

It argues a "person who does not know that they are, or ever were, a foreign citizen" should not be ruled ineligible.
"

For such arguments to be put, in the name of the federal attorney general, is frivolous, and, vexations, given, from the cited parliamentary LACA committee report;

"as the Attorney-General's Department noted, ignorance of citizenship status will not discharge a person from the need to comply with subsection 44(i)"

It is all, simply a farce, and, it is really quite simple.

Like me, any Australian citizen, who has any additional citizenship(s), is prohibited by the Australian federal Constitution, and, by the actions of the LNP in the federal parliament, from being eligible for membership of the Australian federal parliament; no exceptions, and, no excuses.

"As Judge Bullingham ("the old Bull") would say - "It is just a matter of plain commonsense."

Simple.

Oh, and, with senator Bob Brown having put his "Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998" in 1998, a year after the tabling of the federal parliament's LACA committee report regarding s44, and, with the Bill having been resurrected in 2003, and, having been defeated in 2003, five years later, with Scott Ludlam having been born in New Zealand, given that senator Bob Brown explicitly knew that that would disqualify Scott Ludlam from eligibility for membership of the parliament, unless Scott Ludlam had renounced his New Zealand citizenship, with Scott Ludlam only four years later, in 2007, taking office as a member of the senate in 2008, I sent an email message, regarding dual citizenship and the s44(i) disqualification, in June 2010, to Scott Ludlam and Rachel Siewert, Greens senators for Western Australia, senator Bob Brown, leader of the Australian federal parliamentary Greens party, and, senator Christine Milne, deputy leader of the Australian federal parliamentary Greens party, in which email message, I referred to the birthplace of senator Scott Ludlam, and, I stated that that would disqualify him from membership of the Australian federal parliament, and, raised the issue of whether he had renounced his New Zealand citizenship.Interestingly, in all of the circumstances, whilst I otherwise got response to that email query, I got no response to the query as to whether Scott Ludlam had renounced his New Zealand citizenship and would therefore, be eligible to hold membership of the Australian federal parliament.

This paragraph added on 04 October 2017
- the question needs to be considered;
"Given the above sequence of events, and, the involvement of Bob Brown of the Greens party, from 1998, is the matter of the current set of referrals to the federal court of disputed returns, initiated by the "surprise" resignation of Scott Ludlam, followed by Larissa Waters, both due to "having recently found" that they are disqualified by s44(i), due to "having recently found" that they have always had dual citizenship, both federal senators representing Bob Brown's Greens party, a deliberate, planned action, by Bob Brown and the federal parliamentary Greens party, to again bring the s44(i) disqualification to a head, showing the consequences of the senate rejection of his Bill, and, like a boil, have the s44(i) disqualification due to dual citizenship, removed, to resurrect the "Constitutional Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998", so as to accomplish what he sought to do in that Bill; to have the constitutional referendum that he sought, to eliminate the disqualification of having dual citizenship?"

Added 03 October 2017 - Why a full senate election is required, if not a full double dissolution election

Seven referrals to the federal court of disputed returns, currently exist;

of the senate -
Scott Ludlam - Western Australia
Matthew Canavan - Queensland
Larissa Waters - Queensland
Malcolm Roberts - Queensland
Fiona Nash - New South Wales
Nick Xenophon - South Australia

and, of the lower house -
Barnaby Joyce - Division of New England, New South Wales

1. In the matter of Western Australia - Scott Ludlam

at
http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-20499-WA.htm
as viewed at 2325WST on 2017-10-02, is shown the final count for the votes cast in the WA senate election 2016, by "First preferences by candidate",
shown as "Updated: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:05:45 AM AEDT".

Scott Ludlam is shown as having won 15,545 first preference votes. That is more than the sum total of the first preference votes (15467) of the four ALP candidates declared elected as senators for Western Australia, and, more than the sum total (13847) of the first preference votes cast for the five Liberal Party candidates declared elected as senators for Western Australia, and, many times more than the first preference votes of Rachel Siewert, declared elected for the Greens Party for Western Australia, with 845 first preference votes.

