Sunday, 31 May 2015

Another letter to Mr Keenan,Minister for Justice

Mr Keenan I have asked you in the past about Mr Abbotts dual citizenship, the advice I finally got was that the Australian Federal Police can not investigate his dual citizenship because the Australian Electoral Commission is precluded from asking about citizenship under their laws.

I have phoned Mr Abbotts office on a few occasions to ask, February  was a most amazing response, my questions are ludicrous and "the Prime Minster is the Prime Minister and he is an Australian citizen"   verbatim from a phone call made in February   

I called again last Friday,my phones have been blocked from calling his office, they get cut off automatically. I only got through via his Manly office and this time Diana was a bit more civil, I asked when Mr Abbott renounced his British citizenship and she advised that information can not be released.

There is no doubt Mr Abbott is an Australian citizen,his citizenship application papers,though now secret documents, are in the National Archives of Australia and show he applied for and was granted citizenship in June 1981.  But the information about renouncing his British citizenship are missing.  His Department has said in FOI 2014/158 and 2015/048 that the renunciation papers do not exist.
He got automatic British citizenship by being born in London with a British father, under their laws this can only be expunged by filling a form RN and paying a fee, there is no proof this has happened.  He filled in a form claiming birth to an Australian overseas, but that was after he first lodged an application for citizenship and that does not expunge the British citizenship.  There are questions whether hsi mother was still an Australian because shortly after his birth she was given an assisted passage to Australia as a Briton, she either was British or an illegal boat person. 

His AEC application papers show he is a naturalized citizen and emails from Oxford University show he matriculated there as a British citizen. Copies of all of these are in my blog, which I have sent to you in the past.

Will you contact Mr Abbotts office, either as minister or as an anonymous individual and ask when he renounced his British citizenship,if you get the same treatment as myself and so many others who have tried will you pass the matter on to the Joint Select Committee for Electoral Matters to determine if Mr Abbott is in parliament legally or not.  It is a shame that the highest office in the land is under question by so many people, 27000 have signed a petition asking he release details of his renunciation, Ms Butler MP and Senator Nash have asked for clarification and haven't even got an automated reply.  On a good day of tweeting and retweeting my queries about Mr Abbotts citizenship are seen and queried by up to 600,000 Australians.  

It is shameful for any politician to totally ignore fellow MPs as Mr Abbott has done, Ms Butler has waited more than 4 months for a reply and Senator Nash nearly 3 months.  You can solve this quickly and easily with one phone call and if there is no proof he has renounced his British citizenship then you must ask the JSCEM to investigate.

Ms Gillard was in a similar position as prime Minister and did provide details of her renunciation of British citizenship, why does Mr Abbott refuse to do  this?  Mr Abbott has a degree in Law form Sydney University so ignorance of our constitution is not a factor, and the AEC give handouts to all applicants explaining how S44 works and how they must comply with it.

The only people who can make sure Section 44 of the constitution is policed you as a minister of the crown or the House/Senate as a whole. The police cant ask because the AEC cant ask and we the people cant ask after the 40 day time frame set down by the High Court. 

Please ask him and his office when he renounced his British citizenship and tell the country when.

thanks again for your time

And of course the bit at the end of my blogs:-  

If you want to keep me out of poverty, please send a penny or two.  I am one of those pov-liners who can't afford to drive a car and for who a cup of coffee or a glass of beer is out of the question.

Monday, 11 May 2015

The replies from Australian Electoral Commission

The bush lawyer in me sent an email to a few Australian Electoral Commission staff and can be seen here.

The reply and my response is bellow.

Dear Mr Magrathea

I refer to your email 10 May 2015 addressed to the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Tom Rogers, concerning the operation of section 44 of the Constitution.  I have been asked to reply to your email on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

As you are aware from previous communications with the AEC (including with the previous Chairman, the Hon Peter Heerey AM QC), the AEC has no role in determining the eligibility of candidates under section 44 of the Constitution.  Under the Administrative Arrangements Order the Constitution is administered by the Attorney-General, not by the AEC.  Accordingly, the AEC does not accept the claim made in your email that the AEC has some role in determining whether a candidate is disqualified by the operation of section 44 of the Constitution.   

You have once again made the claim that because a person may have been born overseas that they will be disqualified as a candidate by the operation of section 44 of the Constitution.  Such a claim is not correct.  The mere fact that a person was born overseas does not mean that they hold dual citizenship or will be in breach of section 44 of the Constitution.  This is made clear by the comments of the High Court in Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30. 

Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act (Electoral Act), the AEC is only given limited powers to petition the Court of Disputed Returns.  The AEC is unable to petition the Court of Disputed Returns as you suggest as the AEC would need to be in possession of some actual facts that would invalidate the election or return (see section 355(a) and (aa) of the Electoral Act).  The material that you have previously provided does not establish that any candidate or current Member of Parliament is or was disqualified due to the operation of section 44 of the Constitution.  Accordingly, the AEC is not in possession of any facts that could form the basis of a valid petition to the Court of Disputed Returns.  In addition, the power to refer any question of the qualifications of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives to the Court of Disputed Returns rests with the Parliament under sections 376 and 377 of the Electoral Act.  The AEC has no power to refer the question of the qualifications of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives to the Court of Disputed Returns.

I trust that the above clearly explains the position of the AEC on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Paul Pirani | Chief Legal Officer

And the reply 

Thank you again Mr Pirani
I do know from past communications that the AEC can not determine citizenship, but also the franchise says you must allow every Australian the right to vote as set down in the Electoral Act.
That act specifies the Crown, you, basically must comply with the laws of the Commonwealth.
As you are barred from seeking clarification on citizenship you must ask the Court of Disputed returns to examine the facts for you to ensure that all voters get to vote for a candidate who legitimately complies with the laws of the Commonwealth.
Being born overseas may not preclude some people from standing, for example a diplomatic birth would convey Australian citizenship, but as you can not examine the citizenship of people you have no way of knowing the candidates comply with the laws of the Commonwealth unless you ask the Court of Disputed Returns to examine each case for you.

As for evidence that a current MP is there illegally,  I have provided much evidence that Mr Abbott was born in the UK and that he has failed to renounce his British citizenship, you yourself told me that you could not examine citizenship issues,  Mr Colvins office, the Commissioner of Australian Federal Police has advised me that he can not examine fraud committed by Mr Abbott in providing false declarations to the AEC because the AEC can not examine citizenship.  Proof of Mr Abbott's overseas birth was available at the National Archives until he had that document made secret, a copy of the document asking his overseas birth be registered was lodged after applying for Australian citizenship, a copy is in this newspaper article,  his failure to renounce British Citizenship is in the FOI log for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2015/048. That FOI states that the renunciation papers do not exist, more than enough evidence for your to query eligibility.  You might also look at a request from MP for Griffith, Ms Terri Butler, she wrote to Mr Abbott in January this year asking for a copy of his renunciation papers, four months later he is yet to reply.  That letter is here. I have been told there is enough evidence there to query a charge of fraud but they can not press those charges because the AEC can not ask about citizenship.  Perhaps you now have enough for fraud chargesd\ or at least asking the High Court to determine if your procedures are proper under the Commonwealth laws.
For you, the AEC, to meet your commitment to the franchise and to the electoral act you must ask another body to determine eligibility of candidates.  The AEC has failed to do this in the past, I an not explain why no one has looked at the laws and your  franchise and determined that if a person is in parliament illegally something should be done by the AEC.  Hill is an example where you failed as an organisation,, private individuals had to take that matter to the court of disputed returns, whereas the responsibility should have been with the AEC to ensure all voters get to vote for someone who stands for parliament under the laws of the Commonwealth.
Will you refer my letters to the deputy commissioners and yourself to the Attorney Generals department as they are the ultimate body with regard to interpretation of Commonwealth laws as you seem reluctant to ask the Court of Disputed Returns or the High Court of the proper way to conduct matters.

Tony Magrathea

If you would like to keep me out of poverty, please press the button and thank you all that do.

Saturday, 9 May 2015

the law and the AEC via a bush lawyer

Here is a letter I have written to Dennis Cowdroy, Tom Rogers and Kevin Kitson as the three most senior members of the Australian Electoral Commission.
It is written by a bush lawyer with only one unit of law at University of New England, please feel free to critique and comment abot the legal aspects of what I have tried to write.

Any grammar nazis out there, please feel free to put the boot in too.

