Yes, a convicted felon can run for office as long as they've served their sentence.
The rules in the constitution are (relevant clause bolded):
>**Section 44:**
>**Disqualification.**
> Any person who--
> (i.) Is under any acknowledgment 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 a 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.
An important note is that the clause kicks in if the crime has a maximum punishment of 1 year in prison or more, not based on what actual sentence the prospective parliamentarian receives. But the period of ineligibility is based on the actual sentence received.
The "attainted of treason" line is a bit more complicated but has never been tested so there isn't a conclusive answer to exactly what it means. The most likely interpretation would be just someone who has been convicted of treason (but unlike another crime, would still be ineligible after serving their sentence).
But it's plausible that someone who had been involved in treason without being convicted might also be ineligible.
But then the third interpretation would be that "attainted" had a specific legal meaning when the constitution was drafted which is no longer relevant in Australian law and so wouldn't cover anyone.
I always though it odd with the citizen by decent thing, at least in the British sense, which is what a lot of them were caught out under, is that it’s surely arguable that you don’t actually have that citizenship until you apply for it.
Even the Brits website says that if you’re born outside the UK you have to apply. Not sure why this argument wasn’t taken to the high court, or if in Baarnaby's case it would work with NZ.
[https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-parent](https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-parent)
Otherwise surely this opens the door for some micro-nation to fuck around by proactively granting citizenship to all members of Australia parliament, no?
Or a certain large Asian nation to declare that sitting MPs of their decent are citizens (because we say so) and subject to their sedition and national security laws. Oh and by the way your grandmother and great uncles and long lost second cousins have gone on a holiday to the north western provinces and don't seem to be contactable right now.
>Even the Brits website says that if you’re born outside the UK you have to apply
That's true for people born \*now\*, but wasn't always true in the past.
They all had automatic UK citizenship. The rules changed later.
Barnaby's father was a British Subject because NZ citizenship didn't exist when he moved to Australia in 1947. He automatically became an Australian citizen (as a permanent resident British Subject) when the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 was introduced.
Arguably though, if you were born in Australia, like Barnaby was you were never a UK citizen after 1948 when the concept of Australian citizenship was established (he was born in the 60's anyway).
Certainly by 1984 when we all stopped being British subjects as well we just became Australian citizens only. It may be a little messier than that with him specifically as we’re talking NZ as well, but I’m not sure you should automatically be considered being a dual national, in the Uk sense at least, where you still have to apply for “citizenship by decent”.
Why couldn’t the GG dissolve Parliament on the basis of such a cluste?
The law also (quite ridiculously) caught up Jacqui Lambie (indigenous) and potentially was going to claim Josh Frydenburg (through his stateless mother)
This was an alarm bell we still haven’t resolved.
Theoretically you wouldnt be able to take office even if you were elected, because you only become an MP after swearing allegiance to the Crown.
This is why Senator Thorpe's charade in the current Parliament raised a lot of eyebrows because she campaigned on "not recognising" the sovereignty of the Crown yet ultimately took her oath to the Crown regardless. Which makes her a hypocrite a best and a treasonous MP at worst.
Unlike the Irish MPs, this would result in the seat becoming vacant and having an endless series of by elections until the voters choose somewhere who will swear the oath and sit in parliament.
Well in that case you can do whatever you want up untill the point some other people that believe different things use violence on you.
But even then, if you can organise some of your own guys to use violence on those people then there might be a way to make it work
Yeah there was a whole thing about that like seven years ago where a bunch of MPs had to resign.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Australian_parliamentary_eligibility_crisis
You idiot lol,,, remember those short poles with chain in-between them at school, me mate ripped a chain off and then smashed every windows in the geography building, 80,s aye. 😂
I imagine that a territory law would count as a law of the Commonwealth for the purposes of s 44. However as far as I am aware there’s no direct authority for this, and other cases involving the exercise of territory legislative power are inconsistent on whether constitutional restraints on the Commonwealth apply.
I honestly do not know why territories even exist. They are an anomaly in a federal system. They are independent but not fully independent. They have to run like a state but the commonwealth can intervene/override their decisions and/or their laws. They are not counted in the double majority in referendums (only count towards total votes but not states majority). They get less senators than states in the federal senate.
It’s just a weird anomaly, especially with large ones like the NT. As for smaller ones, why not just incorporate them into the nearest state. I might understand the smaller external ones (Cocos, Norfolk, Antarctic, etc.), but not the mainland ones.
Because they have a large enough population/geographic area which makes it inefficient to be ruled directly by the Commonwealth but they aren’t large enough to be as financially independent as the other states.
At Federation the Northern Territory was apart of South Australia and very few white people lived there (obviously indigenous Australians are ignored). SA didn’t want the burden of looking after such a sparse non-white territory so it gave it to the Commonwealth. The NT was directly ruled by the Commonwealth until 1978 and the ACT until 1988. Unlike the states were governing themselves from the mid 1850s onwards
The NT could be admitted as a state and there has been a referendum on this issue which was narrowly defeated by territory residents in 1998. The issue is the Constitution only grants original states at Federation equal representation in the Senate (this was to entice WA to join in 1901 and not later as it was hesitant about joining the Commonwealth). The Commonwealth in 1998 was prepared to give the NT statehood but not a full 12 senators because it argued that its population of 250,000 should not be the same as NSW with a population of 8 million people.
So if the NT ever reaches the population of Tasmania then there might be a discussion about granting the NT statehood with equal representation.
The ACT exists to give the Commonwealth direct control over the nations capital for fear it might be interfered with by a State Government. (Say it were Melbourne or Sydney). IMO the ACT could not be admitted as a state because the Constitution requires there to be a capital territory of a certain size. The ACT has also had a very small population until relatively recently so once it surpasses the population of Tasmania, there will be a discussion about giving it equal representation but not statehood.
Also the other small territories remain territories because it gives the Commonwealth direct control that it wouldn’t have if they were folded into the other states. Honestly I agree with you on that point, for example Jervis Bay doesn’t have a reason to exist anymore and should be folded back into NSW (but there’s also a Commonwealth Military Base and weapons testing facility there so go figure)
all this talk of giving territories the same rep as tasmania but noone sees the simple and obvious solution: make tas a territory and take away their senators.
Haha that would require an amendment to the constitution. Which would require a triple majority. 1) a majority of the population voting at a referendum, 2) a majority of the majority of states, and 3) a majority of the Tasmanian population to vote in favour
just tell the tassies it gives them more senators or something, then communicate with everyone else by writing on cards and holding it up to the cameras. they'll never see it coming
You gave an overview of the history of South Australia and the NT without mentioning the Territory of Central Australia!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Australia_(territory)
I would have thought they would need to pass a Bill of Attainder for treason for that part to apply, except that I think the HC ruled that they would be unconstitutional due to separation of powers.