Thence, the question must be asked, with that significance of the first preference votes cast for Scott Ludlam, as the primary winner of the Western Australian senate election, and, as a deputy leader of the federal parliamentary Greens party, what would be the effect both, on the number of party ticket votes cast for the Greens party, in Western Australia, and, on the other parties in Western Australia, especially, the ALP, due to distribution of preferences from Greens Party ticket voting, if Scott Ludlam had not been a candidate in the Western Australian senate election, in 2016? I contend that, without Scott Ludlam, and, with Rachel Siewert, as a then serving senator, having received less than 14%, which is less than a seventh, of the number of first preference votes that were received for Scott Ludlam, the Greens party would, "on the balance of probabilities", have won only one senate seat in that election, and, the Western Australian senate results, would, overall, have been different, with probably, also, one less ALP senate seat won, due to a diminished distribution of preferences, from the Greens party, and, it is not unreasonable, to consider possible, with the nature of the outcome of the senate election, in Western Australia, that, in the absence of Scott Ludlam as a candidate for the Greens party in Western Australia, that the election may have resulted in no senate seats being won by the Greens party, in Western Australia. Thus, the removal of Scott Ludlam, with his election being invalid, is of such significance in Western Australia, that the election outcome for the senate, in Western Australia, could have been significantly different.

One way of looking at this, is that, given that Scott Ludlam won 15545 of the total 17267 first preference votes for all of the senate candidates for the Greens party in Western Australia, which is 90% of all of the first preference votes for the candidates for the Greens party, in Western Australia, if he had not stood, and, he should not have stood, if 90% of the "Group Total, is removed (143814x0.1=14381), or, 90% of the "Quota" is removed (1.3685x0.1=0.137), would the Greens party have won any seats in Western Australia? I say "No".

As Scott Ludlam was clearly, as shown by the official results, by far, the strongest and most successful senate candidate for Western Australia, in the 2016 election, the effect of removing him, and, the votes cast for him, both as first preference votes by candidate, and, ticket votes for the Greens party in Western Australia, make the resultant outcome, simply too difficult to predict, necessitating a new, full election for all twelve senate seats for Western Australia.

2. In the matter of Queensland - Matthew Canavan, Larissa Waters, and Malcolm Roberts

This is a phenomenally bad situation. Three of the twelve senators for the state, must be declared ineligible, and, their seats declared vacant. Matthew Canavan is a minister of the federal government, Larissa Waters is (or, was) a deputy leader of the federal parliamentary Greens party, and Malcolm Roberts, well, he is Malcolm Roberts.

As Scott Ludlam had such an impact on the first preference votes for the senate candidates for the Greens party in Western Australia, and, with him having been a deputy leader of the federal parliamentary Greens party, so also, was Larissa Waters, of similar significance to the results for the Greens party, in Queensland, Whilst Larissa Waters did not outperform the other senators declared elected for the Queensland, as Scott Ludlam did, in Western Australia, her significance and effect on the vote for the Greens party in Queensland, is quite similar. Larissa Waters is shown, at
http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-20499-QLD.htm
as viewed at 0050WST on 2017-10-03,
as having won 18,191 first preference votes, compared to the next highest Greens party senate candidate for Queensland, having won 1473 votes, less than a tenth as many votes. The sum total of all of the first preference votes for all of the Greens party senate candidates for Queensland, was 20996, of which, Larissa Waters won (18191/20996) 86.6%. If that percentage is removed from the Group Total of 188323, that leaves 25159, and, from the Group Total Quota won, of 0.8990, that leaves about 0.12, which makes it questionable, as to whether the Greens party would have won a senate seat in Queensland, in that election, without her.

In terms of the other two referrals, relating to Queensland; Matthew Canavan and Malcolm Roberts, their contributions to their respective party votes, were inconsequential. Matthew Canavan won 2255 first preference votes, compared to the Liberal party's George Brandis with 27,299, more than ten times as many votes and Matthew Canavan, and, Matthew Canavans number of first preference votes, being, proportionally, not much more than the next highest number, of the unsuccessful party candidates; Joanna Lindgren, who won 1933 first preference votes, more than two of the candidates who were declared elected (due to the bodgy electoral system).Malcolm Roberts was completely inconsequential, and got in solely on the shirttails of Pauline Hanson, with him having won only 77 first preference votes, being the 19th equal, lowest number of first preference votes won by a candidate in the Queensland election, showing, once again, the bodgy nature of the electoral system.

