On the ongoing Citizenship debacle

Reg Jones writes: Re “Could historical ministerial decisions be overturned? “(Thursday).

While Sally Whyte and the constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey are correct to point out the large obstacles in bringing challenges to decisions by the excluded ministers Joyce and Nash to court, neither she nor the Professor ask the question about whether it is proper or ethical for the government or its public servants to seek to enforce decisions that that they know on their face are tainted and void. In litigation, the government is under an obligation to be the “model litigant”. It is an obligation to act ethically, honestly and fairly in legal disputes and relevantly to “not rely on a merely technical defences against a claim”.

It is arguably unethical and improper for the government to hide behind a “de facto officer” doctrine which is meant to protect a citizen against the state and not the other way around. 

Further, many reports have spoken of “one hundred or so” decisions by these (“never-were”) ministers that may be tainted. Presumably these are the decisions directly made by Joyce and Nash.  I have not seen any reference to decisions made by public servants under delegation. If the delegations of these Ministers are void, then so too are scores or hundreds or even thousands of other decisions. Public servants should not be asked or instructed to act in an illegal or unethical way.

The government should clear these muddy ethical and legal waters with an act of Parliament to validate all the questionable decisions. 

Alex Anderson writes: Re “Could historical ministerial decisions be overturned? “(Thursday).

The cries to change the constitution because of the perceived chaos, blamed on Section 44(i), are hypocritical and I for one would vote “no” if that were brought to a referendum.

I am not anti-immigration but it behooves those who seek office in parliament to do their homework before applying for a well salaried job with generously allowances. The procedures for preselection to avoid the current citizenship mess must be in place within the parties. If that is not the case then possibly changes to AEC requirements or procedures are needed.

I lived and worked in Switzerland for many years, and after 10 years was granted a residence permit and hence an opportunity to apply for Swiss citizenship. At that time, while the Swiss authorities assured me that I could expect successful processing of my application, my Australian passport would have to be surrendered and returned to the Australian Embassy (long since closed by Howard for economic reasons). As Australian born, this would have resulted, under prevailing Australian law, in the loss of my citizenship, my birthright. With aging parents the need to travel home at short notice with visas had to be considered. Although for the longer term my understanding was that when I returned to live in Australia, after a year I could reapply for citizenship. I was advised against that thinking by the consular staff in Bern. Goal posts can be shifted. (The rules concerning double citizenship for Australian born citizens was changed around 1999, the year I returned to retire but is no longer relevant to my life),

I informed myself of the rules and took the decision to retain my Australian citizenship. The point is rules are rules. Section 44(i) might be a slight inconvenience, but it can be complied with, and should be. The cries of “out of date” and “no longer relevant to current times” are simply the whinges of the lazy, or those with a shallow connection to our nation.