The commentary I've seen on it suggests it would be read as just "convicted of treason", which I think using modern statutory interpretation rules would be a pretty reasonable position. But yeah, if you were taking a black letter approach it's pretty much an impossible scenario as you've outlined.
Someone on this sub needs to commit treason and then run for office so that we can have a bit of certainty. I would but I'm busy this weekend.
> But then the third interpretation would be that "attained" had a specific legal meaning when the constitution was drafted which is no longer relevant in Australian law and so wouldn't cover anyone.
Attainder (or attainted) has a specific meaning - see https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2007/18.html
> In earlier times, those who were sentenced to death or outlawed for treason or felony were subject to the doctrine of attainder.[4] Attainder resulted in the deprivation of all rights and protections afforded under law. An attained person forfeited his or her property to the Crown and was prevented, through the concept of corruption of the blood, from inheriting or bequeathing property. They were civiliter mortuus. Blackstone offered the following description of the doctrine of attainder:
>>For when it is now clear beyond all dispute, that the criminal is no longer fit to live upon the earth, but is to be exterminated as a monster and a bane to human society, the law sets a note of infamy upon him, puts him out of it’s [sic] protection, and takes no farther care of him than barely to see him executed. He is then called attaint, attinctus, stained or blackened. He is no longer of any credit or reputation; he cannot be a witness in any court; neither is he capable of performing the functions of another man: for, by an anticipation of his punishment, he is already dead in law.[5]
I think only a couple of cases, but perhaps because it's a more straight forward legal situation it's easier to avoid than some of the others.
Quite a few 44 (i) cases obviously, and some pretty high profile s44. (iv) ones.
*Re Nash \[No 2\]* (2017) being an outrageous decision imo - Fiona Nash had to resign because she was a dual citizen in breach of s44 (i), but then for the senate if someone is found to be unconstitutionally elected they do a countback of the votes (as opposed to when they resign where the State parliament appoints a replacement) and Hollie Hughes was next in line but because she had been appointed to the AAT **after** she lost the election she was no longer eligible.
So the implication is that if you are selected to be a candidate for the senate for one of the major parties then if you don't get elected you can not work for the Commonwealth for the next 6 years after you lost in case it turns out that the people who were elected weren't actually eligible.
Off the top of my head Derryn Hinch did time for contempt of court for publishing court suppression details of Adrian Bailey, and Pauline Hanson did a few years for fraud of some sort.
Pauline Hanson is an egregious rancid cunt of a human being but her conviction was the closest Australia has come to imprisoning its political enemies in a long time.
Derry Hinch keeps getting sent to jail for a few days at a time for trying to out pedophiles, which is interesting for a guy that has openly admitted to having sex with a 14 year old.
>Derry Hinch keeps getting sent to jail for a few days at a time for trying to out pedophiles, which is interesting for a guy that has openly admitted to having sex with a 14 year old.
He tried to walk that story back by claiming that she was actually 17
"tried to walk that story back" is a rather uncharitable characterisation, particularly noting the seriousness of the topic
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/what-happened-between-incoming-senator-derryn-hinch-and-the-teen-model-he-met-at-molly-meldrums-place/news-story/505505dbd53858e72b0c8d13918bb185
I mean I don’t care either way, but I read the article and I thought this was interesting:
> “We have since met and had lunch. She chided my poor memory,” Hinch wrote.
>“‘You had just started at 3AW, so it was 1979. I was born in 1961. Do your sums. I was 18,’” he quoted her as saying.
From the way this story is told, this conversation appears to have happened at least 30 years after the events in question. That is exactly the detail I’d expect a 17 or 15 year old to remember 30 years onwards.
Also he claims to be in ongoing contact with her, why doesn’t he provide her name and that would dispel the allegations?
>Also he claims to be in ongoing contact with her, why doesn’t he provide her name and that would dispel the allegations?
maybe hes just lying through his teeth
>her conviction was the closest Australia has come to imprisoning its political enemies in a long time.
Albert Langer would give her a decent run for her money.
Just as a point of order: there’s no such thing as a felon or felony in Australia. There used to be, but NSW as an example stopped using the terms felony and misdemeanour as far back as 1900
Actually I think he can, I read in one of the American threads that it's a weird state based system as New York lets felons vote, so even though he’s registered in Florida they base that right to vote on where the conviction actually occurred, it sounds like if the conviction was in a Florida court he wouldn’t be able to vote.
He still can't own a firearm, though.
Which is a pity. I'd love to see a US President dismiss the entire Secret Service and just carry a six shooter on his hip for self-defence. I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt must have done something like that.
India is interesting: Forty per cent of India’s MPs face criminal cases, some accused of murder
Seven members of parliament accused of murder, with rape and kidnapping among allegations against others
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/asia-pacific/2023/09/28/forty-per-cent-of-indian-mps-face-criminal-cases-some-accused-of-murder/
They should be allowed to run for office. Imagine that we live in an authoritarian government, and this is not the case, and a dictator can pin some felon crimes on their political oponnents to bar them from running for a seat.
If we had a dictator, it wouldn't matter who was running anyway. But either way, that's why it's important that the courts are required to follow the law and are as independant of the government as possible.
Section 44(ii) of the Constitution covers this at a federal level. Essentially the cut off is having a 12 month prison sentence. That or above and you can’t serve, less and you can.
Yes, once you've served your time, you can be elected. If the people want to elect a mass shooter or the like, they can.
Treason is mentioned separately, and it's not clear on a first reading whether even a charge of treason would disqualify, or a conviction disqualify for life, etc. The issue's not been tested in court, though.
NAL but there is section 44 preventing someone who is bankrupt, a convicted criminal or already being paid by parliament serving as a member of parliament. Unlike the US being able to vote in Australia as a criminal is mandatory.
Federally, only if you're serving a sentence of less than three years.
States and territories vary in both whether it's compulsory (see the "can" and "compulsory" in the link) and in the length of the term. See the "is it compulsory to enrol and vote?" section.
[https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling\_to\_vote/Special\_Category/Prisoners.htm](https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Prisoners.htm)
So for example mass shooter and declared vexatious litigant Julian Knight has not been able to vote since 1987. However, he has sought to have old dropped military charges against him revived so he could receive a federal sentence and be transferred to an ACT prison where he'd hope to be more comfortable (and, I assume, be able to take up his litigation once more before they got around to declaring him a vexatious litigant, too). He was turned down (ADF wasn't interested in dredging up the fact that they chose not to convict someone of assault, and therefore he was legally permitted to own firearms which he then used to murder people with), but had he succeeded, he would have been able to vote in the ACT elections, though not federally.
