web analytics
≡ Menu

Dual/Cit: High Court Judges a protected species

One law for all, you say—nope!

One law for all sounds noble indeed. But we are not all born equal, some are more equal than others—in this case our High Court Judges. MM made up an image alluding to that fact some time ago. Apart from interpreting law in any old way that suits their mood or political aspirations on the day, as many might suggest, our legal elite can sit in the exultant position of a judge in the High Court with a dozen different passports. Such judges are a rare species, more so than the now extinct Patagonian farting rat.

Australia’s dual citizenship saga continues to claim victims, with the High Court on May 9 finding former senator Katy Gallagher – a British-Australian dual citizen at the time nominations closed for the 2016 election – ineligible to sit in parliament. The finding prompted the resignations of four MPs in similar positions.Source: ABC

Fact check: Can High Court justices be dual citizens?

An electoral law expert, Professor Graeme Orr, of the University of Queensland, put the law in context on ABC News Breakfast the following day:
“It’s more than ironic that the High Court can have people on it who are dual citizens [who] make and shape the fundamental law of the land, but it’s not good enough for the Australian Parliament…These laws do not apply at state level. Why they have to apply at Commonwealth level I do not know. “
Can you be a dual citizen and sit on the High Court? RMIT ABC Fact Check finds out.
The verdict
Professor Orr’s claim checks out.
The Australian Constitution does not prevent dual citizens from sitting as High Court judges.

Under the constitution, justices of the High Court are appointed by the governor-general in council, effectively the government of the day.
The sole constitutional restriction is that a justice has to retire when they turn 70, and cannot be appointed if they are 70 or over.
A Commonwealth law – the High Court Act 1979 – adds that to be eligible for appointment, a justice has to have been a judge of a Commonwealth, state or territory court (other than the Local Court of the Northern Territory) or an Australian barrister or solicitor for at least five years.
The prohibition on dual citizenship for federal politicians could be seen as a unique aspect of the Australian system. Dual citizens are able to sit in state and territory parliaments, subject to some exceptions for people who obtain foreign citizenship while in parliament.
What is the claim about?
During his appearance on News Breakfast, Professor Orr argued that section 44 was unnecessary and should be put to a referendum.
He told Fact Check:
“It was a rhetorical point and not meant to impugn the High Court – far from it – but to show our blindness to the illogic of barring ‘dual citizens’ from being MPs.
A single MP out of 226 MPs voting on party lines has less power to shape the law than one of the seven on the High Court.
There’s no clear rationale why we would block an Australian citizen from high office – let alone block fellow electors for voting for them – simply because they inherited another citizenship.”
Who can be a High Court Judge?
The High Court currently consists of seven members. There have been 13 chief justices and 42 justices since the court was established in 1903.
Professor John Williams, of the University of Adelaide Law School, told Fact Check: “There is nothing in the constitution that says anything about the qualification of members of the High Court.”
Section 72 of the Constitution sets out the conditions of “Judges’ appointment, tenure and remuneration”.
The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament:
1. shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council;
2. shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;
3. shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The appointment of a Justice of the High Court shall be for a term expiring upon his attaining the age of seventy years, and a person shall not be appointed as a Justice of the High Court if he has attained that age.
Section 7 of the High Court Act 1979 sets out some qualifications based on experience:
A person shall not be appointed as a Justice unless:
(a) he or she is or has been a Judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or Territory (other than a Judge or acting Judge of the Local Court of the Northern Territory); or
(b) he or she has been enrolled as a barrister or solicitor, as a barrister and solicitor, or as a legal practitioner, of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for not less than 5 years.
Fact file: The dual citizenship crisis

The uncertainty around citizenship and the eligibility of MPs and senators shows no sign of abating. So how did we get here and what comes next?

Professor Kim Rubenstein, of the Australian National University Law School, said that apart from the age and experience criteria, appointment of High Court justices “is entirely in the discretion of the governor-general in council”.
It is unclear if any current justices are dual citizens, although some prominent former judges were born overseas, including former justice Dyson Hayden, who was born in Canada and served on the court between 2003 and 2013, and the late Sir Ninian Stephen, who was born in the UK and served between 1972 and 1982. Sir Ninian left the court to become governor-general (1982 to 1989).
And the states?
It is only candidates at the federal level who are required by the constitution to renounce any foreign citizenship before seeking election.
Dual citizens are eligible to stand for election to state and territory parliaments, subject in some cases to restrictions on people who attain foreign citizenship after their election.
In a recent article, Professor Orr wrote:
“The oddity of a modern, let alone immigrant, nation rationing fundamental political rights to sole citizens is blatantly apparent.
None of the Australian States or Territories retains such a chauvinist rule.
Most States merely require a serving MP to forfeit their seat if they take out a foreign citizenship or allegiance; Victoria does not even bother with that largely symbolic rule.”
For instance, under section 17 of the South Australian Constitution Act 1934, a member of the Legislative Council (the state’s lower house) would lose their seat if:
• they are not – or they stop being – an Australian citizen;
• “takes any oath or makes any declaration or act of acknowledgment or allegiance to any foreign prince or power”; or,
• “does, concurs in, or adopts any act whereby the member may become a subject or citizen of any foreign state or power.”
However, it is also notes: “The seat of a member of the Legislative Council is not vacated because the member acquires or uses a foreign passport or travel document.”
Professor Williams told Fact Check that “in South Australia, they changed the state constitution after Sykes v Cleary”, the now well-known 1992 decision on section 44 of the Commonwealth constitution.
As noted in Fact Check’s earlier Fact File on Dual Citizenship, the majority of the court in Sykes v Cleary (five out of the seven judges, with justices William Deane and Mary Gaudron dissenting) found that a citizen who is a subject or citizen of a foreign state had to take all reasonable steps under the foreign state’s laws to renounce that nationality, before being eligible to stand for election in Australia.