But, these three, are a quarter of the senate representation for Queensland, and, to take out the votes attributable to Larissa Waters, including, as appropriate, 87% of the votes for the Greens Party, with all of their distributed preferences, would have an unpredictable outcome on the election.Whether the Greens would have won a senate seat in Queensland, considering that 87% of the senate vote for the Greens party in Queensland, appears to be attributable to Larissa Waters, appears unlikely, with the nature of the election outcome.

So, I contend that Queensland needs to have a new, full election for all of the twelve senate seats for Queensland.

3. In the matter of New South Wales - Fiona Nash

At
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-17/fiona-nash-says-she-is-a-british-citizen-will-not-stand-aside/881799
as viewed at 0220WST on 2017-10-03,
is

"
Fiona Nash tells Senate she may be British citizen, will not stand aside as deputy Nationals leader
"

so, Fiona Nash is the deputy leader of the federal parliamentary National party.

This means that the deputy leaders of two minor federal parliamentary parties, are in breach of s44(i) of the Australian federal Constitution, and, she is in breach of s45 of the Australian federal Constitution, and is thereby committing fraud.

At
http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-20499-NSW.htm
as viewed at 0225WST on 2017-10-03,
is shown that, amongst other things, the two parties; the Liberal party and the National party, stood on a joint ticket, with candidates from each party,designated as being of teach of the two separate parties. Thus, Fiona Nash is shown, not as an LNP candidate, or, a Liberal party candidate, but, as a National party candidate for the joint ticket.

As such, she is shown as having won 5689 first preference votes, with the next National party candidate on that ticket, John Williams, having won 2396 first preference votes, also declared elected, and, due to the bodgy electoral system, further down the list on that ticket, a Liberal party candidate, Jim Molan, won 10,182 votes, and was not declared elected. The next National party candidate on that ticket, Wes Fang, won 454 first preference votes, and, was not declared elected.

That ticket, and, who got elected on that ticket, and, who did not, and, the numbers of first preference votes of each candidate, and, the combination of the two parties, is such an absolute mess, that, the question of who would replace Fiona Nash,if the court of disputed returns should properly apply the law, and find Fiona Nash to have been ineligible to nominate for, and, to have held, a seat in the parliament, would be like betting on a big lottery - it would be anyone's guess.And, it could lead to legal challenges, by anyone of the possible replacements, who is unhappy with the outcome.

It is such a mess, that the only reasonable solution, would be to order a new election, for all of the twelve senate seats for New South Wales.

4. In the matter of South Australia - Nick Xenophon

Nick Xenophon is the leader of his proprietary political party; the "Nick Xenophon Team"

He is of similar significance, to the South Australian votes, as Scott Ludlam is, to Western Australia.

At
http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-20499-SA.htm
as viewed at 0250WST on 2017-10-03,
Nick Xenophon is shown as having won 25933 first preference votes, with his other two candidates who were elected, having won 106 and 133 first preference votes, in order of their ticket listings. Of the total first preference votes cast for the candidates on his ticket; 26361, he won (25933/26361) 98%. So, if he had not stood, or, if the proportion of votes attributed to him, were withdrawn, from the Group Total, that would leave only 0.016 of the vote, or, (0.016x230866) 3748 votes for the Group, or, (0.016 x 2,8282) 0,045 Quota, which, I believe, would not be enough to win a seat.Like Scott Ludlam in Western Australia, Nick Xenophon won more first preference votes than all of the candidates declared elected, for each of the ALP and the Liberal party - not combined, but, for each.

And, with his party having won, for the Group Total, 230866 first preference votes, out of a total, for all of the formal votes cast for the state, of 1,061,165, the effect of him being found to be disqualified, if he is so found, would be so devastating on the election outcome for the state of South Australia, with, basically, about a quarter of the senate votes for the whole state, for that election, needing to be withdrawn, and, the flow on effects of the distribution of preferences, the only reasonable outcome, would be to order a full new election for all of the twelve senate seats for the state of South Australia.

And, so, for those six people, if they are all found to be disqualified, in accordance with s44(i) of the Constitution, necessitating new elections for each of the twelve senate seats, in each of those states, that is a majority of the senate seats for Australia, and, a majority of the states of Australia, and, with the deputy leaders of two separate parliamentary political parties, and, the leaders of two parliamentary political parties (here including Barnaby Joyce); thence, significantly affecting the leadership of three minor parliamentary parties and thence, the standing of each political party represented in the senate, a full, national, senate election would be required, to deal with the effects of this scenario, which is deliberately caused by a federal LNP government, which includes the current federal attorney general, and, other ministers and members of the current federal government, as I have previously mentioned.