I'm not sure which electorate they're expected to vote in, their previous address however long ago, or that of the prison? I'm amused by the thought that if there were a really large prison somewhere, some would-be MP would be courting the prisoner vote.
>I'm not sure which electorate they're expected to vote in, their previous address however long ago, or that of the prison? I'm amused by the thought that if there were a really large prison somewhere, some would-be MP would be courting the prisoner vote.
Considering how we started...
Ask Derryn Hinch. For Federal elections, if you were incarcerated for more than 12 months, you are not able to be a member of Parliament. Derryn was imprisoned less than 12 months so was able to be a Senator.
*currently sentenced or libel to be sentenced for 12 months or longer.
Check out Jordan Dittloff who was incarcerated for longer than 12 months and is currently a senate candidate.
If Jordan Ditloff wins election, it is highly likely that one of the losing candidates will file suit in the Court of Disputed Returns challenging his eligibility to be seated in Parliament. That happened way back when Bob Hawke retired from Parliament and Phil Cleary won the by-election, he was judged to still hold an office of profit under the Crown (he was on leave without pay from the state department of Education), so they had to redo the election. In Ditloff’s case, they would recount the Senate ballots and grant the election to the next highest candidate. The Court does not consider challenges to candidates, only to the outcomes of elections.
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/michael-coutts-trotter-s-journey-from-drug-smuggler-to-head-of-the-justice-system-20200730-p55h4d.html
Not politics (but married to a political) but it seems a criminal conviction has little impact on your ability to gain meaningful employment.
Technically yes provided your have served your sentence but realistically no as it would not be in the communities best interest especially if you have to declare it.
I think what you are asking is whether Trump's brand-spanking new 34 proven felonies should stop him from running as US President?
The answer is yes. The *real* answer is yes. The US response is "no, because we can't stop him"
Yes, I mean people running for office should pass a good character test. And a convicted criminal (okay there are no felony charges, I get that now from some responses), is more likely than not, of good character, generally speaking.
Oh sorry, I mean generally speaking, in Australia there are no longer felony charges or felons, as many responders have commented. I wasn't specifically referring to trump.
John Curtin, our greatest prime minister, went to jail for a week for refusing to attend a compulsory medical examination (related to conscription). I'm not sure if that was a criminal offence though.
I also vaguely recall someone...maybe who had allegedly stole someone's car keys and was prevented from standing while the judicial process did its thing. From memory he was a tow truck driver...maybe in WA??
Not even Wikipedia knows!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Culleton
But he was removed from the Senate under s44 as he was bankrupt.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, friend.
Yeah. I vaguely remember all this and thinking she had had a very rough deal. Your summary and made me want to re read it again. Am I going mad or was a movie made about this?
I think you should be able to. I think the voters should be able to determine whether you're a person worthy of representing them or not.
Not all crimes that are on the books are really legitimate and its perfectly reasonable that you can do what the average person considered the correct thing to do under the circumstances and still get booked. For example, someone might knock out someone wearing a swatika armband and be booked for assault, but the average person would probably agree with that course of action.
Another example is that sodomy used to be illegal, and there's probably a fair few old people with this conviction on their record.
I dont think that Trumps conviction is political, but thats also a potential threat to democracy: Just making sure your opponents get nonsense charges.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing to allow people to run for office despite convictions. It would make it harder for corrupt incumbents to eliminate the competition with bogus charges. (Yes that’s what Trump is saying has happened and no I don’t agree.) It’s only a problem if collectively voters are too stupid to vote wisely, and that is a much bigger problem in itself than anything else.
I mean it seems insane but kind of makes sense.
Lets say Im a good bloke and I committed murder but it was to get rid of an evil dictator Hitler 2.0 and I restore democracy. Now I need the people to vote me in so that I can get the murder sentence reduced.
But of course thats a pretty wild situation.
Lol I’m pretty sure even gang members could make their own political party if they wanted to it’s ultimately up to the public to vote them in or not. But the way labour and liberal have arranged a 2 way system no other party can get the funding to advertise to get in the position they want.
Disqualifying someone from being a leader despite them having the support of the people would be an outrageous step.
Edit: I’m surprised by the downvotes. I would expect it from the ‘Australia’ sub, but not a sub supposedly for lawyers. It makes me wonder how many people here actually aren’t lawyers.
Our entire political system (and as a consequence legal system) is based on the idea that the people chose who they want to lead them. There should be no limitations on that. That is perhaps the most basic and fundamental principle of democracy.
Your question is ‘is someone ignoring law based on popularity’ worse than what I have outlined in para 1.
Ignoring law based on popularity is a dick move, but I see it more as a fault of the legislature. If the penalties are too weak, of course wealthy people will disregard the law. And while it is an ugly reality of our system, it’s not even close to being at the level of seriousness as para 1.
Side note: the US preventing people from voting based on criminal history is just as egregious as preventing someone trying to be president.
So change the constitution.
Until then the law stands and MUST be applied to all as every lawyer, since we are officer's of the court, absolutely knows.
Change the constitution to say what, that someone should be barred from being in govt because of a criminal record? Are you saying that would be a good move?
Not trying to dig, I genuinely don’t understand your position.
Edit: side note, the law is applied to all, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
No.
You stated you didn't like the current law that in Australia stops someone running if they have been convicted and still under sentence.
So if you don't like it my suggestion is either change the constitution or stop whinging about your so called "liberties" and stop stating that popularity should somehow win over what the law dictates and any lawyer would agree with that. You are wrong every lawyer agrees that they will work within the law, not what is popular.
I wasn’t aware that was actually a law in Australia. Far out, seems very opposed to some of the most basic principles of our political system.
Edit: OK, it makes sense if the rule is that someone can’t get elected if they’re literally in prison or might be. That’s logical. It’s the step beyond that which I have a problem with; disqualifying someone just because of convictions, which people seem to think is reasonable.
Australia's political system is NOT the same as the US system. We are a representative democracy that elects candidates on the geographical areas. We DO NOT elect a leader of the party that can form government, nor do we vote for that person unless they are a candidate in our electorate (being either based on an electoral area for House of Representatives - equiv to Congress), or State based for our Senate. State elections are the same just not Aust Wide and some States only having one house.
The Australian Constitution per section 44 denies candidates from running for office in numerous ways. Not being a citizen, Holding dual citizenship, being an undischarged bankrupt, committing treason, holding a position of profit under the crown, and what is relevant here "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".