{ 18 comments… add one }
  • Penguinite 18/05/2018, 7:34 am

    This is a fatuous argument! The Australian Constitution may not be perfect but it’s pretty damn close. IMO. Sure, if we want to change it that is our prerogative but currently it reads as it does.

    • DT 18/05/2018, 9:23 am

      Beware of people who seek to change the Constitution.

      As the history of referendums indicates, we have a healthy distrust of politicians who want change.

      The same politicians who act like our masters who without the not so existing constraints would be completely out of control.

  • sabena 18/05/2018, 7:49 am

    Why you are getting worked up over this is a mystery.None of the High Court judges have been dual citizens.Dyson Heydon was born in Canada because his father was serving in Australia’s diplomatic service there.He acquired Australian citizenship not Canadian citizenship.Sir Ninian Stephen became an Australian citizen,as opposed to a British one,by serving in Australia’s military forces.

    • Albert 18/05/2018, 9:53 am

      Serving in the Australian armed forces makes you an Australian citizen? When did that become law?

      • Biking Voter 18/05/2018, 12:40 pm

        It hasn’t become law. Back in time you could join the Australian military by being a British subject. Later, much later, in fact well after Sir Ninian Stephen you could apply for Australian citizenship and it would be far easier to receive it as you didn’t need to the citizen test due to your military service.

      • Neville 18/05/2018, 10:56 pm

        tick, BV.

  • Lorraine 18/05/2018, 8:13 am

    The Labor rolled gold and all are squeaky clean, have done the paperwork and are all fine and dandy…….but they are not, so the left are door knocking all those in favour that the Government of the day will change the rules. Those same rules that the Labor Party was so very aware of and claimed would never effect their members. The left is always right don’t you see

  • Honeybadger 18/05/2018, 9:11 am

    Having a referendum to change the constitution over dual citizenship is likely to rile the electorate with good reason. Just do your citizenship homework before you stand for preselection, as Peta Credlin pointed out. Attempting to smooth the way for ineptitude with an expensive referendum exercise, is unlikely to succeed and nor should it. The only time when money is no object is when it comes to pollies self interest.

  • DT 18/05/2018, 9:26 am

    Dual citizenship aside, what about targeting MPs who completed declarations knowing that they had deceived?

    And as late as 2017 when they were all required to make a declaration about citizenship, including birthright.

    Anthony Albanese for example, see Michael Smith News website where the form is published and evidence that he knew his father and that his father was an Italian.

  • Botswana O'Hooligan 18/05/2018, 10:50 am

    Richardson in todays Australian reckons that many potential politicians couldn’t afford the loot to go through the process of renouncing citizenship. The criteria are on the application documents and are so easily understood that old blokes like me can work them out. Surely the potential politicians can read and write, can look up the various embassies on the net, contact them and be guided through the process of citizenship renunciation because once the bastards get into politics they can figure out all the lurks and perks of an expense account in a nano second. I say, leave the constitution as it stands for if we allow these shifty bastards to fiddle with it who knows what will happen?

  • Clarion Call 18/05/2018, 2:28 pm

    At the moment it’s all a case of duel citizenship. Party versus party. Ten paces apart and law-pistols at the ready. Pity they’re both such lousy shots. Even the referee has courted a dismal result thus far.

    • Neville 18/05/2018, 11:05 pm

      If it WAS such a duel, the referee would stand in danger of being shot!

  • angry 18/05/2018, 4:21 pm

    Politicians want a $122 million public vote on changing the constitution to allow dual citizen MPs | Daily Mail Online

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5739321/Politicians-want-122-million-public-vote-changing-constitution-allow-dual-citizen-MPs.html

    THE CONSITUTION DOES NOT NEED TO BE CHANGED.
    A POLITICIAN CAN BE LOYAL TO ONLY ONE COUNTRY IE AUSTRALIA.

    NO REFERENDUM!!

  • Ex ADF 18/05/2018, 6:50 pm

    If they have a referendum on this, I think that many do gooders will see it as an opportunity to include the aboriginals as owners of this countr6 or some such bull!

  • Neville 18/05/2018, 11:04 pm

    “professor'” Orr appears to have been studying the internal topography of his own fundamental orifice a bit too much. While he may be ‘technically’ (legally) correct, he is suffering from that quaintly-named (and horribly-sounding!) affliction called “UnAustralianism”.

  • Cliff 19/05/2018, 7:11 am

    Surely to God this whole sorry mess is pointing to the most obvious solution – put an end to dual citizenship for ALL Australians, with no exceptions.

    Enact a law that if you take out Australian citizenship, you automatically lose all rights to any other citizenship – and make anyone taking out Australian citizenship sign s document that clearly states this.

    • Joe Blogs 19/05/2018, 1:04 pm

      Yep – and if any paper Aussie betrays the trust implicit in being granted citizenship, they front the Cliff-Blogs Tribunal for determination of their fate.

Leave a Comment