And, should Barnaby Joyce be found to be disqualified, also, then, with him being the current deputy prime minister, and, leader of a parliamentary party that forms part of the current federal government, with his deputy parliamentary party leader, also, involved in this, if all seven of the people referred to the court of disputed returns, are found to be disqualified, in accordance with s44(i) of the Constitution, as they should so be found, then, apart from voiding the whole of the 2016 senate election, a recommendation should also be made, for a full, double dissolution election, and, given that s45 has been breached, as I have explicitly explained above, all those who had not resigned from the parliament, immediately upon discovering that they hold (or, held when nominating for, and holding, seats in the parliament), each should be recommended to be investigated for defrauding the commonwealth of Australia, as I have exp-licitly explained above.

This goes to the argument put by senator Bill O'Chee, as recorded in Hansard, from the senate, from 03 December 1998;

"
Thursday, 3 December 1998
Page: 1250

Senator O'CHEE (5:30 PM) —The Constitution Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament—Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998 which is before the chamber at the moment proposes alterations to section 44 of the constitution in two material aspects. I will address each one separately. They are section 44(i), which relates to foreign citizenship, and section 44(iv), which relates to holding an office of profit under the Crown. Alterations are also made to section 44(v), but it is substantially within the same line of thought.

Turning to the first matter, I disagree with the proposition that dual citizenship, provided one of the nationalities held by the person in question is Australian, should entitle a person to stand for election to the parliament. That is not disparaging in any way people who are dual nationals. I simply take the view that a higher requirement is expected of people who seek election to the federal parliament. In fact, that was the original intention of section 44 of the constitution.

Section 44 of the constitution does not say that any Australian citizen shall be entitled to election to the federal parliament. In fact, section 44 says that you must be an Australian citizen but there are categories of persons who are not eligible for election to the parliament. One such category, for example, is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent. There are other categories of persons. That is not to say that a person who is a dual national is necessarily in the same league as someone who is attainted of treason, but the original framers of the constitution felt that the parliament should be served by people who met a higher requirement than that which applied to citizens.

In relation to dual nationals, there are very good reasons why this section should be retained. The first is that there is a difference between somebody who enjoys the fruits of Australian citizenship and somebody who decides what the fruits of Australian citizenship should be. More importantly, there is a difference between somebody who lives within the shores of this country and somebody who has responsibility for dealing, for example, with the relationship between this country and another country.

Let me take a simple case in point. This parliament regularly deals with issues of external affairs, either in a legislative fashion or some other fashion—in some other form of debate, or the passage of resolutions, or the asking of questions in estimates committees, in question time or questions on notice. Suppose a person was a dual national of Australia and Japan, and Australia was involved in a bitter and acrimonious trade dispute with Japan in relation to the issue of tariffs, for example. Does it not create at least the perception of a lack of independence if a person who is voting upon issues related to trade between Australia and another country is also a citizen of that other country? The clear intention of the framers of the constitution in section 44(i) was to avoid that conflict of interest—to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest—by saying that such a person should be precluded from becoming a member of parliament.

We sometimes forget the very high office that every member of parliament holds in this place—both here and in the House of Representatives. We are not ordinary citizens. The people of Australia do not treat us as ordinary citizens. They expect a higher standard of us. It is not unreasonable on that basis for us to say to people who are dual nationals, `You are welcome to enjoy the fruits of Australian citizenship; however, if you want to be a legislator in this country, then a higher standard is required.' In saying that, I acknowledge some of the very learned comments made by Senator Ray in relation to dual citizenship. I think he made some very perspicacious comments. This is the difficulty of accepting the proposal contained in this bill.

It is ironic that certain members of parliament work themselves into quite a lather about the possibility of selling government interest in a telephone company for fear of partial foreign ownership, yet have no objection to allowing people to become members of parliament—to actually run the country as opposed to having an interest in a telephone company in the country—who are dual nationals. Is it not absurd to say that the telephone company should be 100 per cent Australian but the people who are running the country need not be?