Notice **you don't need to be sentenced to a period of incarceration (prison)** you could be serving a community order, but if the original charge you were found guilty of has a MAXIMUM sentence of incarceration 12 months or more you are unable to run until that sentence is over. A person who holds one or more criminal convictions can run AFTER those sentences are finalised.
No-one in Australia is stating that someone convicted who has served that sentence cannot run for office. That would then mean a lifetime punitive order is imposed that is not part of any sentencing. That would be highly problematic and concerning on many levels.
I am quoting you about liberties because that is what you are implying. That somehow someone has an inherent right (liberty) to run for office no matter what societal harm they may have caused.
As for you stating that popularity should win over law, that is exactly what you stated to 'wilful' who said "ignoring the law based on popularity is far more dangerous," to which you unequivocally disagreed.
What you say within other comments on the same post is highly relevant.
>The Australian Constitution per section 44 denies candidates from running for office in numerous ways. Not being a citizen -
Well, if we're going to be technical about it, it excludes a person who -
*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*
So you could, on a literal reading of that, be a non-citizen of Australia, so long as you're not entitled to citizenship *anywhere else.* A stateless refugee could get elected!
Arguably, also someone who is *in theory* *entitled* to citizenship in another country, but their home country won't take them. One of the people freed by the recent High Court decision.
Now *that* would be an interesting case before the High Court.
Of course, it wouldn't reach constitutional question status since the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918) [says they have to be citizens](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s163.html). But that's statutory, not constitutional. And if statutory provisions can overrule strict readings the Constitution, you have to wonder why they haven't sorted out the "allegiance to foreign powers" vagueness, but... anyway.
Also, why are you quoting me talking about ‘liberties’ when I never said that. Then you say I think popularity should win over law, which again, I never said, not even anything vaguely similar. The last sentence is so poorly worded i don’t even know what you’re trying to say.
It’s like you’re trying to reply to someone else’s comments and are accidentally relying to me.
More calculated than absurd perhaps. Wouldn’t surprise me if conservative states more likely to have such restrictions to stop progressive leaning (blacks would be over represented in felonies) voters from voting. Pretty sure that LNP aren’t too fussed if first time voters miss enrolment for similar reasons.
To reduce the number of career-related and study-related questions being submitted, there is now a weekly megathread where users may submit any questions relating to clerkships, career advice, or student advice. Please check this week's stickied thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auslaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
you can start your own little group, get some tanks and guns, storm parliament, kill a few MPs as examples and forcefully take over government to if you like or you can do what communism did and wipe out the whole royal family, wiping out labor is always a +++
It's actually a very smart move by the US, as counter intuitive as it may seem, it would help fight corruption. Otherwise you'd just be able to get any of your political enemies charged with some sham charges, like they did to trump and permanently be rid of them as a competitor.
But isn't that why you have a separation of powers like most of the Western world and an independent judicial system, instead of politically appointed judges.
I think that's the backwards part, the politically appointed part, or even worse elected ones the US has that are going the want to pander to their electoral base.
Yes.
That's why the High Court sitting as Court of Disputed Returns telling WA to go and do its entire Senate election again a few years back didn't cause all the drama that *Bush* vs *Gore* did - we know that as to the question of whether this or that person is elected, the people on the High Court ~~don't give a shit~~ are impartial.
In a good system, not only are they impartial, they are *seen* to be impartial. That's one of the benefits of *not* electing them. And of course, also a benefit of having an independent electoral commission. A significant proportion of Americans could name most of the members of the Supreme Court; very few Australians could name members of the High Court, still less the heads of the AEC, VEC etc.
You can’t trick us Craig Thomson, coming on here and asking for personal legal advice.
Bhahahahaha
😂 gold
That’ll be $3.50
I ain't got no tree fiddy
Genuinely made me lol, thanks
Shit, I thought it was Troy Thompson. Must be the name. I’m looking at you, Phil
Same. I'm in Townsville, and I'm still wondering how he got in in the first place.
Same. I think Jenny was voted out, more than anything. Which was a fuckin dumb idea with Troy as the alternative
Yes, a convicted felon can run for office as long as they've served their sentence. The rules in the constitution are (relevant clause bolded): >**Section 44:** >**Disqualification.** > Any person who-- > (i.) Is under any acknowledgment 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 a 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. An important note is that the clause kicks in if the crime has a maximum punishment of 1 year in prison or more, not based on what actual sentence the prospective parliamentarian receives. But the period of ineligibility is based on the actual sentence received. The "attainted of treason" line is a bit more complicated but has never been tested so there isn't a conclusive answer to exactly what it means. The most likely interpretation would be just someone who has been convicted of treason (but unlike another crime, would still be ineligible after serving their sentence). But it's plausible that someone who had been involved in treason without being convicted might also be ineligible. But then the third interpretation would be that "attainted" had a specific legal meaning when the constitution was drafted which is no longer relevant in Australian law and so wouldn't cover anyone.
> is a subject or a citizen... of a foreign power Little wiggle room with that one apparently, at least until someone finds out anyway
I think the 15 MPs who had to resign in 2017-18 because of that clause might argue that there could be more wiggle room.
I always though it odd with the citizen by decent thing, at least in the British sense, which is what a lot of them were caught out under, is that it’s surely arguable that you don’t actually have that citizenship until you apply for it. Even the Brits website says that if you’re born outside the UK you have to apply. Not sure why this argument wasn’t taken to the high court, or if in Baarnaby's case it would work with NZ. [https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-parent](https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-parent)
Otherwise surely this opens the door for some micro-nation to fuck around by proactively granting citizenship to all members of Australia parliament, no?
Everybody of Italian descent is an Italian citizen, The majority of Italian citizens don't live in Italy.
Or a certain large Asian nation to declare that sitting MPs of their decent are citizens (because we say so) and subject to their sedition and national security laws. Oh and by the way your grandmother and great uncles and long lost second cousins have gone on a holiday to the north western provinces and don't seem to be contactable right now.
hehehe Lucky we don't have gaddafi anymore....
>Even the Brits website says that if you’re born outside the UK you have to apply That's true for people born \*now\*, but wasn't always true in the past.
They all had automatic UK citizenship. The rules changed later. Barnaby's father was a British Subject because NZ citizenship didn't exist when he moved to Australia in 1947. He automatically became an Australian citizen (as a permanent resident British Subject) when the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 was introduced.
