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.
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.
Yours
Tony Magrathea
If you would like to keep me out of poverty, please press the button and thank you all that do.
No comments:
Post a Comment