EN1198 re-examine S44 cases

Terms:

• Reason: Voters can only use the Court of Disputed returns to examine the eligibility of MPs in the electorate the voter voted in. To examine an MP's eligibility out of the voters electorate a petition to parliament is the only option. That option has been sullied recently. The Attorney General Mr Porter has refused several recent petitions mentioning S44 because of the Crown Solicitor's advice, even when that advice says the High Court might conclude that there is or may be a conflict. The house can not determine if an MP has or hasn't breached the constitution, that can only be determined by the High Court. The Commonwealth Solicitor has been proven wrong about S44 on many occasions, most famously with the then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Joyce. Recently the Crown Solicitor said of Mr Dutton "I consider there to be some risk ... that the High Court might conclude that there is a conflict between Mr Dutton's duty as a parliamentarian and his personal interests" The Crown Solicitor noted they are not given much factual information by the MP who obviously wants to ensure they stay in Parliament unhindered. The High Court can and does demand much more information and can and does provide a binding judicial decision.
• Request: We therefore ask the House to re-examine all petitions relating to breaches of S44 and put those cases to the High Court for determination.

Your petition was considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions at a recent meeting, and was found to meet the petition requirements. It is now available for signature online.
Signatures open: 4/12/2019
Signatures close: 1/01/2020



Signatures here -


If you would like to buy me a cup of coffee or a beer, please Paypal me 


Terms:

• Reason: Voters can only as the Court of Disputed returns to examine the eligibility of MPs in the electorate the voter voted in. To examine an MP's eligibility out of the voters electorate a petition to parliament is the only option. That option has been sullied recently. The Attorney General Mr Porter has refused several recent petitions mentioning S44 because of the Crown Solicitor's advice, even when that advice says the High Court might conclude that there is or may be a conflict. The house can not determine if an MP has or hasn't breached the constitution, that can only be determined by the High Court. The Commonwealth Solicitor has been proven wrong about S44 on many occasions, most famously with the then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Joyce. Recently the Crown Solicitor said of Mr Dutton "I consider there to be some risk ... that the High Court might conclude that there is a conflict between Mr Dutton's duty as a parliamentarian and his personal interests" The Crown Solicitor noted they are not given much factual information by the MP who obviously wants to ensure they stay in Parliament unhindered. The High Court can and does demand much more information and can and does provide a binding judicial decision.
• Request: We therefore ask the House to re-examine all petitions relating to breaches of S44 and put those cases to the High Court for determination.

The petition was considered at a recent meeting of the Committee, and certified as meeting the requirements for petitions. It was presented to the House on 10/02/2020 and has recently been referred to the Attorney-General. Under the petition requirements, Ministers have 90 days from presentation in the House to respond to a petition.

Petition number:	EN1198 (Please quote in future correspondence)
Date submitted:	26/11/2019
Number of signatures:	7