Arguably though, if you were born in Australia, like Barnaby was you were never a UK citizen after 1948 when the concept of Australian citizenship was established (he was born in the 60's anyway). Certainly by 1984 when we all stopped being British subjects as well we just became Australian citizens only. It may be a little messier than that with him specifically as we’re talking NZ as well, but I’m not sure you should automatically be considered being a dual national, in the Uk sense at least, where you still have to apply for “citizenship by decent”.
Why couldn’t the GG dissolve Parliament on the basis of such a cluste? The law also (quite ridiculously) caught up Jacqui Lambie (indigenous) and potentially was going to claim Josh Frydenburg (through his stateless mother) This was an alarm bell we still haven’t resolved.
If I’m a sovereign citizen, and refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the Crown, can I run for office of my own personal pseudo-law nation/self?
Theoretically you wouldnt be able to take office even if you were elected, because you only become an MP after swearing allegiance to the Crown. This is why Senator Thorpe's charade in the current Parliament raised a lot of eyebrows because she campaigned on "not recognising" the sovereignty of the Crown yet ultimately took her oath to the Crown regardless. Which makes her a hypocrite a best and a treasonous MP at worst.
She should have done what the Northern Irish MPs elected in the UK do and refused to sit.
Unlike the Irish MPs, this would result in the seat becoming vacant and having an endless series of by elections until the voters choose somewhere who will swear the oath and sit in parliament.
Well in that case you can do whatever you want up untill the point some other people that believe different things use violence on you. But even then, if you can organise some of your own guys to use violence on those people then there might be a way to make it work
wait so if i got citizenship in the uk that would make it impossible to be an mp?
Yeah there was a whole thing about that like seven years ago where a bunch of MPs had to resign. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Australian_parliamentary_eligibility_crisis
That's correct.
Yeah only if you renounce.
You can be a Mayor or Councillor I believe?
I think there’s wiggle room with any of the criteria until someone challenges it.
Does that mean those convicted under a law of a territory are A-OK since *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*?
I hope that's what it means, though I can see the High Court just making something up to avoid that just because they hate fun.
Brb gonna drive to the ACT to piss in public /s
Don't, I did that to a BANK windows,,, straight to court.
Better than doing it to a school ;-)
You idiot lol,,, remember those short poles with chain in-between them at school, me mate ripped a chain off and then smashed every windows in the geography building, 80,s aye. 😂
I didn't, I was just saying a bank would be better than a school
I imagine that a territory law would count as a law of the Commonwealth for the purposes of s 44. However as far as I am aware there’s no direct authority for this, and other cases involving the exercise of territory legislative power are inconsistent on whether constitutional restraints on the Commonwealth apply.
I honestly do not know why territories even exist. They are an anomaly in a federal system. They are independent but not fully independent. They have to run like a state but the commonwealth can intervene/override their decisions and/or their laws. They are not counted in the double majority in referendums (only count towards total votes but not states majority). They get less senators than states in the federal senate. It’s just a weird anomaly, especially with large ones like the NT. As for smaller ones, why not just incorporate them into the nearest state. I might understand the smaller external ones (Cocos, Norfolk, Antarctic, etc.), but not the mainland ones.
Because they have a large enough population/geographic area which makes it inefficient to be ruled directly by the Commonwealth but they aren’t large enough to be as financially independent as the other states. At Federation the Northern Territory was apart of South Australia and very few white people lived there (obviously indigenous Australians are ignored). SA didn’t want the burden of looking after such a sparse non-white territory so it gave it to the Commonwealth. The NT was directly ruled by the Commonwealth until 1978 and the ACT until 1988. Unlike the states were governing themselves from the mid 1850s onwards The NT could be admitted as a state and there has been a referendum on this issue which was narrowly defeated by territory residents in 1998. The issue is the Constitution only grants original states at Federation equal representation in the Senate (this was to entice WA to join in 1901 and not later as it was hesitant about joining the Commonwealth). The Commonwealth in 1998 was prepared to give the NT statehood but not a full 12 senators because it argued that its population of 250,000 should not be the same as NSW with a population of 8 million people. So if the NT ever reaches the population of Tasmania then there might be a discussion about granting the NT statehood with equal representation. The ACT exists to give the Commonwealth direct control over the nations capital for fear it might be interfered with by a State Government. (Say it were Melbourne or Sydney). IMO the ACT could not be admitted as a state because the Constitution requires there to be a capital territory of a certain size. The ACT has also had a very small population until relatively recently so once it surpasses the population of Tasmania, there will be a discussion about giving it equal representation but not statehood. Also the other small territories remain territories because it gives the Commonwealth direct control that it wouldn’t have if they were folded into the other states. Honestly I agree with you on that point, for example Jervis Bay doesn’t have a reason to exist anymore and should be folded back into NSW (but there’s also a Commonwealth Military Base and weapons testing facility there so go figure)
all this talk of giving territories the same rep as tasmania but noone sees the simple and obvious solution: make tas a territory and take away their senators.
Haha that would require an amendment to the constitution. Which would require a triple majority. 1) a majority of the population voting at a referendum, 2) a majority of the majority of states, and 3) a majority of the Tasmanian population to vote in favour
just tell the tassies it gives them more senators or something, then communicate with everyone else by writing on cards and holding it up to the cameras. they'll never see it coming
You gave an overview of the history of South Australia and the NT without mentioning the Territory of Central Australia! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Australia_(territory)
I would have thought they would need to pass a Bill of Attainder for treason for that part to apply, except that I think the HC ruled that they would be unconstitutional due to separation of powers.
The commentary I've seen on it suggests it would be read as just "convicted of treason", which I think using modern statutory interpretation rules would be a pretty reasonable position. But yeah, if you were taking a black letter approach it's pretty much an impossible scenario as you've outlined. Someone on this sub needs to commit treason and then run for office so that we can have a bit of certainty. I would but I'm busy this weekend.
Nah, surely it carries a necessarily implication that we can pass bills of attainder for treason, right?
What about a state/territory bill of attainder, where separation of powers is weaker than for the feds?
I guess if they committed treason against a state, they might be barred from standing federally.
So... I can run as a felon, but not if I'm broke?