I understand Senator Brown's desire to encapsulate a broad cross-section of the community and make them eligible for parliament. I understand that, but I say to Senator Brown that if people wish to aspire to the high office of senator or member of the House of Representatives, it is not unreasonable for people to say, `We expect you to be more than a citizen. We expect you to have a clear and undivided loyalty to Australia.' `Clear and undivided loyalty to Australia' is the phrase Senator Faulkner used in discussing this matter in the debate today. That is not an unreasonable proposition. It is a proposition that I believe the majority of Australians would support.

Yes, there are five million people who are dual nationals potentially
"

Of very great significance here, apart from senator Bill O'Chee, making it quite clear that Barnaby Joyce and Fiona Nash, the current leader and deputy leader, respectively, of his parliamentary political party; the National party, are and have been, ineligible to nominate for and to have held, seats, in the Australian federal parliament, is the text as spoken by senator Bill O'Chee, and, recorded in Hansard, at p1250 for the senate, on 03 December, 1998;

"
We sometimes forget the very high office that every member of parliament holds in this place—both here and in the House of Representatives. We are not ordinary citizens. The people of Australia do not treat us as ordinary citizens. They expect a higher standard of us.
"

and

"
I simply take the view that a higher requirement is expected of people who seek election to the federal parliament.
"

Those are the words used in the rejection of the Bill that would have avoided this constitutional mess that the federal LNP government deliberately caused by the rejection of that Bill.

But, where are these "higher standards"?
"
I simply take the view that a higher requirement is expected of people who seek election to the federal parliament.
"

So, why did these seven people, not properly check their citizenships and whether their family history affected their citizenships, if they truly did not know that they had citizenships other than Australian citizenship (which I find simply unbelievable)? After all, in wanting to nominate for seats in the Australian federal parliament, they should have, like applying for any vacancy, properly checked the eligibility criteria, and, qualifications requirements, and, ensured that they met the requirements. It is part of the process of applying for any job. But then, as members of the parliament, they have probably not done an honest day's work in their lives.

"
I simply take the view that a higher requirement is expected of people who seek election to the federal parliament.
"

These people that are the members of the federal parliament, simply have no standards.

They try to have themselves declared exempt from the restrictions of the Australian Constitution - "I am a member of the Australian federal parliament, and, therefore, I am not subject to any Australian law, especially, once I lie and cheat, to get my seat here in the Australian federal parliament".

At least, when the two deputy leaders of the Greens party, got caught, they then, appeared to do the right thing, by immediately (that it was made public, that they should never have got, or, held, their seats in the parliament) resigning their seats in the parliament. But, the others, who still have their seats in the parliament, and, have refused to relinquish them, are simply giving the finger to Australia - to the people and to the Australian federal Constitution - refusing to give up their seats, to which they know full well, that they are not entitled, like the rest of us, who have dual citizenships.

And, they give the finger,to the "higher standards" that senator Bill O'Chee said, were expected of the members of the Australian federal parliament.

Hence the term, "house of ill-repute", referring to the parliament.

So, the big question is, will the Australian federal court of disputed returns, do the right thing, and, declare the seven people to have been disqualified, ab initio, from nominating for, for holding, and, for having held, their seats in the federal parliament, and, will the court order a new full senate election, and recommend a double dissolution election of the parliament, and, will the court recommend that each of the members of the federal parliament, who did not immediately upon becoming aware of their having citizenship of any form, other than Australian citizenship, resign from their seats in the federal parliament, be investigated with a view to prosecuting them for defrauding the commonwealth of Australia?

Or, will the Australian federal court of disputed returns, simply obey the order given to it by the prime minister, and, ignore the disqualifications by s44(i) of the Australian federal constitution, to protect the prime minister's little mate, and their (the prime minister's and the deputy prime minister's) cronies?

Added 05 October 2017
- for anyone who wonders about the claim that dual citizens (about >25% of Australia's population)
are not represented in the Australian federal parliament

Searching the World Wide Web, using the term "Taxation without representation is tyranny", produces, amongst the results, the result
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
which included, as viewed at 1340WST (UTC+0800)on 2017-10-05,
"
"No Taxation Without Representation" is a slogan originating during the 1750s and 1760s that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution. In short, many in those colonies believed that, as they were not directly represented in the distant British Parliament, any laws it passed affecting the colonists (such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act) were illegal under the Bill of Rights 1689, and were a denial of their rights as Englishmen.