Firstly thank you to your various officers acting in the role of chief or senior legal officer and to members of the board who helped clarify the role of the AEC during elections, in particular your legal impediment of not being able to determine if a person complies with section 44 of the constitution.  As I understand it you are precluded by law and electoral rules set by the Special Minister for State from asking applicants if they comply with section 44 of the constitution.
This same ruling is being used by the Australian federal Police to deny them the opportunity to investigate possible fraud from candidates who did not comply with section 44 of the constitution, the AFP state that they can not ask about citizenship of candidates because you can not ask.
This means the Australian Constitution, specifically section 44, can not be implemented in the way it was intended by the writers of that founding document.
To help resolve this conundrum might I suggest that at future elections you ask the Court of Disputed Returns to determine  if a candidate has been elected properly under section 44 of the constitution .
The AEC has several obligations to the people and the country:-
In the Overview of the AEC  it is stated “The role of the Australian Electoral Commission is to deliver the franchise: that is, an Australian citizen's right to vote, as established by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.” Every vote must be for a legal candidate and delivered in the best way possible.
Electoral roll management “Objective: Voter entitlement for Australians and support for electoral events and redistributions through maintaining an accurate and up-to-date electoral roll.” Every voter must be entitled to feel their vote counts and is being delivered to a candidate entitled to legally stand for election under our laws.
Section 7 (3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 says “(3) The Commission may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.”  This is the most significant part of the electoral act for the points I am trying to make.  The Commission can do almost anything to ensure the proper legal candidate is elected in the proper legal way.
Because of these three simple things and of course our constitution, you as the Australian Electoral Commission must ask the court of Disputed Returns to do what you are unable to do, to ensure the elected candidate is compliant with section 44 of the constitution.  You are bound by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to ensure all laws of the country are followed; this is set out in section 4B of the act where the Act binds the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth… Put simply this means the Act determines that you the AEC must comply with Australian Constitution as that is part of the right of the Commonwealth.  But as you are precluded from determining or even asking about dual nationalities you the Australian Electoral commission can not  stop an ineligible person from standing for election.
As such after each election where a foreign born candidate has won a seat in the House of Representatives or the Senate you must ask the Court of Disputed Returns to determine their eligibility. This must be done to comply with your own roles, objectives and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
It will be cumbersome after the next election asking the Court of Disputed Returns to determine thirty or forty candidates comply with section 44 of the constitution, but after that you will have a record of who is and isn’t eligible.
This way of doing things is awkward but necessary under your current scheme of things where you must have all candidates comply with Australian laws but can not check to make sure they actually do comply.  The Court of Disputed Returns will have to do that until the Special Minister for State allows you to save a lot of time and money and ask the candidates to prove section 44 compliance at nomination.
Again, thank you for your help in my quest to have a little bit of our constitution honoured, monitored and complied with.

Yours sincerely
Tony Magrathea

The reply is here

If you would like to keep me out of poverty, please press the button and thank you all that do.

Monday, 4 May 2015

Naturalised not citizenship by descent

This is nothing huge in the whole manner of things other than it shows Mr Abbott is a naturalised Australian done on 26/6/81.It is an FOI from the Australian Electoral Commission for form 60 the one all candidates must sign.

And it is proof he has signed a declaration for the Australian Electoral Commission that he is  compliant with section 44 of the constitution.  S44 is the niggley bit of writing that demands all candidates for federal parliament be just Australian and no other secret citizenship.

Mr Abbott has been saying in parliament he is an Australian by descent, his mum might have been an Aussie when she was born, it isn't really clear she still was when he was born because his British birth certificate is a secret document, along with his Australian citizenship papers, but she must have renounced her Australian citizenship to get the ten pound pom boat trip as an assisted migrant.  Even the registration of birth of a child for an Australian outside of Australia was done on 25/6/81 a day before naturalisation happened.  The pics for the boat trip and registration are below.

Just a little bit to help the future rid ourselves of a Prime Minister who considers he doesn't have to reply to other MPs, let alone voters.

A Prime Minister of whom Senator Nash of the Nationals has asked her Nationals colleague Senator Brandis, the Attorney General,to investigate with regard to his dual nationality.

A Prime Minister who seems to have told all his party colleagues to ignore anyone daring to question his citizenship.

A Prime Minister protected by Mr Shorten, the leader of the Labour Party, who has instructed all of his party members to stop asking about Mr Abbott's  dual nationality.  Mr Shorten has declared via those members of the party willing to speak, that the agenda is more important.  As a voter I am yet to find out what that agenda is even though I have written to Mr Shorten via email and twitter.  I can't write to Mr Shorten via facebook because like  a great deal of right wing politicians he has blocked me there.

If you would like to keep me out of poverty, please press the button and thank you all that do.