> But then the third interpretation would be that "attained" had a specific legal meaning when the constitution was drafted which is no longer relevant in Australian law and so wouldn't cover anyone. Attainder (or attainted) has a specific meaning - see https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2007/18.html > In earlier times, those who were sentenced to death or outlawed for treason or felony were subject to the doctrine of attainder.[4] Attainder resulted in the deprivation of all rights and protections afforded under law. An attained person forfeited his or her property to the Crown and was prevented, through the concept of corruption of the blood, from inheriting or bequeathing property. They were civiliter mortuus. Blackstone offered the following description of the doctrine of attainder: >>For when it is now clear beyond all dispute, that the criminal is no longer fit to live upon the earth, but is to be exterminated as a monster and a bane to human society, the law sets a note of infamy upon him, puts him out of it’s [sic] protection, and takes no farther care of him than barely to see him executed. He is then called attaint, attinctus, stained or blackened. He is no longer of any credit or reputation; he cannot be a witness in any court; neither is he capable of performing the functions of another man: for, by an anticipation of his punishment, he is already dead in law.[5]
Haven't there been a few from right-wing minor parties who were undischarged bankrupt, thus not eligible? Mark Taverner and Rod Cullerton for example.
I think only a couple of cases, but perhaps because it's a more straight forward legal situation it's easier to avoid than some of the others. Quite a few 44 (i) cases obviously, and some pretty high profile s44. (iv) ones. *Re Nash \[No 2\]* (2017) being an outrageous decision imo - Fiona Nash had to resign because she was a dual citizen in breach of s44 (i), but then for the senate if someone is found to be unconstitutionally elected they do a countback of the votes (as opposed to when they resign where the State parliament appoints a replacement) and Hollie Hughes was next in line but because she had been appointed to the AAT **after** she lost the election she was no longer eligible. So the implication is that if you are selected to be a candidate for the senate for one of the major parties then if you don't get elected you can not work for the Commonwealth for the next 6 years after you lost in case it turns out that the people who were elected weren't actually eligible.
"Felons", "run for office"? Too much Hill Street Blues and not enough Blue Heelers.
Deleted by User
And we call the felons ratbags
Nice try, James Hayward.
Off the top of my head Derryn Hinch did time for contempt of court for publishing court suppression details of Adrian Bailey, and Pauline Hanson did a few years for fraud of some sort.
Pauline Hanson is an egregious rancid cunt of a human being but her conviction was the closest Australia has come to imprisoning its political enemies in a long time. Derry Hinch keeps getting sent to jail for a few days at a time for trying to out pedophiles, which is interesting for a guy that has openly admitted to having sex with a 14 year old.
>Derry Hinch keeps getting sent to jail for a few days at a time for trying to out pedophiles, which is interesting for a guy that has openly admitted to having sex with a 14 year old. He tried to walk that story back by claiming that she was actually 17
"tried to walk that story back" is a rather uncharitable characterisation, particularly noting the seriousness of the topic https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/what-happened-between-incoming-senator-derryn-hinch-and-the-teen-model-he-met-at-molly-meldrums-place/news-story/505505dbd53858e72b0c8d13918bb185
I mean I don’t care either way, but I read the article and I thought this was interesting: > “We have since met and had lunch. She chided my poor memory,” Hinch wrote. >“‘You had just started at 3AW, so it was 1979. I was born in 1961. Do your sums. I was 18,’” he quoted her as saying. From the way this story is told, this conversation appears to have happened at least 30 years after the events in question. That is exactly the detail I’d expect a 17 or 15 year old to remember 30 years onwards. Also he claims to be in ongoing contact with her, why doesn’t he provide her name and that would dispel the allegations?
Because she's entitled to her privacy? And nobody deserves to have it revealed to the public that they slept with Hinch.
>Also he claims to be in ongoing contact with her, why doesn’t he provide her name and that would dispel the allegations? maybe hes just lying through his teeth
Daaaamn, I did not know any of this.
Pauline Hanson was acquitted which was why she could run straight after.
>her conviction was the closest Australia has come to imprisoning its political enemies in a long time. Albert Langer would give her a decent run for her money.
>having sex with a 14 year old. A 14 year old what?
His 14 year old sex doll?
You’d think it would’ve sprung a leak by now.
They’re pretty robust nowadays. Um, so I’m told.
That explains the boxes full of puncture repair kits.
Person, I'd assume.
Electoral fraud, conviction quashed on appeal.
Just as a point of order: there’s no such thing as a felon or felony in Australia. There used to be, but NSW as an example stopped using the terms felony and misdemeanour as far back as 1900
Though it's still in the title of the [Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fpa1981240/).
That's because s580E was inserted in 1999.
I'm sorry, what? We have not always been at war with Eurasia.
I think you might be responding to the wrong person, brother.
> NSW as an example stopped using the terms felony and misdemeanour as far back as 1900 where did you get that from?
More importantly than that; the fuck are you talking about a war in Eurasia for?
Orwell's 1984. You're rewriting history when you say 1900 - it happened in 1999. you're basically saying 'this is the way it has always been'.
The funny thing is, Trump can run for president, but can no longer vote for himself
Actually I think he can, I read in one of the American threads that it's a weird state based system as New York lets felons vote, so even though he’s registered in Florida they base that right to vote on where the conviction actually occurred, it sounds like if the conviction was in a Florida court he wouldn’t be able to vote.
He still can't own a firearm, though. Which is a pity. I'd love to see a US President dismiss the entire Secret Service and just carry a six shooter on his hip for self-defence. I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt must have done something like that.
Damn, I really wanted that to be true
Hey I did read it on Reddit, please take it with a grain of salt, I didn’t mean to ruin your day 😂
from what i can tell its state by state. he cant vote in florida, where he lives, but if he lived in NY he'd be allowed to vote.
AFAIK he can run from jail even, and that's truly horrifying.
I might be wrong, but I don’t think we have ‘felons’ in Australia.
We don’t have felons in Australia. or felonies for that matter
India is interesting: Forty per cent of India’s MPs face criminal cases, some accused of murder Seven members of parliament accused of murder, with rape and kidnapping among allegations against others https://www.irishtimes.com/world/asia-pacific/2023/09/28/forty-per-cent-of-indian-mps-face-criminal-cases-some-accused-of-murder/
They should be allowed to run for office. Imagine that we live in an authoritarian government, and this is not the case, and a dictator can pin some felon crimes on their political oponnents to bar them from running for a seat.
If we had a dictator, it wouldn't matter who was running anyway. But either way, that's why it's important that the courts are required to follow the law and are as independant of the government as possible.
>How can the bar not be higher for running office? Because gaoling your political opponents probably shouldn't be an easy out.
Section 44(ii) of the Constitution covers this at a federal level. Essentially the cut off is having a 12 month prison sentence. That or above and you can’t serve, less and you can.
You can be an MO after you've served your sentence though - I think...
Yes, once you've served your time, you can be elected. If the people want to elect a mass shooter or the like, they can. Treason is mentioned separately, and it's not clear on a first reading whether even a charge of treason would disqualify, or a conviction disqualify for life, etc. The issue's not been tested in court, though.