Jonathan Mayhew, Old West Church’s second Congregational pastor, used the phrase, "No Taxation Without Representation" in a sermon in 1750. The phrase revives a sentiment central to the cause of the English Civil War following the refusal of parliamentarian John Hampden to pay ship money tax. "No Taxation Without Representation," in the context of British American Colonial taxation, appeared for the first time in the February 1768 London Magazine headline, on page 89, in the printing of Lord Camden’s "Speech on the Declaratory Bill of the Sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colonies."

Prior to the American Revolution
The English Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660. By the 1760s, the Americans were being deprived of a historic right. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament initially contended that the colonists had virtual representation, but the idea "found little support on either side of the Atlantic". John Dunmore Lang wrote in 1852, "The person who first suggested the idea [of Parliamentary representation for the colonies] appears to have been Oldmixon, an American annalist of the era of Queen Anne or George I. It was afterwards put forward with approbation by the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, and advocated for a time, but afterwards rejected and strongly opposed, by Dr. Benjamin Franklin."

The eloquent 1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance objecting to taxation, written by the Virginia House of Burgesses and endorsed by every other Colony, was sent to the British Government, which seems to have ignored it.

American Revolution
Main article: American Revolution
The phrase had been used for more than a generation in Ireland. By 1765, the term was in use in Boston, and local politician James Otis was most famously associated with the phrase, "taxation without representation is tyranny." In the course of the Revolutionary era (1750–1783), many arguments were pursued that sought to resolve the dispute surrounding Parliamentary sovereignty, taxation, self-governance and representation.

Representative proposals before 1776
In the course of the 1760s and 1770s, William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, amongst other prominent Britons and colonial Americans, such as Joseph Galloway, James Otis Jr., Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, the London Quaker Thomas Crowley, Royal Governors such as Thomas Pownall M.P., William Franklin, Sir Francis Bernard, and the Attorney-General of Quebec, Francis Maseres, debated and circulated plans for the creation of colonial seats in London, imperial union with Great Britain, or a federally representative British Parliament with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British Members of Parliament.
"

So, we, the Australians who have citizenship(s) in addition to Australian citizenship, regarded as being at least a quarter of the population of Australia, in being prohibited from nominating for, for holding, and, for having held, seats in the federal parliament, are clearly, not represented in the Australia federal parliament, and, as stated above, "taxation without representation is tyranny.".

And, from the above article;

"
The English Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660. By the 1760s, the Americans were being deprived of a historic right. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen.
"

comes the interesting question - on that basis, since Australian federal taxes apply also to Australians who have citizenship(s) in addition to Australian citizenship, who have no representation in the Australian federal parliament, is s44(i) of the Australia federal Constitution, legal, without exempting every Australian citizen who is disqualified from nominating for, for holding, and, for having held, seats in the federal parliament, from all federal taxes?

Hmmm... That could be an interesting question for constitutional law students to explore. After all, at the time of the Australian federal constitution being written, and, when the Australian federal Constitution was put to both the parliament of England and to the provisional federal parliament of Australia, "The English Bill of Rights 1689", would have applied, would it not? And, therefore, for Australia citizens disqualified from nominating for, for holding, and, for having held, seats in the federal parliament, by virtue of s44, with "no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen.", as, all Australians were "Englishmen", at the time of the creation and implementation of the Australian federal Constitution.



Added 14 October 2017 due to demonstrated lack of interest by the people referred to this web page

Below is a copy of the content of an email message sent on 05 October 2017 to Mattew Doran, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news reporter who has been (inasmuch as it suits him) reporting on the matter of the case before the federal court of disputed returns. I have not, as at the time of publishing this addition to this web page, on 14 October 2017, received any acknowledgement for the email message sent to him, and, for the messages contained therein, sent to Ron Merkel and to Justin Gleeson, thus showing that none of them are interested in any of the content published on this web page.

I think that it is quite interesting that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news part, is not interested in the matters raised by me, regarding this matter, especially, the twist that the current federal attoney general and other ministers of the current federal government, and, the political parties that comprise the LNP federal government, are deliberately and directly responsible for the current deputy prime minister and the others of the seven people referred to the federal court of disputed returns in this matter, being disqualified from having nominated for, and, from having held seats, in the federal parliament. After all, the current federal attoney general and other ministers of the current federal government, and, the political parties that comprise the LNP federal government, quite clearly, determined, as stated above, that, under no circumstances, and, with absolutely no exceptions, should anyone who has any citizenship or form of citizenship, other than solely Australian citizenship, be allowed to nominate for, and have and hold, a seat in the federal parliament.