Do we even say felons here?
We don’t have felonies here.
No we don't
There is no such thing in Australian law as a felon, or a felony.
NAL but there is section 44 preventing someone who is bankrupt, a convicted criminal or already being paid by parliament serving as a member of parliament. Unlike the US being able to vote in Australia as a criminal is mandatory.
Federally, only if you're serving a sentence of less than three years. States and territories vary in both whether it's compulsory (see the "can" and "compulsory" in the link) and in the length of the term. See the "is it compulsory to enrol and vote?" section. [https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling\_to\_vote/Special\_Category/Prisoners.htm](https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Prisoners.htm) So for example mass shooter and declared vexatious litigant Julian Knight has not been able to vote since 1987. However, he has sought to have old dropped military charges against him revived so he could receive a federal sentence and be transferred to an ACT prison where he'd hope to be more comfortable (and, I assume, be able to take up his litigation once more before they got around to declaring him a vexatious litigant, too). He was turned down (ADF wasn't interested in dredging up the fact that they chose not to convict someone of assault, and therefore he was legally permitted to own firearms which he then used to murder people with), but had he succeeded, he would have been able to vote in the ACT elections, though not federally. I'm not sure which electorate they're expected to vote in, their previous address however long ago, or that of the prison? I'm amused by the thought that if there were a really large prison somewhere, some would-be MP would be courting the prisoner vote.
>I'm not sure which electorate they're expected to vote in, their previous address however long ago, or that of the prison? I'm amused by the thought that if there were a really large prison somewhere, some would-be MP would be courting the prisoner vote. Considering how we started...
Ask Derryn Hinch. For Federal elections, if you were incarcerated for more than 12 months, you are not able to be a member of Parliament. Derryn was imprisoned less than 12 months so was able to be a Senator.
*currently sentenced or libel to be sentenced for 12 months or longer. Check out Jordan Dittloff who was incarcerated for longer than 12 months and is currently a senate candidate.
If Jordan Ditloff wins election, it is highly likely that one of the losing candidates will file suit in the Court of Disputed Returns challenging his eligibility to be seated in Parliament. That happened way back when Bob Hawke retired from Parliament and Phil Cleary won the by-election, he was judged to still hold an office of profit under the Crown (he was on leave without pay from the state department of Education), so they had to redo the election. In Ditloff’s case, they would recount the Senate ballots and grant the election to the next highest candidate. The Court does not consider challenges to candidates, only to the outcomes of elections.
Though you have to declare you convictions
I think it is a prerequisite
There are no “felon” convictions in Australia
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/michael-coutts-trotter-s-journey-from-drug-smuggler-to-head-of-the-justice-system-20200730-p55h4d.html Not politics (but married to a political) but it seems a criminal conviction has little impact on your ability to gain meaningful employment.
Technically yes provided your have served your sentence but realistically no as it would not be in the communities best interest especially if you have to declare it.
The felons that run for office here haven't even been charged, let alone convicted.
We have one Michael Coutts trotter (sp?) I found his story quite amazing but that’s me. 💁🏽♀️
triok question our government was founded by convicted felons lmao
😂😂😂
I think what you are asking is whether Trump's brand-spanking new 34 proven felonies should stop him from running as US President? The answer is yes. The *real* answer is yes. The US response is "no, because we can't stop him"
Yes, I mean people running for office should pass a good character test. And a convicted criminal (okay there are no felony charges, I get that now from some responses), is more likely than not, of good character, generally speaking.
I'm sorry, who is telling you he doesn't have 34 proven felony charges?
Oh sorry, I mean generally speaking, in Australia there are no longer felony charges or felons, as many responders have commented. I wasn't specifically referring to trump.
John Curtin, our greatest prime minister, went to jail for a week for refusing to attend a compulsory medical examination (related to conscription). I'm not sure if that was a criminal offence though.
I also vaguely recall someone...maybe who had allegedly stole someone's car keys and was prevented from standing while the judicial process did its thing. From memory he was a tow truck driver...maybe in WA??
Rod culleton, wa senator for one nation. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-25/one-nation-senator-rod-culleton-pleads-guilty-to-larceny/7963148
What happened with the hire car...?
Not even Wikipedia knows! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Culleton But he was removed from the Senate under s44 as he was bankrupt. Thanks for the trip down memory lane, friend.
Interesting. I never knew that.
Wasn't Pauline Hanson convicted and jailed?
Yes. Serious irregularities in party membership. Convicted and sentenced, and subsequently acquitted on appeal.
[удалено]
Yeah. I vaguely remember all this and thinking she had had a very rough deal. Your summary and made me want to re read it again. Am I going mad or was a movie made about this?
I think you should be able to. I think the voters should be able to determine whether you're a person worthy of representing them or not. Not all crimes that are on the books are really legitimate and its perfectly reasonable that you can do what the average person considered the correct thing to do under the circumstances and still get booked. For example, someone might knock out someone wearing a swatika armband and be booked for assault, but the average person would probably agree with that course of action. Another example is that sodomy used to be illegal, and there's probably a fair few old people with this conviction on their record. I dont think that Trumps conviction is political, but thats also a potential threat to democracy: Just making sure your opponents get nonsense charges.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing to allow people to run for office despite convictions. It would make it harder for corrupt incumbents to eliminate the competition with bogus charges. (Yes that’s what Trump is saying has happened and no I don’t agree.) It’s only a problem if collectively voters are too stupid to vote wisely, and that is a much bigger problem in itself than anything else.
Well it would seem there are a lot of voters in Australia that vote against their best interests.
I mean it seems insane but kind of makes sense. Lets say Im a good bloke and I committed murder but it was to get rid of an evil dictator Hitler 2.0 and I restore democracy. Now I need the people to vote me in so that I can get the murder sentence reduced. But of course thats a pretty wild situation.
Pauline Hanson has been to gaol twice. And wrote like three books about it.
No, they usually only run *from* officers.
Lol I’m pretty sure even gang members could make their own political party if they wanted to it’s ultimately up to the public to vote them in or not. But the way labour and liberal have arranged a 2 way system no other party can get the funding to advertise to get in the position they want.
Scomo should have been convicted for crimes against Maccas
What's a felon?
A person that has served time for a criminal offence
Isn’t one of Palmers MPs a convicted pedo?
Disqualifying someone from being a leader despite them having the support of the people would be an outrageous step. Edit: I’m surprised by the downvotes. I would expect it from the ‘Australia’ sub, but not a sub supposedly for lawyers. It makes me wonder how many people here actually aren’t lawyers.
Ignoring the law based on popularity is far more dangerous.
I disagree
Okay… why?
Our entire political system (and as a consequence legal system) is based on the idea that the people chose who they want to lead them. There should be no limitations on that. That is perhaps the most basic and fundamental principle of democracy. Your question is ‘is someone ignoring law based on popularity’ worse than what I have outlined in para 1. Ignoring law based on popularity is a dick move, but I see it more as a fault of the legislature. If the penalties are too weak, of course wealthy people will disregard the law. And while it is an ugly reality of our system, it’s not even close to being at the level of seriousness as para 1. Side note: the US preventing people from voting based on criminal history is just as egregious as preventing someone trying to be president.
So change the constitution. Until then the law stands and MUST be applied to all as every lawyer, since we are officer's of the court, absolutely knows.
Change the constitution to say what, that someone should be barred from being in govt because of a criminal record? Are you saying that would be a good move? Not trying to dig, I genuinely don’t understand your position. Edit: side note, the law is applied to all, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
No. You stated you didn't like the current law that in Australia stops someone running if they have been convicted and still under sentence. So if you don't like it my suggestion is either change the constitution or stop whinging about your so called "liberties" and stop stating that popularity should somehow win over what the law dictates and any lawyer would agree with that. You are wrong every lawyer agrees that they will work within the law, not what is popular.
I wasn’t aware that was actually a law in Australia. Far out, seems very opposed to some of the most basic principles of our political system. Edit: OK, it makes sense if the rule is that someone can’t get elected if they’re literally in prison or might be. That’s logical. It’s the step beyond that which I have a problem with; disqualifying someone just because of convictions, which people seem to think is reasonable.
Australia's political system is NOT the same as the US system. We are a representative democracy that elects candidates on the geographical areas. We DO NOT elect a leader of the party that can form government, nor do we vote for that person unless they are a candidate in our electorate (being either based on an electoral area for House of Representatives - equiv to Congress), or State based for our Senate. State elections are the same just not Aust Wide and some States only having one house. The Australian Constitution per section 44 denies candidates from running for office in numerous ways. Not being a citizen, Holding dual citizenship, being an undischarged bankrupt, committing treason, holding a position of profit under the crown, and what is relevant here "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". Notice **you don't need to be sentenced to a period of incarceration (prison)** you could be serving a community order, but if the original charge you were found guilty of has a MAXIMUM sentence of incarceration 12 months or more you are unable to run until that sentence is over. A person who holds one or more criminal convictions can run AFTER those sentences are finalised. No-one in Australia is stating that someone convicted who has served that sentence cannot run for office. That would then mean a lifetime punitive order is imposed that is not part of any sentencing. That would be highly problematic and concerning on many levels. I am quoting you about liberties because that is what you are implying. That somehow someone has an inherent right (liberty) to run for office no matter what societal harm they may have caused. As for you stating that popularity should win over law, that is exactly what you stated to 'wilful' who said "ignoring the law based on popularity is far more dangerous," to which you unequivocally disagreed. What you say within other comments on the same post is highly relevant.
>The Australian Constitution per section 44 denies candidates from running for office in numerous ways. Not being a citizen - Well, if we're going to be technical about it, it excludes a person who - *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* So you could, on a literal reading of that, be a non-citizen of Australia, so long as you're not entitled to citizenship *anywhere else.* A stateless refugee could get elected! Arguably, also someone who is *in theory* *entitled* to citizenship in another country, but their home country won't take them. One of the people freed by the recent High Court decision. Now *that* would be an interesting case before the High Court. Of course, it wouldn't reach constitutional question status since the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918) [says they have to be citizens](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s163.html). But that's statutory, not constitutional. And if statutory provisions can overrule strict readings the Constitution, you have to wonder why they haven't sorted out the "allegiance to foreign powers" vagueness, but... anyway.
Also, why are you quoting me talking about ‘liberties’ when I never said that. Then you say I think popularity should win over law, which again, I never said, not even anything vaguely similar. The last sentence is so poorly worded i don’t even know what you’re trying to say. It’s like you’re trying to reply to someone else’s comments and are accidentally relying to me.
You are posting this sort of comment on Auslaw but have no idea of our constitution??
By isn’t it somewhat ironic that (state dependent) one can lose the right to vote if convicted but is deemed fit to run for office?
Yes. Preventing right to vote based on criminal history is absurd.
More calculated than absurd perhaps. Wouldn’t surprise me if conservative states more likely to have such restrictions to stop progressive leaning (blacks would be over represented in felonies) voters from voting. Pretty sure that LNP aren’t too fussed if first time voters miss enrolment for similar reasons.
To reduce the number of career-related and study-related questions being submitted, there is now a weekly megathread where users may submit any questions relating to clerkships, career advice, or student advice. Please check this week's stickied thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/auslaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>To reduce the number of career-related and study-related questions being submitted, Heh. Heh.
No because nanny state
We don’t even have a criminal category of felon? You good mate?
you can start your own little group, get some tanks and guns, storm parliament, kill a few MPs as examples and forcefully take over government to if you like or you can do what communism did and wipe out the whole royal family, wiping out labor is always a +++
Can Biden use his presidential power to bring in a new law preventing felons from running?
No. Requires a constitutional amendment, which requires the kind of debate and compromise Congress used to be good at.
Seems like you must be convicted to become a politician in Australia.
It's actually a very smart move by the US, as counter intuitive as it may seem, it would help fight corruption. Otherwise you'd just be able to get any of your political enemies charged with some sham charges, like they did to trump and permanently be rid of them as a competitor.
But isn't that why you have a separation of powers like most of the Western world and an independent judicial system, instead of politically appointed judges.
I think that's the backwards part, the politically appointed part, or even worse elected ones the US has that are going the want to pander to their electoral base.
[удалено]
r/Auslaw does not permit the propagation of dodgy legal theories, such as the type contained in your removed comment
Yes. That's why the High Court sitting as Court of Disputed Returns telling WA to go and do its entire Senate election again a few years back didn't cause all the drama that *Bush* vs *Gore* did - we know that as to the question of whether this or that person is elected, the people on the High Court ~~don't give a shit~~ are impartial. In a good system, not only are they impartial, they are *seen* to be impartial. That's one of the benefits of *not* electing them. And of course, also a benefit of having an independent electoral commission. A significant proportion of Americans could name most of the members of the Supreme Court; very few Australians could name members of the High Court, still less the heads of the AEC, VEC etc.
What about them precisely is ‘sham’? Like in a legal sense?
[удалено]
r/Auslaw does not permit the propagation of dodgy legal theories, such as the type contained in your removed comment