"
Subject: The court of disputed returns proceedings relating to the s44 disqualifications
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 04:14:59 +0800
From: (Bret Busby)
To: (Matthew Doran)


Hello.

I tried telephoning your office on Monday of this week, but I was told that your office was closed, due to Monday being a public holiday in Canberra.

I understand that you "a political reporter in the ABC’s Parliament House bureau in Canberra.", and, that you have an LLB.

You are published as being the reporter responsible for the news reports published at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/roberts-says-his-case-stronger-than-rest-of-citizenship-seven/9001562
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/dual-citizenship-saga-politicians-back-ignorance-legal-argument/8998202
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-26/only-roberts-and-ludlam-wrongly-elected-commonwealth/8990398
and
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/citizenship-keeping-joyce-in-parliament-careless-tony-windsor/9012310

Given the contention argued for the federal attorney general, as published at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-26/only-roberts-and-ludlam-wrongly-elected-commonwealth/8990398

"
Submissions filed on behalf of Attorney-General George Brandis this afternoon argued the other five politicians, including Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, should not be kicked out of Parliament.

The Commonwealth's submissions, written by Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue, argue the constitution should only be interpreted to disqualify those who have "voluntarily obtained, or retained" foreign citizenship.

It argues a "person who does not know that they are, or ever were, a foreign citizen" should not be ruled ineligible.
"

and that I have sent to Ron Merkel and to Justin Gleeson, reference to (what I believe to be) an interesting argument that I have published, which I believe shows that the Liberal and National federal parliamentary political parties in government, including the federal attorney general George Brandis, have determined that all seven of the people referred to the federal court of disputed returns, are, and have been, disqualified from nominating for, holding, and, having held, seats in the federal parliament, on the basis of the s44(i) disqualification of having dual citizenship, You may be interested in reading the web page referenced below, that contains the arguments, and, you may be interested in asking Tony Windsor and/or, his legal representatives in the matter, their opinions of the arguments that I have published. And, you might be interested in publishing their responses to the arguments, or, their opinions of the arguments.

I note that I have not, as yet, received response from either lawyer, or from their chambers, despite the chambers for Justin Gleeson publishing that they "will reply to you within one business day.".

And, as you have an LLB, you may be interested, yourself, in reading the arguments that I have published on that web page.

Amongst other things, I think it quite amusing, that the federal LNP government, especially, including the federal attorney general, directly, deliberately, caused all seven of the people referred to the federal court of disputed returns, including, especially, the deputy prime minister and leader of the federal parliamentary National party (and, his deputy leader of the federal parliamentary National party), to be disqualified from nominating for, holding, and, having held, seats in the federal parliament, on the basis of the s44(i) disqualification of having dual citizenship.

I believe that what I have published, voids the argument of the attorney general, that they should not be disqualified from office, when he himself, determined that they should be disqualified from office.

And, for this reason, I believe that what I have published, and, the responses from Tony Windsor's representatives, would be quite newsworthy and entertaining. I believe that it should lead to some "red faces" in the federal government, if you implement my suggested path of action.

I have appended below, the messages that include the messages sent to Ron Merkel and to Justin Gleeson.
--
Bret Busby
(rest of signature removed)
....................................................
From (Bret Busby) Mon Oct 2 14:31:15 2017
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:30:32
From: (Bret Busby)
To: (Ron Merkel)
Subject: Tony Windsor and the s44 referrals to the federal Court of Disputed Returns

Hello.

I understand, from the news report published at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/barnaby-joyce-hold-on-new-england-seat-under-threat/895830

that you are representing Tony Windsor in the matter;

"Mr Windsor has joined the High Court action against the Deputy Prime Minister and is being represented by Ron Merkel QC."

I am one of the people whose request for leave to be heard in the proceedings, was rejected by the court.

Whilst I understand that etiquette or usual procedure, requires that a QC be not contacted directly, but, via the solicitors who act for the QC, I could not find reference to any solicitors acting for Tony Windsor in the matter; only your name, and, the email address to which I have sent this email message, as the only useful means of contacting you about the matter, and, "time is short", for contacting Tony Windsor or any of his legal representation, regarding this matter.

I have an argument that you might find useful, in your submissions in the matter, and I have found that you are due to make your submissions tomorrow; 03 October 2017.

If you go to the web page published at
http://www.armadale-wa.net/politics/AustConstSec44-2017CourtOfDisputedReturns.html

and, apart from the content above it, if you then go down to the part with the heading
"Added 02 October 2017"
which is easily found, by using, within the web page, the web browser "Find (in web page)" facility and search on the character string "02 October" , without using the quotation marks, and, read down from there, if you haven't already considered and incorporated the argument in your submission, you might find it useful.

If you do happen to use the argument in the proceedings, I ask that you accredit it to me.

I will probably be adding to the content, between now and the trial of the matter, as I find and retrieve more applicable material.

I hope that this information, and, the web page, is useful and of interest to you.

--
Bret Busby
(rest of signature removed)
....................................................
From (Banco Chambers) Tue Oct 3 17:39:47 2017
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:39:01
From: (Banco Chambers)
To: (Bret Busby)
Subject: Thank you for your enquiry

Dear Bret,

Thank you for your enquiry.

We will respond to your online enquiry shortly

(Note - I have not received any further communication from them)

Regards

Banco Chambers

Level 5, 65 Martin Place, Sydney, NSW 2000

Tel: (02) 8239 0200
Fax: (02) 8239 0299


Summary of web form submission:
Your Name
Bret Busby
Email Address (I have removed that from this posting) Case Number
4736110
Cell Phone Number (I have removed that from this posting) Comments/Enquiries
This is for the attention of Justin Gleeson, who is now published
(at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/citizenship-keeping-joyce-in-parliament-c areless-tony-windsor/9012310 )
as representing Tony Windsor, in the federal court of disputed returns. I had sent an email message to Ron Merkel QC, with reference to an argument that could have been used in the making of submissions today (03 October 2017). I have, in the last half hour (the time here is now about 1730WST (UTC+0800), found an ABC online news report, published today, that stated that Justin Gleeson is now representing Tony Windsor in the matter. The argument(s) that I referenced in the email message that I sent to Ron Merkel, can be found at http://www.armadale-wa.net/politics/AustConstSec44-2017CourtOfDisputedReturns.h tml in using the Find (within page) facility, searching on "Added 02 October" (without the quotation marks, and, reading down the web page, from that heading. Or, the whole of the web page can be read, from top to bottom, for a more extensive reference to the matter. I hope that this information is helpful.
....................................................
"



So, I think it interesting that none of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news part, or the barristers Ron Merkel and Justin Gleeson, are interested in the above material.



Added 19 October 2017

The federal court of disputed returns appears to have not yet delivered a determination in the matter of the seven parliamentary referrals to it, on the question of the s44(i) disqualification,

So, the big question is - will the federal attorney general succeed in deceiving the full bench of the High Court of Australia, which is sitting as the federal court of disputed returnd in the matter?



And here is a really good one - as an aside - after the news report published today, as to the forming of the new New Zealand national government, I wonder how the Australian foreign minister and deputy leader of the Australian federal parliamentary liberal party, feels about having significantly contributed to the rise to fame, the rise to power, and, the becoming Prime Minister of New Zealand, of the Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, after the inexcusable malicious intervention of Julie Bishop (which intervention, badly backfired for Julie Bishop, to the very great advantage of the New Zealand Labour Party, and, especially, to the very great advantage of Jacinta Arden), in the New Zealand parliamentary general election, with the leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, Jacinta Arden, as a relative newcomer to parliamentary politics, showing that, as a novice, she is a far more capable diplomat and political leader than both Julie Bishop and the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull.





I ask that, should anyone adopt any of the above arguments, or, otherwise, any of the above content, in any legal proceedings or in any work for which the person would take credit, the source of the above arguments, and, the research and other work performed by me, to obtain and publish the above material, be accredited to me.





This web page is authorised and written by Bret Busby, 2 Pelham Street, Armadale, Western Australia.

I can be contacted by email by clicking on the link at Bret

For issues relating to this web site, send an email to the webmaster by clicking on the link at webmaster

This web page was last updated on 19 October, 2017.